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

[billeau2]

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.

Its the way technique is taught and the socialization of fighters. Traditionally boxing came from the class of "those who had to fight" to get ahead. Things are changing. I can tell you from experience that, for example, MMA guys are all about conditioning. But the Gracie family won the roost using technique and in fact, Ju Jutsu is all about tecnique. Yet MMA and the root systems of Ju Jutsu used in the sport, as well as college wrestlng are hardly out of the cold hard streets of the cities!

The hard thing to grasp for people is the different social norms governing training. A girl like Ronda Roussey is a college educated, intelligent thoughtful lady who comes from a University educated family. Traditionally boxing did not translate to this part of society. Boxers were trained, socialized and thought very differently. This does affect fighters. You can see it in football also:
From Lombardis' smash mouth, run the sweep and run through em Packers came Bill Parcel's control freak, script every play and control the clock to the last second of every half Giants!

It just so happens that in Boxing things have not necessarily progressed while today in football an NFL quarterback has to have a high IQ, speed, self control and only MAYBE then (if he can play the position) might be have half a chance! Compare that to Stabler and the Raiders! Well, as much as I love that team I have to admit that Stabler, slickness and all does not stack up to the typical NFL prospect these days...But we have been fighting a lot longer than playing football and there are a lot of ways to win a fight in a boxing ring.

[Humean]

Its the way technique is taught and the socialization of fighters. Traditionally boxing came from the class of "those who had to fight" to get ahead. Things are changing. I can tell you from experience that, for example, MMA guys are all about conditioning. But the Gracie family won the roost using technique and in fact, Ju Jutsu is all about tecnique. Yet MMA and the root systems of Ju Jutsu used in the sport, as well as college wrestlng are hardly out of the cold hard streets of the cities!

The hard thing to grasp for people is the different social norms governing training. A girl like Ronda Roussey is a college educated, intelligent thoughtful lady who comes from a University educated family. Traditionally boxing did not translate to this part of society. Boxers were trained, socialized and thought very differently. This does affect fighters. You can see it in football also:
From Lombardis' smash mouth, run the sweep and run through em Packers came Bill Parcel's control freak, script every play and control the clock to the last second of every half Giants!

It just so happens that in Boxing things have not necessarily progressed while today in football an NFL quarterback has to have a high IQ, speed, self control and only MAYBE then (if he can play the position) might be have half a chance! Compare that to Stabler and the Raiders! Well, as much as I love that team I have to admit that Stabler, slickness and all does not stack up to the typical NFL prospect these days...But we have been fighting a lot longer than playing football and there are a lot of ways to win a fight in a boxing ring.

Things have certainly changed in the United States and in a number of other countries but not everywhere in the relevant sense. Do you doubt that there are plenty of fighters that fight to get ahead today in countries where the poor are significantly poorer than the poor of the United States in the first half and more of the 20th century? No where did I even say that boxing had improved all that significantly since say the 30s, 40s, or 50s. I think it has improved slightly since then but not as significantly as other sports and as I reiterate the development in athleticism, that comes from different sources, is a factor in this. Two simple sources are population growth and nutrition, thus my position doesn't even have to revolve around developments in sports science and such like although they play a part also.

Skills versus athleticism is a false dichotomy.

[New England]

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.

the size of the population doesn't matter, only the amount of people boxing.

worldwide, boxing is less popular than it was in the past.


boxing history is american-centric. you're in the wrong forum if you find issue with the notion that the bulk of boxing's storied past has been played out on american soil, and often by americans.

[Humean]

the size of the population doesn't matter, only the amount of people boxing.

worldwide, boxing is less popular than it was in the past.


boxing history is american-centric. you're in the wrong forum if you find issue with the notion that the bulk of boxing's storied past has been played out on american soil, and often by americans.

Ceteris paribus the greater the population, then even if the amount of people boxing is the same size or lower, then there is a strong likelihood of there being an increase in competence.

Example:
Country 1 50,000,000 population and 5,000 boxers
Country 2 100,000,000 population and 2,500 boxers
The quality in country two could easily be higher.

Therefore the decline in the boxing population in the US does not necessarily indicate a decline in quality nevermind if you include the rest of the world.

