Todays athletes aren't always better

[Anthony342]

Lute Livre was the main competitor and i think it was sometimes used interchangably with Vale Tudo to indicate an anything goes match. The best way to beat the guard is not to wind up there in the first place and the older guys had great balance in the standing grapple. But yeah they could get pulled down.

The talent level? Well it should be said that the Gracies did game the tourneys to a degree, they had a generational head start on the specific conditions that constitute an MMA match....But lets be philosophical and ask: Are people better martial artists now because they also train for these ring contidions? Or....Does the UFC illustrate a point about the primacy of mastering techniques to accomidate a particular situation? A lot of the early guys were not technicians who fought in a ring, they were martial artists who applied their art and believed that it would suffice in all situations. It seems almost silly now but at the time (and even in some of the early Gracie fights in Brazil when Rorian was the man) it was thought that the mere learning of an art was such that it could be applied in all circumstances. All the Gracies really did was apply Judo/JiuJitsu to a particular combat environment. We now know that trying to pull guard in a street situation for example is dangerous to say the least, but to this day if you fight in a ring in MMA you better learn something about how the guard works.


This point about martial arts applies throughout: Experts in violence have concluded after many studies and events documented that context specific training is the best for working in that environment. In other words learning how prisoners operate to defend as a prison guard is better than learning how to fight MMA and expecting to be succesful when under duress in that environment.

Yes the talent level and preparation. The Gracies proved themselves for decades as fighters and by consistently winning proved the effectiveness of Gracie Brazilian jiu jitsu. That's why everyone started learning it later on, caught up and surpassed them. That's why now it's a fighter vs. a fighter and not just a style vs. a style. Yeah they had a head start, but were soon passed by and the new generation of Gracies are still trying to catch up. Funny how Royce won't admit you need more than BJJ even after Hughes beat him. Even Renzo knows you need to train in boxing and muay thai, kickboxing to be a complete fighter.

[Cardinal Buck]

Bolt is what? 6'4? That's a more obvious difference than his shoes.

[BattlingNelson]

Scott and NE, STFU! Poet said it! He's always right!

Go for the ball and not the man thank you.

[BattlingNelson]

This is, and always will be, the single biggest factor in determining overall talent in an era. The more athletes across the board worldwide, the higher the talent will be. It's a very, very simple process of the strongest survive; the more there are to survive, the more each person needs to develop to get to the top.

From amateur to pro, the numbers are minuscule compared to what it once was and the overall talent has dropped off. There are always great fighters and there are always bums, but it's the overall level that eventually pushes the best to the fore. If there are many more numbers it goes without saying that if you need to be better than 1000 guys instead of only 100 it's going to take more work. If you then have to fight each month instead of twice a year, you're going to develop true fighting skills rather than great sparring skills. No matter how much sparring and crosstraining you do, it will never replace the adrenaline and intensity of a real fight.

You can't get the true skill you show in all that sparring in a real fight unless the intensity is there and the more reals fights you have the more you can relax in the ring and use all of it. That's the biggest reason why you see guys who have lots of fights in modern times (Chavez, Duran, Brazier etc) look so relaxed in comparison to the great athletes of modern times but struggle with so many simple things in a fight.

A very obvious example is someone like Lacy against Calzaghe. Lacy was clearly the superior athlete in every way, but he certainly lost the fight brutally because he wasn't as relaxed and didn't have the full range of boxing skills under fight conditions. It's one example but it's an important one because it shows very clearly that a better athlete does not ever equal a better fighter. Nonetheless, Lacy would certainly beat Calzaghe in all timed events and science tests to prove a better athlete such as muscle explosiveness and all that business.

If you took those two and never had them fight, but had them tested under modern science conditions as to who would win, I can guarantee that Lacy would get just about 100% success across the board. His 'times' would be better, his strength would be greater, his stamina under non fight conditions would probably be just as good, his explosive capabilities would be higher on a machine, and yet when they get in the ring, one thing that never gets tested, and can't be really, wins one guy the fight easily. Determination, relaxation, skill and chin under fire.

