Do The Evolution...

[VibesMan]

In most sports the athletes of today deliver significantly increased measures than that of their 60/70/80s counterparts.

Think Usain Bolt and what he'd do to Carl Lewis over 100m.

Compare the speed of serve of, say, Rod**** to Bjorg and so and so on.

We know just how great SRR, Homicide Hank, Ali et al were but my question is this.

If we assume athletes today are stronger, faster and better prepared than their predeccessors how much does that make up for raw talent?

People react like you've just shat in their coffee should you suggest a modern day middle takes down Hagler but could it be that Evolution gives a moderatley talented fighter an advantage over a great from yesteryear?

[TheGreatA]

Who is a better athlete and a boxer, Marvelous Marvin Hagler or Kelly Pavlik? There you go.

[JAB5239]

In most sports the athletes of today deliver significantly increased measures than that of their 60/70/80s counterparts.

Think Usain Bolt and what he'd do to Carl Lewis over 100m.

Compare the speed of serve of, say, Rod**** to Bjorg and so and so on.

We know just how great SRR, Homicide Hank, Ali et al were but my question is this.

If we assume athletes today are stronger, faster and better prepared than their predeccessors how much does that make up for raw talent?

People react like you've just shat in their coffee should you suggest a modern day middle takes down Hagler but could it be that Evolution gives a moderatley talented fighter an advantage over a great from yesteryear?

I wrote this post last week in reply to another argument of this sort. I think it will apply here as well.

Why is it in baseball the fields have gotten smaller, yet balls are juiced (as well as players) to go further?

Have you ever seen the evolution of tracks and foot wear and wondered why records are always being broken?

Have you ever considered that in sports such as swimming, skiing, skating, golfing and tennis the equipment has gotten much better making the athlete appear better?

Can you understand the concept of lighter equipment, steroids and better fields catering to hockey and football players?

Do you grasp that since basketballs popularity sky rocketed in the late 60's, early 70's and so on that the more people are playing it making the competition that much more dense?

Finally, boxing. Less rounds, less fights, heavier gloves, better mouth pieces, and less comp make it appear as if fighters are better today. Not to mention the poor quality of film from many past era's making fighters look inept compared to todays high definition and multiple camera angles. Wlad and Vitaly are without a doubt the best heavyweights in the world today. But if you watch film of Primo Carnera (who many disregard) they fight very similarly. Why is that?

Trust me, my examples are endless. Im not saying athletes were better then. But there were instances where they were just as there are instances of better athletes today. All in all though, there really isn't that big a difference if you look at it objectively.

[StarshipTrooper]

I wrote this post last week in reply to another argument of this sort. I think it will apply here as well.

Why is it in baseball the fields have gotten smaller, yet balls are juiced (as well as players) to go further?

Have you ever seen the evolution of tracks and foot wear and wondered why records are always being broken?

Have you ever considered that in sports such as swimming, skiing, skating, golfing and tennis the equipment has gotten much better making the athlete appear better?

Can you understand the concept of lighter equipment, steroids and better fields catering to hockey and football players?

Do you grasp that since basketballs popularity sky rocketed in the late 60's, early 70's and so on that the more people are playing it making the competition that much more dense?

Finally, boxing. Less rounds, less fights, heavier gloves, better mouth pieces, and less comp make it appear as if fighters are better today. Not to mention the poor quality of film from many past era's making fighters look inept compared to todays high definition and multiple camera angles. Wlad and Vitaly are without a doubt the best heavyweights in the world today. But if you watch film of Primo Carnera (who many disregard) they fight very similarly. Why is that?

Trust me, my examples are endless. Im not saying athletes were better then. But there were instances where they were just as there are instances of better athletes today. All in all though, there really isn't that big a difference if you look at it objectively.