When in the past? You have to state actual times to give much insight in the truth of such a statement.

Much like your views on ****sexuals you are stuck in the past, perhaps in the 1950s. America is still the centre of boxing but significantly less so than in say the 1950s. The amount of champions that have emanated outside the United States since that time has been pretty damn substantial. Indeed in the very lowest weight classes American fighters are non-existent today, for obvious reasons. It is the unjustified American-centricity that needs to be challenged because it has lead to false beliefs about boxing.

[Scott9945]

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.

More low budget weekly cable TV boxing shows would really help that. HBO and Showtime are great, but boxing needs minor leagues to lure talent and create opportunities.

[bklynboy]

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?

No. Haye has talent but he doesn't have the willingness to fight. If he had the toughness of Evander Holyfield (I'm not saying willing to trade) and was willing to get inside I think he had the talent to make it a far different fight.

Holyfield is a small, old-time, blown-up cruiserweight /sarc. He would have beaten Bowe (and possibly Lewis) if he didn't want to mix it up and trade punches all the time.

Haye is the same size as Ali. Do you think that Ali would have trouble getting inside WK, tagging him, and getting back out?

[New England]

More low budget weekly cable TV boxing shows would really help that. HBO and Showtime are great, but boxing needs minor leagues to lure talent and create opportunities.

back in the day that "level" of fighter operated locally and earned his money with live gates.


it will never happen, but that would be the best way in my opinion.

[Cardinal Buck]

Haye is the same size as Ali. Do you think that Ali would have trouble getting inside WK, tagging him, and getting back out?

yes


_________________

[crold1]

Horsecrap.

Johnson, Jeannette, Wills, Walcott, Ketchel, Gans, McVea, O'Brien, Flowers, Meehan, ... and those are just off the top of my head. This list doesn't include other great fighters who ducked Langford either out of fear or due to race.

Langford fought more ATGs than there are current fighters who will go down as ATGs. Stanley Ketchel, to pick a name a random, would put the likes of Floyd Mayweather Jr. in a pine box.

This.

The real answer is economic necessity and the exceptional freak-ness of Langford. There might be a guy who could give up that size and still score KOs but there is no market to attempt it nor sanction for it. Langford was also just a freak. Ridiculous center of gravity and LONG arms.

It's not like there was another Langford, or many of them, in his or any time. Joe Gans wasn't knocking out monsters. Neither was Walcott. And they BOTH could be bad ass today. Ketchell was carried and pummeled by Johnson. Size mattered then as it does now.

And then, there was Langford.

And while there are some evolution arguments about modern athletes, modern baseball's numbers drop since testing started points out how much of that might be chemical and not biological. Boxing is not as comparable to other sports anyways because it has weight classes. A welterweight is still, for the most part, a welterweight, and there is no evidence that the bulk of today's Welters (or Middles or Feathers etc.) are any faster than they used to be. They are bigger in the ring only by way of different weigh-in allowances.

[bklynboy]

This.

The real answer is economic necessity and the exceptional freak-ness of Langford. There might be a guy who could give up that size and still score KOs but there is no market to attempt it nor sanction for it. Langford was also just a freak. Ridiculous center of gravity and LONG arms.

It's not like there was another Langford, or many of them, in his or any time. Joe Gans wasn't knocking out monsters. Neither was Walcott. And they BOTH could be bad ass today. Ketchell was carried and pummeled by Johnson. Size mattered then as it does now.

And then, there was Langford.

And while there are some evolution arguments about modern athletes, modern baseball's numbers drop since testing started points out how much of that might be chemical and not biological. Boxing is not as comparable to other sports anyways because it has weight classes. A welterweight is still, for the most part, a welterweight, and there is no evidence that the bulk of today's Welters (or Middles or Feathers etc.) are any faster than they used to be. They are bigger in the ring only by way of different weigh-in allowances.

And, as you pointed out with baseball, the hardest throwing pitchers today are not throwing harder than Walter Johnson (1910s) or Bob Feller (1930s).

How come boxers have "evolved" but baseball pitchers haven't? Surely we should be seeing pitchers throwing 120 mph fastballs by now.