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

[Scott9945]

I think fighters from the 1940's and back couldn't compete with today's fighters only a handfull if any. But it does seem like some skill has been loss threw the years. Power punching techniques and defense on the inside like rolling shots catching parrying etc also stamina seemes to have gotten worse for fighters. But as a whole I think boxing has become more refined through the years and old old past greats just couldn't compete there just to slow and uncoordinated

All due respect, but I'm finding those observations somewhat contradictory. How can boxing be more refined with the skills and techniques being diminished?

[Bolo Punch]

I've watching boxing for damn near 40s years and I've never seen a Heavyweight division as bad as this sorry ass era. Louis' era was no where near as bad as this one either and only invincible ignorance or congetital ******ation can explain your claim.

Why do you think one of, if not the main reason for this is? The great heavyweight champions and even contenders of yesteryear have been great athletes. Now that these athletes are seemingly playing other sports the Heavyweight division has taken a huge hit and turned largely to Eastern Europe to try and take advantage of the void that has been left. Look at guys like Arreola, Chambers, Chagaev, Ibragimov, etc, etc. These guys aren't athletes even in the slightest. They might have a decent brain and pack a punch but if you're not gonna get in tip top shape then you aren't even giving yourself a chance. It's no coincidence that Wladimir Klitschko is carved like a Greek God.

Put it this way, what fighter do you know of that was fat during his prime and is considered a great?

Sure, I do understand where you're coming from when you say that skill rules all and to an extent I actually agree. However, to simplify it down to just that is a bit of a silly thing to do, IMO. If you have both skill and athleticism and you know how to use both correctly, you have the recipe to become something great.

[StarshipTrooper]

Maybe you should have been looking closer, near 40s years has not brought much wisdom. I mean what sort of man in his 40s proclaims other people ******s for disagreeing with them?

I proclaimed you a ****** for having a ******ed premise.....not for disagreeing with me.

My arguments are compelling because they are actually properly argued for and I can watch video of past fights, I do not need to rely upon unreliable memory to bolster my arguments. In short the length of time watching boxing need not be conducive to having knowledge, comprehension, or insight.

Therein lays the problem: Your arguments AREN'T compelling. And too bad you don't know what you're watching when you do log in to You Tube or where ever the hell it is go to see fights. In other words, I'll trust my non-faulty memory and my 2,000 fight video collection over the observations of a moron who is clueless about boxing.....a moron who clearly DOESN'T have any knowledge, comprehension, or insight but does have a lot bad premises and worthless opinions based on ignorance.

They have coaches do they not? Are you really so ignorant that you do not know that there is actually technique that needs to be taught and refined in sports such as sprinting? Again your age clearly counts for precious little.

Sorry dude, no amount of coaching or technique is going to turn Butterbean into Carl Lewis. That's common sense.....something of which you have precious little.

If you deny that athleticism is a necessary condition for sporting skill then it is unclear what simple truths you could possibly comprehend.

If you deny that skills trump athletic considerations then it's clear that you wouldn't know a simple truth if it bit you on the ass.

[StarshipTrooper]

Why do you think one of, if not the main reason for this is? The great heavyweight champions and even contenders of yesteryear have been great athletes. Now that these athletes are seemingly playing other sports the Heavyweight division has taken a huge hit and turned largely to Eastern Europe to try and take advantage of the void that has been left. Look at guys like Arreola, Chambers, Chagaev, Ibragimov, etc, etc. These guys aren't athletes even in the slightest. They might have a decent brain and pack a punch but if you're not gonna get in tip top shape then you aren't even giving yourself a chance. It's no coincidence that Wladimir Klitschko is carved like a Greek God.

Put it this way, what fighter do you know of that was fat during his prime and is considered a great?

Sure, I do understand where you're coming from when you say that skill rules all and to an extent I actually agree. However, to simplify it down to just that is a bit of a silly thing to do, IMO. If you have both skill and athleticism and you know how to use both correctly, you have the recipe to become something great.

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.

[Bolo Punch]

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.

When I say 'athletes' I thought you would've assumed that I meant someone who is fit and able, which I did. I wasn't suggesting that you had to be like Roy Jones to be a good fighter, although I suppose I should've made myself clearer.

[StarshipTrooper]

When I say 'athletes' I thought you would've assumed that I meant someone who is fit and able, which I did. I wasn't suggesting that you had to be like Roy Jones to be a good fighter, although I suppose I should've made myself clearer.

