Why could past ATGs knock out guys 40 pounds bigger than them...

[soul_survivor]

it's my opinion (shared by many others,) that boxing peaked between the 40's and the 90's. i use my eyes. i've been watching this game for a long time, and i'm a good/very good athlete, so i know what i'm looking at.


fighters used to fight more, and thus would accomplish more during their careers.

you will take losses, but if you're fighting 100+ times you'll get some great wins.

I don't normally agree with you but I gota here, it's what I said in my own thread about the 20 best of all time. Too much romanticism about fighters from a century ago. I reckon boxing really took on the shape of a professional sport with well conditioned athletes from the late 20s but I'm not gona stop at the 90s. That's a bit unfair tbh, from the start of the millennium we've seen some of the best fighters ever in Pacquiao, Morales, Barrera, Floyd, Marquez, Hopkins, Oscar, Mosley etc etc.

I reckon the quality has decreased only slightly as there are less elite fighters per division, especially the higher up you go but in time that will change too.

btw what sport do u play?

[billeau2]

For idiots who point to better records in athletics like sprinting/high jump etc that bears no comparison to boxing. Relatively conservative movements/limited technique where you're trying to beat a record in which opponents are irrelevant is going to improve over time (objectively), is absolutely different to a range of dynamic movements and creativity exhibited over a scheduled duration in which the goal is to outpoint an unpredictable opponent, not to mention its a hugely subjective contest.

Wow...and here it is, a gem found in the slop bucket. People grab it quick, read it and understand it.

Fighting is not 100% athletic. It is a hybrid, evolutionary thing living things do to survive. Most sports are a mere skill set taken from fighting or fleeing (as the case may be). People have been punching for a long time....to this day a punch is a punch, thrown downward is most strong, thrown straight is most skilled....the way to use the body to combine this is as endless as Jazz music improvisation.

Boxing has changed, not evolved! people fight differently because the rules have changed. The older guys look like and would fight well in MMA because grappling was part of the mix.

[bklynboy]

There is no de jure limit but there is clearly a de facto one. Nobody in there right mind would step into the ring with a 245 pound Wlad Klitschko if they weighed only 189 pounds like Rocky Marciano! There is a reason that so many heavyweights today try to approach the weight of Wlad and the like when they are only 6'2" or 6'3", and it is not laziness. The really heavy guys of the past, guys that Joe Louis knocked out such as Abe Simon 255, Buddy Baer 237-250 and Primo Carnera 260 were pretty damn useless.

Could a 200-215 Joe Louis beat a 245 Wlad Klitschko? Quite possibly if he could get past the reach, which is questionable with his slow foot movement. Louis would really struggle to take Wlad's punch. The point is that with comparable skill a 245 fighter is more than likely to beat a guy at 210. You are correct that the ratio does diminish as the weight increases though.

Putting on weight (fat) is not the solution. Arreola did a decent job with VK. I think he would have done a far better job if he was 20 lbs, if not 30 lbs lighter. He wouldn't have lost much punching power (fat does not equal punching power. It helps in the clinches, it helps when you push off, helps absorbing a blow) and he would gained in speed, agility, ability to slip a punch, ability to react quicker, and stamina.

[billeau2]

Just because you're not fat doesn't mean you're dripping with athleticism. Just because you're fit doesn't mean you're an athlete. Rocky Marciano (just to give one example off the top of my head) was fit as hell.....but he was also one of the most unathletic dudes ever to box.

great point....even better example. The set of athletes to fighters is not the same as wholly athletic endevours to combat. Fighters is a more comprehensive expression of a boxer than athlete. Andy Ruiz can compete because he is a fighter. Beautiful looking boxers like Alvarez can get winded....because fighters work differently on some level than athletes.

[New England]

I don't normally agree with you but I gota here, it's what I said in my own thread about the 20 best of all time. Too much romanticism about fighters from a century ago. I reckon boxing really took on the shape of a professional sport with well conditioned athletes from the late 20s but I'm not gona stop at the 90s. That's a bit unfair tbh, from the start of the millennium we've seen some of the best fighters ever in Pacquiao, Morales, Barrera, Floyd, Marquez, Hopkins, Oscar, Mosley etc etc.