It's like place kickers in football: If you just look at the stats it would appear that they kick farther and more accurately today than they did back in the '70s. But is it really the kickers that are better? The truth is what's better is the PLAYING SURFACES that they are kicking off of. Even in the '70s there was an obvious difference between kicking off artificial turf and kicking off grass: The Astroturf was a much superior kicking surface. Well, today's GRASS fields are superior kicking surfaces to the '70s Astroturf fields. And today's artificial turf fields are absolutely perfecty for kicking off of. The truth is the playing surfaces are so superior now that they've had to change the spot for kickoffs twice in recent memory. Compare that to the 1970s: An NFL grass field from back then would be an embarresment to your typical low-end high school today. If an NFL team had to play on such a surface today half the team would probably refuse to play and I'm damn sure the kickers would refuse to kick off it.

Poet

[sonnyboyx2]

I wrote this post last week in reply to another argument of this sort. I think it will apply here as well.

Why is it in baseball the fields have gotten smaller, yet balls are juiced (as well as players) to go further?

Have you ever seen the evolution of tracks and foot wear and wondered why records are always being broken?

Have you ever considered that in sports such as swimming, skiing, skating, golfing and tennis the equipment has gotten much better making the athlete appear better?

Can you understand the concept of lighter equipment, steroids and better fields catering to hockey and football players?

Do you grasp that since basketballs popularity sky rocketed in the late 60's, early 70's and so on that the more people are playing it making the competition that much more dense?

Finally, boxing. Less rounds, less fights, heavier gloves, better mouth pieces, and less comp make it appear as if fighters are better today. Not to mention the poor quality of film from many past era's making fighters look inept compared to todays high definition and multiple camera angles. Wlad and Vitaly are without a doubt the best heavyweights in the world today. But if you watch film of Primo Carnera (who many disregard) they fight very similarly. Why is that?

Trust me, my examples are endless. Im not saying athletes were better then. But there were instances where they were just as there are instances of better athletes today. All in all though, there really isn't that big a difference if you look at it objectively.

you just answered the guys post for him.. "excellent"

in pre1950s fights they was filmed with one camera at the back of the arena, today 40+ cameras are used at ringside.. watch the documentary `Unforgivable Blackness` and tell me that todays heavyweights are in better shape than what Jack Johnson was in...

Legendary trainer Lou Duva often described Lennox Lewis as "another Primo Carnera"

read this article below.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/ironmen.html

[mickey malone]

you just answered the guys post for him.. "excellent"

in pre1950s fights they was filmed with one camera at the back of the arena, today 40+ cameras are used at ringside.. watch the documentary `Unforgivable Blackness` and tell me that todays heavyweights are in better shape than what Jack Johnson was in...

Legendary trainer Lou Duva often described Lennox Lewis as "another Primo Carnera"

read this article below.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/ironmen.html

I agree.. Good stuff there from Jab.. The HSE was surplus to requirement back in the day..

[TheGreatA]

you just answered the guys post for him.. "excellent"

in pre1950s fights they was filmed with one camera at the back of the arena, today 40+ cameras are used at ringside.. watch the documentary `Unforgivable Blackness` and tell me that todays heavyweights are in better shape than what Jack Johnson was in...

Legendary trainer Lou Duva often described Lennox Lewis as "another Primo Carnera"

read this article below.

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/ironmen.html

I didn't know Lou Duva trained fighters.

[sonnyboyx2]

I didn't know Lou Duva trained fighters.

Pernel Whitaker
Evander Holyfield
Ed Hobson

and many more

[TheGreatA]

Pernel Whitaker
Evander Holyfield
Ed Hobson

and many more

You mean George Benton?

[Spartacus Sully]

soo 10 vs 9.69 im sure if carl lewis was 3 inches taller had NO2, creatine, l-glutamine, multi vitamins, and protein shakes there probly wouldnt have even been a diffrence in times.

lets look back to 1936 with jesse owens only .3 slower then lewis but 5 inches shorter 8 in shorter then bolt. Imagine if he had protein shakes, creatine, and all that stuff....probly would have been pullin 9.5's at 5'10"