It's easy to beat a time if you can run faster. It's easy to beat a time if you are stronger. It's not easy to beat someone up if you can't hit them or if they have a monstrous chin and you don't. Everything we know about boxing straight away should end this argument before it begins. Better athletes don't win fights. Better fighters win fights and being a better athlete has never, and never will, equal a better fighter.

^^^^^^This is what it's all about.

[mickey malone]

^^^^^^This is what it's all about.

Absolutely!.. Perfect explanation from Benny, great post!

[billeau2]

Yes the talent level and preparation. The Gracies proved themselves for decades as fighters and by consistently winning proved the effectiveness of Gracie Brazilian jiu jitsu. That's why everyone started learning it later on, caught up and surpassed them. That's why now it's a fighter vs. a fighter and not just a style vs. a style. Yeah they had a head start, but were soon passed by and the new generation of Gracies are still trying to catch up. Funny how Royce won't admit you need more than BJJ even after Hughes beat him. Even Renzo knows you need to train in boxing and muay thai, kickboxing to be a complete fighter.

The Gracies were very smart but alas...everyone occasionally makes miscalculations. When they sold their system they had to know that people would make technical progress. The problem they did not forsee is that sociologically speaking, they were initially fighting guys who liked to fight. The real stereotype would be a guy like Kimo (spelling?) who managed to give fits to Helio due to his strength and little else. The Gracies were comfortable dealing with this type of individual. They would usually outlast them in some fashion, another example being Royce fighting this monster from Brazil who almost killed a karate guy in the match prior to. Royce just held on for dear life in the guard, when the guy got tired he was put in a choke.

But when they came here professional fighters got involved. Even before Dana White real promoters also got in the game. At this point what the Gracies should have done is become trainers. You see Anthony the truth is that the Gracies had gamed the process of fighting a particular type of opponent under very specific circumstances. Professional fighters are different, they learn faster, are smarter (generally), have better trainers, and also learn to game the system in which they are fighting. The Gracies were not prepared to fight under these conditions and when guys came back with more technical knowledge, what you allude to in your post, they made the Gracies look like what they were: amateur fighters who were able to defeat other martial artists who fought under Brazilian rules of engagement. I can tell you from experience that the Gracies were challenged by many others who were avoided. The Dog Brothers wanted to fight on their card with weapons (for example).

Technically anyone who gets paid to fight is a professional but...In the old days the Gracies were fighting Kimbos....not people like George Snt Pierre! Now as you say they are indeed trying to save face.

[Humean]

You're on ignore because I was asked to ignore you. Now **** off and die you pseudo-intellectual ******.

There really is something very wrong with you.

That fact that you think it IS huge is quite possibly one of the most ******ed things I've ever seen claimed on here. Then again, since you're a known ******, it shouldn't be surprising.

It is an enormous amount of time, to deny that is to express quite extraordinary levels of ignorance.

The point you are trying to make is worthless. Boxing is FAR TOO DIFFERENT to a sport like long jump. Your obsession with athleticism is ridiclulous, because boxing takes far far more than athleticism.

I have never said that athleticism is everything only that it is clearly very important. Athleticism is actually not everything in any sport because at the very least there are mental components to being a successful athlete/sportsperson. I just can't understand why you and some others are so resistant to the idea that increased athleticism in the form of greater speed of movement in all its many forms plus greater strength and stamina can make a big difference in performance in the ring.

Well to be fair: It becomes difficult in racing because the comparison depends on isolated things that cannot be compared easily outside the split second differences in a sprint, or any race.

We can consider that split second difference, fair enough, but what of the difference in materials, footwear, ground conditions, etc? Heres the proof of this assertion and why Poet might have partial ground to stand on:

Look at the difference between the sprint times and the difference in the mile. I believe that the mile has been upped quite a bit more than the split second times in the sprints...Can we assume that this is not partially due to better gear? Is the difference in the mile proportionate to the difference of the Jesse Owen's comparison? More progress has been made on the mile I would think.