You're definitely using a much looser definition of an athlete than I am. Muhammad Ali I would consider athletic, but I wouldn't consider Joe Frazier athletic. Frazier was certainly fit but watching him on those battle of the celebrity athletes shows in the '70s was almost embarrassing.

[Humean]

I proclaimed you a ****** for having a ******ed premise.....not for disagreeing with me.

Well that makes it better!


Therein lays the problem: Your arguments AREN'T compelling. And too bad you don't know what you're watching when you do log in to You Tube or where ever the hell it is go to see fights. In other words, I'll trust my non-faulty memory and my 2,000 fight video collection over the observations of a moron who is clueless about boxing.....a moron who clearly DOESN'T have any knowledge, comprehension, or insight but does have a lot bad premises and worthless opinions based on ignorance.

Well others will have to make their minds up on this. Do you doubt that I also have a large fight collection, and that like everyone else can very easily find practically every fight captured on film that has survived, on the internet? What does any of that prove except that we are both a pair of sad boxing geeks?

You are the world's first person with a faultless memory, you should inform the scientific and medical community.


Sorry dude, no amount of coaching or technique is going to turn Butterbean into Carl Lewis. That's common sense.....something of which you have precious little.

You appear to be denying that very same supposed common sense.

If you deny that skills trump athletic considerations then it's clear that you wouldn't know a simple truth if it bit you on the ass.

Skills are predicated upon athleticism. If the point is that athleticism is not everything then nobody would deny that but athleticism is very important in sport, boxing is not a game of chess. It may be more a game of chess than sprinting, or such like is, but that does not mean athleticism is of little importance in boxing. Athleticism allows for punches to be thrown at different angles, at greater speed, it allows for endurance and so on. How can anyone think that you can just talk of skills as if that was not very strongly a function of athletic ability. Athleticism magnifies the possibilities in boxing.

Within quotations again.

[StarshipTrooper]

Within quotations again.

First off, learn how to quote.....you suck at it.

Well others will have to make their minds up on this. Do you doubt that I also have a large fight collection, and that like everyone else can very easily find practically every fight captured on film that has survived, on the internet? What does any of that prove except that we are both a pair of sad boxing geeks?

Too bad you've learned zilch from watching those fights that you claim to have watched.

Skills are predicated upon athleticism. If the point is that athleticism is not everything then nobody would deny that but athleticism is very important in sport, boxing is not a game of chess. It may be more a game of chess than sprinting, or such like is, but that does not mean athleticism is of little importance in boxing. Athleticism allows for punches to be thrown at different angles, at greater speed, it allows for endurance and so on. How can anyone think that you can just talk of skills as if that was not very strongly a function of athletic ability. Athleticism magnifies the possibilities in boxing.

^^^^^ You just produced enough horse **** to deplete the ozone layer.

[Humean]

First off, learn how to quote.....you suck at it.


Ouch you hit me where it really hurts, my quotating skills!


Too bad you've learned zilch from watching those fights that you claim to have watched.




^^^^^ You just produced enough horse **** to deplete the ozone layer.

Was that a joke? You must surely have better. I am going off now, maybe you can provide a better joke for me to read and react to tomorrow. 45 years on this planet must surely be adequate experience to conjure that.

Above in quotations again because you love it so.

[Bolo Punch]

You're definitely using a much looser definition of an athlete than I am. Muhammad Ali I would consider athletic, but I wouldn't consider Joe Frazier athletic. Frazier was certainly fit but watching him on those battle of the celebrity athletes shows in the '70s was almost embarrassing.

I'm not sure if this is just nitpicking or if I really haven't gotten my point across correctly but I'll try again.

My interpretation of an athlete is someone who is physically fit and in shape to be able to utilise their best assets for as long as their sporting event lasts. For example, Marciano and Frazier didn't have to be ripped in order to be able to apply pressure and hit hard, they just had to be fit and strong to the point that they knew they could do their business over the course of the 15 rounds. To take an examples from other sports, Usain Bolt doesn't need to work on his aerobic stamina as his event lasts under 10 seconds, just as Mo Farah doesn't have to work on his anaerobic stamina as he needs to pace himself over 5,000m or 10,000m. One common factor amongst all the names mentioned, though, is that they cannot afford to be fat or out of shape; they must be fit and able to last the duration of their sports in order to be top athletes.

*NOTE, I have put two key words that you used in bold. I never once used the word 'athletic' in this conversation. I think you may be getting that mixed up with an athlete (or certainly what I would perceive to be an athlete).

Athlete = a person who is fit for purpose in their sport.
Athletic = a group of physical attributes/body type.