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

[them_apples]

... yet today's fighters, even the great ones, get up in arms over catchweights, 2 pound advantages, etc.?


Sam Langford, a natural lightweight/welterweight, had no problems jumping in the ring with a light-heavyweight or even a heavyweight; often he'd tear them apart.

I realize a guy like Langford is a once-in-a-century fighter, but seriously? We've already sub-divided the original eight weight classes into virtual catchweights as it is. Now we've got fights at catchweights within catchweights. Where are the men who are willing to say, "I don't care how big he is or how small I am. Put me in the ring with him and I'll whip his a$$."?


/Rant.

second day weigh in and weights sometimes distort what weight class a man belongs in.

[New England]

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.

i refuse to believe that a modern pitcher doesn't throw harder than a guy from the turn of the 20th century. you're telling me these guys threw harder than steven strausberg? they weren't even on radar back then surely.


in purely athletic endeavors there will always be "evolution." i can't see any reason why baseball pitching would be any different. i question the accuracy of the radar guns that don't demonstrate a gradual increase the the speed of fastballs. i know that modern laser radars are much more accurate than the implements used to measure speed of pitches in the past. it might not sound like much, but if you're on a radar that is a few MPH off in one era, and a radar that is complete accurate in another, the numbers will surely be effected.

[bklynboy]

i refuse to believe that a modern pitcher doesn't throw harder than a guy from the turn of the 20th century. you're telling me these guys threw harder than steven strausberg? they weren't even on radar back then surely.


in purely athletic endeavors there will always be "evolution." i can't see any reason why baseball pitching would be any different. i question the accuracy of the radar guns that don't demonstrate a gradual increase the the speed of fastballs. i know that modern laser radars are much more accurate than the implements used to measure speed of pitches in the past. it might not sound like much, but if you're on a radar that is a few MPH off in one era, and a radar that is complete accurate in another, the numbers will surely be effected.

You make an excellent case regarding the radar guns. The ones in place in the 1930s to track Bob Feller are obviously not as accurate as those in place today. The answer to the question "are pitchers throwing harder" will be known in 20 years or so as we compare the fastest pitchers of 2010 to those of 2030.

The average pitcher of today throws harder than pitchers 30 years ago. Pitching coaches are looking for the hardest throwing pitchers as opposed to those with the greatest control. So I think it makes sense to compare the fastest pitchers of one era to the fastest pitchers of another.

[Humean]

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?

Haye has a cagey counter-attack style, he does nothing for large portions of rounds and then suddenly pounces with extremely hard power punches. Haye has a questionable chin, that is one reason that he fights in that style. He was extremely cautious and reluctant to take risks against Wlad because he feared Wlad's power and was not given the usual opportunities to land his power punches because Wlad style is also conservative and cautious.

I think both great versions of Ali would have beaten Wlad more times than not. I think the lighter 1960s version would have actually performed the best.

[billeau2]

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.

Your last statement is true. Good point. More to the point is how a combat skill is taught. The pedogagy is relevant.

[billeau2]

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 *******uals 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.

This is a very tricky issue....Here is some interesting correlations:

a) the best boxing programs and fighters DON'T correlate to the greatest population of potential, or even active fighters. Example: Cuba and Puerto Rican fighters compared to professional fighters from India.

b) Within a large population there will naturally be more of all types of human traits hence the illusion that a particular nation produces "more" of this or that.... Example, In China there are many very smart people and....concomminant with that there are many ****** people! Think Africa produces the traits that make great athletes? it does! along with many very short (Pygmy) and unathletic groups of people.

My point is that its not a simple issue of boxing spreading to other places. In fact there are many possible reasons for the way boxing looks, among them:

a) other less skilled fighters have stepped into the vacuum left by the previously well trained fighters out of Detriot, New York, Philly, etc.

b) Professional fighting has increased in quality in other places.

c) Boxers must compete with other combatives, and other sports hence a dillution of quality

d) Fighters like all athletes are just better and now compete against the whole world....meaning they fight like no other fighters in history.

My question is if the world watershed has been so great for boxing why do so many fighters look like ****? I mean seriously most of these young heavyweights cannot move around the ring properly! They are taught a punch and put in the mix. This seems to be the pattern...compare Morrison with Grant. Morrison was brought along slowly and carefully, grant was taught to punch hard and put in with Lewis.

[TBear]

According to Gil Clancy, once you get around 200, it doesn't matter if you weigh 200 or 240. His logic is that no matter how big you get the human body and chin can only take so much force.

[bklynboy]

According to Gil Clancy, once you get around 200, it doesn't matter if you weigh 200 or 240. His logic is that no matter how big you get the human body and chin can only take so much force.

I agree with that. Your spinal cord isn't stronger; the thickness of your skull helps very little (in that it's extra mass lowers its acceleration ); and your brain cannot take an impact any better due to your extra weight.

Your body can absorb more punishment - but your brain cannot. You can wrestle and push your opponent off - but if your weight is due to fat (Arreola anyone) you're advantage in weight does not help compared to what you lose in agility, speed and endurance. I would say, for example, that Lennox Lewis would have done better if he trimmed himself down to the 5-10 percent body fat that lower weight fighters do.

[B-Bomber]

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.

My bad, you were indeed talking about Buddy, not Max.

However, both Buddy Baer and Abe Simon were legitimate contenders, most of the fighters in the "bum of the month club" were in fact contenders.

I'm not saying that either of them were great or very good fighters, but by no stretch "bums".

Buddy beat Simon, Galento and knocked out quite a lot of people. The ring (for what it's worth) included him in the 100 greatest punchers, pound for pound, in boxing history. In my opinion he was more of a Lamon Brewster than a Pianeta in terms of quality.

As for Carnera, some of his fights were probably fixed, he was by no stretch a "true" champion. On the other hand, I watched him fight, he was not a Wach in terms of skills. He fought good contenders like Jack Sharkey and went 1-1. That was probably his level.

But Wach?,the guy who pulled out of a fight with Ray Austin, stating that he couldn't risk losing the fight, because it would result in him losing his opportunity to fight Klitschko?. A guy whose best win is probably a 40 years old McBride?. A guy who, on top of that, failed a doping test?.

[jabsRstiff]

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

"How bad were the guys , from years back, who were routinely KOd by guys 40 pounds lighter than them?"

You can look at it both ways.