I reckon the quality has decreased only slightly as there are less elite fighters per division, especially the higher up you go but in time that will change too.

btw what sport do u play?

you normally don't agree with me? i tend to be one of the more knowledgable posters on this website, so i can't see any reason for that.


i still consider myself a world class skier, but i don't participate in organized sports any longer, as i am a grown man. i was one of the best lacrosse players in massachusetts, my home state, where it is an extremely popular sport. i also played hockey for 15 years, and had a pro deal to kayak for wilderness systems in my late teens.


there are far fewer people boxing today than there were several decades ago. the sport is weaker from the amateurs on up. boxing is not as strong as it once was on the local level and beyond. it's for this reason primarily that i think the sport is deteriorating.

[New England]

Just because you're not fat doesn't mean you're dripping with athleticism. Just because you're fit doesn't mean you're an athlete. Rocky Marciano (just to give one example off the top of my head) was fit as hell.....but he was also one of the most unathletic dudes ever to box.

marciano was extremely athletic. he was a professional baseball prospect.

he ran like a deer. his exploits in youth athletics are legend in brockton massachusetts.

[Humean]

I hope I misunderstood again,

but suggestin that Wach and Pianeta are on the same level as Baer and Carnera is demeaning Louis' record. Neither was a 'bum'.


Baer TKOd a very good fighter in Schmelling and shortly held the world title where there was but one world title, has victories over Tommy Farr, who was considered one of the best british HW ever and Carnera. Overlally, you can't even compare his skills and resume to Wach's or Pianeta's.



Carnera himself held the word title, he was by no stretch a good champion, but knocked out more than decent contenders like Sharkey and Schaaf, defeated a hall of famer in Loughran... when did Wach or Pianeta achieve anything even comparable?.

The greatness of Louis rests remarkably little upon the quality of his opponents, bar the exceptions of the 1970s that is roughly true for about all the great heavyweights. You are aware of Louis' 'bum of the month club'?

Both Simon and Buddy Baer were part of the bum of the month club. You are confusing Max and Buddy Baer. I clearly referenced Buddy Baer and not Max.

Carnera was a complete fraud from start to finish, nobody should ever consider him a legitimate heavyweight world champion.

Wach and Pianeta are basically bums (journeymen to be kind?), I would never doubt that.

[Humean]

See this highlights what u don't understand about boxing. Yes track and field does take skill to perform the most effective running techniques, they have coaches etc but the difference between a sport like that and boxing is that in track and field no amount of skill in your running technique etc will allow you to beat a far more naturally gifted competitor. But in boxing, you can use your skills to overcome the athletic disadvantage.


There's no other form of competition like a fight, it combines athleticism but with skill and the mental aspect that just isnt part of other sports

The point that ' in track and field no amount of skill in your running technique etc will allow you to beat a far more naturally gifted competitor' isn't necessarily true otherwise why would you bother to coach and train technique? You need both, just like you need it in Boxing. The balance that swings more toward skills and mental toughness rather than strict athleticism in boxing may be true but other sports involve high levels of skill and mental toughness also. Boxing is not unique in this way although it may possibly be the most demanding all things considered.

[Humean]

Putting on weight (fat) is not the solution. Arreola did a decent job with VK. I think he would have done a far better job if he was 20 lbs, if not 30 lbs lighter. He wouldn't have lost much punching power (fat does not equal punching power. It helps in the clinches, it helps when you push off, helps absorbing a blow) and he would gained in speed, agility, ability to slip a punch, ability to react quicker, and stamina.

They put on muscle also. You may be correct that coming in lighter and using foot speed could be a better way of dealing with the Klitschko's, going the David Haye route. But then Haye did not have any more success did he?

[Humean]

there are far fewer people boxing today than there were several decades ago. the sport is weaker from the amateurs on up. boxing is not as strong as it once was on the local level and beyond. it's for this reason primarily that i think the sport is deteriorating.

But greater population which may counter balance that force. Also what you have said is an entirely American-centric viewpoint, there may be fewer boxers in America but what about the rest of the world? The sport of boxing does not just exist in the United States.