The problem is how do we separate the performance from progress in materials......More progress on the mile than a sprint (proportionately) would suggest to me that materials worn play a bigger factor in the progress than simply athletic performance. Suddenly a small difference that would be relevant in the context of a race does not seem so great outside the context of the race IF other factors are causing greater leaps in progress.

We would have to have the runners run in similar conditions with similar gear to make this small difference definitely the "progress" of the athlete. Otherwise this "difference" if it is due to the same difference that has caused greater progress in all race events may be suprisingly small....i.e. maybe considering Jesse Owens ran in such inefficient conditions the race time difference is suprisingly minor and owens would in fact do much better in modern circumstances.

We will never know for sure but I suspect that running materials has at least something to do with the different times and if so....indeed a small difference may be just that. But when we compare a difference of a split second depending on how it is caused and what we compare it to, the difference is either huge, or very insignificant.

Technological advances in terms of the equipment certainly contribute some of the advance in sporting competence over time in, at the very least, most sports. However they do not even begin to cover anywhere near the whole of the time difference between Jesse Owens and Usain Bolt. If Bolt ran a 100 metres sprint in 1930s running shoes, 1930s sprinting clothing and on 1930s running track then he'd run slower for sure but he'd still run a hell of a lot faster than Owens. Of course none of this means that Jesse Owens was not a great athlete, just that compared to the best sprinters of today he wouldn't be in the elite, although he'd still beat me in a race hopping on one leg.

[Humean]

This is, and always will be, the single biggest factor in determining overall talent in an era. The more athletes across the board worldwide, the higher the talent will be. It's a very, very simple process of the strongest survive; the more there are to survive, the more each person needs to develop to get to the top.

From amateur to pro, the numbers are minuscule compared to what it once was and the overall talent has dropped off. There are always great fighters and there are always bums, but it's the overall level that eventually pushes the best to the fore. If there are many more numbers it goes without saying that if you need to be better than 1000 guys instead of only 100 it's going to take more work. If you then have to fight each month instead of twice a year, you're going to develop true fighting skills rather than great sparring skills. No matter how much sparring and crosstraining you do, it will never replace the adrenaline and intensity of a real fight.

You can't get the true skill you show in all that sparring in a real fight unless the intensity is there and the more reals fights you have the more you can relax in the ring and use all of it. That's the biggest reason why you see guys who have lots of fights in modern times (Chavez, Duran, Brazier etc) look so relaxed in comparison to the great athletes of modern times but struggle with so many simple things in a fight.

A very obvious example is someone like Lacy against Calzaghe. Lacy was clearly the superior athlete in every way, but he certainly lost the fight brutally because he wasn't as relaxed and didn't have the full range of boxing skills under fight conditions. It's one example but it's an important one because it shows very clearly that a better athlete does not ever equal a better fighter. Nonetheless, Lacy would certainly beat Calzaghe in all timed events and science tests to prove a better athlete such as muscle explosiveness and all that business.

If you took those two and never had them fight, but had them tested under modern science conditions as to who would win, I can guarantee that Lacy would get just about 100% success across the board. His 'times' would be better, his strength would be greater, his stamina under non fight conditions would probably be just as good, his explosive capabilities would be higher on a machine, and yet when they get in the ring, one thing that never gets tested, and can't be really, wins one guy the fight easily. Determination, relaxation, skill and chin under fire.

It's easy to beat a time if you can run faster. It's easy to beat a time if you are stronger. It's not easy to beat someone up if you can't hit them or if they have a monstrous chin and you don't. Everything we know about boxing straight away should end this argument before it begins. Better athletes don't win fights. Better fighters win fights and being a better athlete has never, and never will, equal a better fighter.

If the world population grows then surely it is highly probably that the average (median) person going into boxing is likely to be of a higher standard than the average (median) boxer in a previous era where the world population was smaller. In light of that a decrease in the total number of athletes/boxers at any given time need not produce less quality.

