are old school fighters better than present day fighters??

[BennyST]

the only thing they're getting is bigger. with the right athlete and sport that will mean faster and better. (longer strides, higher jumping, harder to hit or take down, etc)

they're getting bigger. that's beyond dispute. that has had no bearing on boxing.


in boxing you've got weight classes outside of the HW's, and they certainly aren't getting better.


some HW might come along in 3000 years who is ten feet tall with a 120 inch reach. if he's not just a barn animal he'd be too much for a HW from the 1800's who was 5'9" and 178 lbs.

as of right now that's nowhere near happening.

many of the best HW of all time were around or just above 200 lbs at their best.

David Haye just beat a guy who, in strength and size terms was much bigger and stronger. If we were talking about fictional stuff ie. relating it to a fictional account with SCT saying "Today's HW would beat the smaller, weaker HW's of the past" and yet it didn't happen. The much, much smaller weaker man won.

He then got beaten by a bigger guy who was slower, but had more skill. Weird that isn't it? Why is it that in every other sport, as SCT said, things are getting better, times are getting faster, athletes getting bigger, stronger etc, and yet boxing consistently shows us that it is not the bigger, stronger guy that wins (Pac/Marg), not the faster guy that wins (Jones/Tarver), not the more powerful guy that wins (Salido/Juanma), not the guy with the better stamina that wins (Mosley/Marg).....

Why is it true for other sports but not boxing? Surely if in other sports things are evolving, like running shoes, tracks, spandex etc and that's making things faster, then it would be the case with boxing?

Why then isn't it always the best athlete that wins? That's how it works in every other sport. The fastest guy in sprinting wins. The fastest guy in boxing doesn't. The strongest guy in weightlifting wins. The strongest guy in boxing doesn't.

SCT, boxing is a primitive, simple sport in which these things don't matter. You are not being punched in the face over and over. The bone structure of your skull and chin do not matter one bit in other sports, apart from maybe rugby etc.

Bigger doesn't matter, because a weight division means it's all the same anyway. Boxing is different. It's not about breaking a time, a weight, doing a lap faster, kicking a ball more perfectly, throwing a ball more perfectly...it's about hurting someone more than they can hurt you. Carl Lewis might have been one of the great athletes, but it's more than likely he would have sucked as a boxer and been beaten up by guys slower, weaker, less coordinated than him. Why? Because in boxing you are not competing against times, laps etc you are competing against punishment, punch, pain, giving it out and being able to take it back....That doesn't come down to modern training and evolution. It's as primitive as human nature gets and it's why boxing has not 'evolved' as you would put it.

[StarshipTrooper]

David Haye just beat a guy who, in strength and size terms was much bigger and stronger. If we were talking about fictional stuff ie. relating it to a fictional account with SCT saying "Today's HW would beat the smaller, weaker HW's of the past" and yet it didn't happen. The much, much smaller weaker man won.

He then got beaten by a bigger guy who was slower, but had more skill. Weird that isn't it? Why is it that in every other sport, as SCT said, things are getting better, times are getting faster, athletes getting bigger, stronger etc, and yet boxing consistently shows us that it is not the bigger, stronger guy that wins (Pac/Marg), not the faster guy that wins (Jones/Tarver), not the more powerful guy that wins (Salido/Juanma), not the guy with the better stamina that wins (Mosley/Marg).....

Why is it true for other sports but not boxing? Surely if in other sports things are evolving, like running shoes, tracks, spandex etc and that's making things faster, then it would be the case with boxing?

Why then isn't it always the best athlete that wins? That's how it works in every other sport. The fastest guy in sprinting wins. The fastest guy in boxing doesn't. The strongest guy in weightlifting wins. The strongest guy in boxing doesn't.

SCT, boxing is a primitive, simple sport in which these things don't matter. You are not being punched in the face over and over. The bone structure of your skull and chin do not matter one bit in other sports, apart from maybe rugby etc.

Bigger doesn't matter, because a weight division means it's all the same anyway. Boxing is different. It's not about breaking a time, a weight, doing a lap faster, kicking a ball more perfectly, throwing a ball more perfectly...it's about hurting someone more than they can hurt you. Carl Lewis might have been one of the great athletes, but it's more than likely he would have sucked as a boxer and been beaten up by guys slower, weaker, less coordinated than him. Why? Because in boxing you are not competing against times, laps etc you are competing against punishment, punch, pain, giving it out and being able to take it back....That doesn't come down to modern training and evolution. It's as primitive as human nature gets and it's why boxing has not 'evolved' as you would put it.

It's not only that. In all the major sports skills trump athleticism. How many times have we seen a slow unathletic basketball player with great skills school the crap out a supreme athlete with a lesser skill set? All the time! How many times in the NFL has an awesome physical specimen of a wide receiver with relatively undeveloped skills sit on his butt all year while a slow unathletic receiver with great skills gets all the playing time? Every year!

Any major sport not named track and field comes down to skill set. If you can add athleticism to that then that's a nice bonus but ultimately secondary. It's your skills that ultimately make you great not your time in the 40 or your high jump.

Poet

[killerbunny]

Great post poet682006....

[kendom]

GOD BennyST, JabsRStiff, Poet and Irondan shut this **** down.

[StarshipTrooper]

GOD BennyST, JabsRStiff, Poet and Irondan shut this **** down.

By KTFO

[Scott9945]

GOD BennyST, JabsRStiff, Poet and Irondan shut this **** down.

Yeah, they cleared out the room and left me with nothing worthwhile to add. Excellent thread.

[Cardinal Buck]

It's not only that. In all the major sports skills trump athleticism. How many times have we seen a slow unathletic basketball player with great skills school the crap out a supreme athlete with a lesser skill set? All the time! How many times in the NFL has an awesome physical specimen of a wide receiver with relatively undeveloped skills sit on his butt all year while a slow unathletic receiver with great skills gets all the playing time? Every year!

Any major sport not named track and field comes down to skill set. If you can add athleticism to that then that's a nice bonus but ultimately secondary. It's your skills that ultimately make you great not your time in the 40 or your high jump.

Poet

Best receiver in modern football: Randy Moss, an incredible athlete with great skills
Best basketball players: Kobe and Lebron, incredible athletes with great skills.

You're full of s hit. It takes skills and athleticism.

[StarshipTrooper]

Best receiver in modern football: Randy Moss, an incredible athlete with great skills

Bull****. Moss couldn't carry Jerry Rice's jock. And by the way, Rice was one of slowest receivers in league during his tenure.

Best basketball players: Kobe and Lebron, incredible athletes with great skills.

Funny, but last year's Finals MVP was a slow unathletic white dude. The same guy sent Kobe the superior athlete home in the playoffs.

Try again dip****.

Poet

[StarshipTrooper]

And btw, Larry Bird >>>>> Kobe and Lebron.

Poet

[Cardinal Buck]

Bull****. Moss couldn't carry Jerry Rice's jock. And by the way, Rice was one of slowest receivers in league during his tenure.




Funny, but last year's Finals MVP was a slow unathletic white dude. The same guy sent Kobe the superior athlete home in the playoffs.

Try again dip****.

Poet

I wasn't counting Rice because he's older, but he was also a great athlete with probably the best conditioning ever for a receiver.

And the Nowitzki argument is bulls hit. First off, he's worse than Kobe and Lebron. Secondly, he's an elite athlete. The man is one of the tallest players in the NBA, physically big too, but runs the court with no problem and has great coordination. He's one of the most athletic seven footers on the planet. He's the basketball equivalent of Wlad Klitschko, basically.