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

[StarshipTrooper]

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.

Well, since the discussion up to this point in this thread was about the significance of "athleticism" I thought that's what you were talking about.

[Bolo Punch]

Well, since the discussion up to this point in this thread was about the significance of "athleticism" I thought that's what you were talking about.

From my first post to my last in this thread, I've never actually brought up anyone's athletic ability (reflexes and the like), I've just discussed fighters in terms of being athletes (the definition I gave in my previous post).

[StarshipTrooper]

From my first post to my last in this thread, I've never actually brought up anyone's athletic ability (reflexes and the like), I've just discussed fighters in terms of being athletes (the definition I gave in my previous post).

Really? >>>>>

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.

The one time you addressed a post to me "athleticism" was the exact word you used. Hence why I thought you were discussing what everyone else was discussing.

[New England]

I would bookmark around the 1930s to be the time when the truly great fighters of then could mix it up with the best of the bunch from the present day or any point in between.

I think it's a bit naive to say that boxing peaked in the 90s, although that's just my view. There's probably not as many great fighters today than there was in the 90s but until there's around 15-20 more years of that lineage, I think you could put this point in history down as a minor blip in the sport, rather than a decline.

i'm not saying that it peaked in the 90's. i'm quite clearly saying that the period from 1940 - 1990's was the peak of boxing, which is widely considered to be the case.

[MRBOOMER]

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.

I wouldn't say fighters can't avoid to be fat. They can't be out of shape at all or shouldn't, but fat can be cool if they have skills like toney or toney tubbs. But I agree you do have to have a certain level of athletic ability to perform any sport at a high level. Its just that skill can beat athletics alot of the time.

[B-Bomber]

Your first 'point' makes no sense, my point was not to demean Joe Louis' record nor to suggest that it is weaker than Wlad Klitschko's. You have misunderstood.

I have watched the video, they were not much better than the guys you listed. They are all veritable bums that only heavyweight boxing can produce as world championship opponents.

Joe Louis was significantly lighter than Wlad and was knocked down by quite a few opponents including being sparked out by Schmeling. He would not take Wlad's power, that is fairly obvious. Wlad would get knocked out by Louis's punches too, he just might fail to get close enough to land.

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?.

[Suckmedry]

Joe Louis's era was terrible too, practically every era bar the early 1970s was terrible at heavyweight. It has pretty much always been the weakest division in boxing. It shouldn't take much intelligence to understand why.



His style in this fantasy match up with Louis does not need great foot speed. Also you would have a more compelling argument without the hyperbole.



Track and field, even sprinting, involves more skill than you are giving credit. Do you imagine that 100 metre sprinters do not have coaches? Athleticism is a necessary condition for sporting skill!

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

[Suckmedry]

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

[Bolo Punch]

Really? >>>>>



The one time you addressed a post to me "athleticism" was the exact word you used. Hence why I thought you were discussing what everyone else was discussing.

The word athleticism doesn't always equal someone having great athletic abilities, it can also mean someone who is a good athlete in their particular field, which is the context I was using the word in.

Or maybe I'm getting the word confused with another word which isn't in my vocabulary.

[Bolo Punch]

i'm not saying that it peaked in the 90's. i'm quite clearly saying that the period from 1940 - 1990's was the peak of boxing, which is widely considered to be the case.

Ah, gotcha!