It is even questionable whether the total numbers of boxers in the world has decreased since say the 1930s or 40s, it might have but nobody seems to have any actual data to show that this is actually the case. It is plausible that it might be the case, it is likely that it is the case for the US but with the growth of boxing in other countries around the world since the 1950s it is not clear that the total number of boxers actually has decreased.

The argument that the higher numbers in the sport increases the quality is very dubious anyway. The majority of boxers today, just like yesterday, and the day before, etc were what you might kindly refer to as journeymen. For sure elite boxers have their development improved somewhat from fighting journeymen but not greatly. Willie Pep fought 241 fights, a kind estimate would suggest that about 160-170 of them were against journeymen of various poor quality, the idea that it was fighting all these guys that made Pep very good stretches credibility.

In developing skills in the ring you do not want the adrenaline and the intensity of a real fight the majority of the time and i'd conjecture, despite common claims to the contrary, that good sparring, of either the intense or non-intense variety, against good quality opponents is of far greater value than fighting journeymen every week or two under professional conditions. Not to mention the damage fighting so often can do to the brains of boxers, few have been able to survive that for any great length of time without CTE setting in fairly early into their careers and thus diminishing their boxing abilities. If you have an extensive amateur background you can have every bit of the composure that fighters with many professional fights have. Indeed amateur boxing seems to me to be better than having all these professional fights because the damage sustained is reduced by only have very short fights plus the emphasise upon skilfully scoring points rather than going out there to beat each other to a pulp.

Lacy the better athlete than Calzaghe? Highly dubious, Calzaghe had great levels of stamina for a 168 pounder, in fact he had very high levels of stamina in general. Calzaghe seemed stronger than Lacy in the clinches although that may have been because of Calzaghe's superior balance, which in itself is an important element of athleticism. Calzaghe also seemed to punch faster and move faster. Definitely far from clear that Lacy was the better athlete than Calzaghe. You picked a poor example to make your case.

[Anthony342]

The Gracies were very smart but alas...everyone occasionally makes miscalculations. When they sold their system they had to know that people would make technical progress. The problem they did not forsee is that sociologically speaking, they were initially fighting guys who liked to fight. The real stereotype would be a guy like Kimo (spelling?) who managed to give fits to Helio due to his strength and little else. The Gracies were comfortable dealing with this type of individual. They would usually outlast them in some fashion, another example being Royce fighting this monster from Brazil who almost killed a karate guy in the match prior to. Royce just held on for dear life in the guard, when the guy got tired he was put in a choke.

But when they came here professional fighters got involved. Even before Dana White real promoters also got in the game. At this point what the Gracies should have done is become trainers. You see Anthony the truth is that the Gracies had gamed the process of fighting a particular type of opponent under very specific circumstances. Professional fighters are different, they learn faster, are smarter (generally), have better trainers, and also learn to game the system in which they are fighting. The Gracies were not prepared to fight under these conditions and when guys came back with more technical knowledge, what you allude to in your post, they made the Gracies look like what they were: amateur fighters who were able to defeat other martial artists who fought under Brazilian rules of engagement. I can tell you from experience that the Gracies were challenged by many others who were avoided. The Dog Brothers wanted to fight on their card with weapons (for example).

Technically anyone who gets paid to fight is a professional but...In the old days the Gracies were fighting Kimbos....not people like George Snt Pierre! Now as you say they are indeed trying to save face.

Well not completely unskilled Kimo or Kimbo style fighters. After all, Royce did submit Ken Shamrock. I just feel more that they were the best of their era. Eventually one of their descendants will become dominant again IMO. It's a bit early to tell for the newer guys. Royce or Fedor, GSP, A. Silva kind of dominance doesn't happen to often though or in boxing terms, Louis, Ali, Robinson. Kind of like how Rocky Marciano dominated a weaker era.

[Tswordwreturn]

Of course they aren't always better, and same for the athletes of the past, they aren't always better either.