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

[violaandme]

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.

the speed checking methods of the 30's were completely different same goes for the 40's 50's and 60's but by no means were they inferior they were in fact staged and not game situations early on and thus not necessarily a true evaluation of a game style speed there might indeed be a certain increase of speed in the strongest arms but there should be no question of Nolan Ryan throwing an official 104.9 mph and unofficial 108.2 the fact that there are more flamethrowers today is on account of world wide talent and scouting the amount of increase in the top fastballs recorded may have gone up but the amount is so slight and insignificant I would think it is an argument for the old timers not against them

and in 30 years the technology will be improved again and this same type of argument will once again be subjective it won't just stand still technology will always be better and we will never see a 115mph fastball they threw 100mph 100 years ago and now the very elite throw 104mph that tells me no amount of science gets us to 115mph ever these modern pitchers vs old time pitchers is a fair evaluation of modern vs old time fighters as well Nolan Ryan threw routinely 200 pitches every 4 days and even in the 8th or 9th innings he could hit 100mph modern pitchers 100 pitches every 5 days now figure he pitched 300 innings a year compared to 200 by todays standards now figgure in he did it for 27 years with almost no major injuries where has modern science got us but weaker so now put that in the ring and see where it leads

and then figure what happened when a 23 year old Robin Ventura charged the mound against a 45 year old Nolan Ryan what happened there no amount of science was saving that kid only the benches clearing could

[Humean]

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.

My point about populations was as a response to New England's claim that the purporterd decline in popularity of boxing explains a decline in quality in boxing. I was trying to show that with population growth then under ceteris paribus conditions that this is not necessarily true. The real world of course is not under ceteris paribus conditions and you rightly point out some factors which influence the quality of boxers/athletes at a given time.

I would definitely dispute the idea that boxing quality has declined, I do not see such a thing with my eyes. You bring up the example of the heavyweights but I think this really distorts perceptions. Firstly, as i reiterate, the heavyweight division has never been a strong division in boxing (except the early 70s) despite its superior stature in the sport. Secondly, the heavyweights of today are so much bigger on average than the heavyweights of the past, of course they look slower and more sluggish that the examples of yesteryear.

If you look around the other divisions then you should see a lot of quality, it just doesn't all take place on American soil.

[billeau2]

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 don't know about the "why" but the statement appears true, we have the proof.

a) Lets take the idea that muscle is good and makes a person stronger and apply it to two of the most aerobically challenging endevours....rock climbing and marathon running. Logically there should be no reason why a runner or climber could not be any weight....because with more muscle comes more strength, a 300 pound runner has more mass but he has more muscle. Yet this is clearly not the case. There is in fact a limit regardless of the strenght of one's legs and cardiovascular system. No rock climber is 300 pounds!

In boxing the proper combo of traits needed for a big man to fight imo never exceeds 220 pounds. Anything past this weight does not give the fighter an asset. Look at Lewis as a great example of this. He had a chin....the Brigg's fight and his last fight show this, but against a real puncher he went down just as much as anyone (regardless of size) would have in the division.

[Humean]

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?.

The fact that Buddy Baer and Abe Simon were legitimate contenders between 1941-42 is only strong evidence of the weakness of that era at Heavyweight. I really have no opinion on whether Buddy Baer or Abe Simon were better than Pianetta or Wach, as world level contenders they are all pretty lousy. My use of the word 'bum' was more a relative thing, compared to the contenders in other divisions the heavyweight contenders were usually bums in comparison. You bring up Galento, and people complain about fat heavyweights today?

Carnera knocked Sharkey out with what must be the greatest uppercut in boxing history, are we to believe that in light of everything else we know about him? When people describe Sharkey's career they usually talk about how he blew hot and cold, could that possibly be because he was paid handsomely to roll over on those cold nights?

Don't think i'm ever going to defend a number of the Klitschko's opponents, some have definitely been extremely poor but then it has almost always be so in the heavyweight division. The Klitschko's should not be criticized heavier than a number of heavyweight champions of the past.

[crold1]

The fact that Buddy Baer and Abe Simon were legitimate contenders between 1941-42 is only strong evidence of the weakness of that era at Heavyweight. I really have no opinion on whether Buddy Baer or Abe Simon were better than Pianetta or Wach, as world level contenders they are all pretty lousy. My use of the word 'bum' was more a relative thing, compared to the contenders in other divisions the heavyweight contenders were usually bums in comparison. You bring up Galento, and people complain about fat heavyweights today?

Carnera knocked Sharkey out with what must be the greatest uppercut in boxing history, are we to believe that in light of everything else we know about him? When people describe Sharkey's career they usually talk about how he blew hot and cold, could that possibly be because he was paid handsomely to roll over on those cold nights?

Don't think i'm ever going to defend a number of the Klitschko's opponents, some have definitely been extremely poor but then it has almost always be so in the heavyweight division. The Klitschko's should not be criticized heavier than a number of heavyweight champions of the past.

Buddy Baer was a decent fighter and would be a leading contender today. Nice jab, power, defended well behind the shoulder against non-Louis types. He's probably be the best opponent Wlad's ever faced...but I do tend to agree Wlad (not Vitali...he's often been matched softer than tissue) can't be criticized too hard for who he's fought because he fought all comers. After Povetkin, it's a virtual cleanout. Deserves high marks for that.

[BennyST]

The comparison should be between Ketchel as he weighed on the night of a fight when he fought, not under todays conditions, and a version of Mayweather fighting at the weight he fights at on the night of the fight under todays conditions. In this scenario Ketchel would probably only have a slight weight advantage. Skill wise there is no comparison, Ketchel would probably not be anywhere near a champion at 160 today. Mayweather would beat him with ease.





My point was obvious, i'm not spelling it out to you if you have failed to understand such a simple point.

It's not obvious though. There is no time clock to beat in boxing. You don't fight a stopwatch mate. Someone isn't punching you in the face while you try to run. Sprinting has evolved because of very, very specific single traits and the perfection of singluar motions without any external restriction or restraint.

You don't need to fear running a race like fighting an opponent wishing to do you serious harm and possible death. That is not an obstacle that factors into your general athletics. The track doesnt suck you down, the pool doesnt try to drown you, the shotput doesnt come flying back at you and the Javeliners don't thrown it at each other.

If your point was obvious and correct, Martinez could not have lost to Margarito. It would simply be impossible, or next to. Martinez would annihilate Margarito in just about every single timed race and athletic capacity known to man....but, he got KTFO in a fight.

Timed races don't pit chin against chin or chin against fist, nor do they test your fury, violence, capacity to want to truly hurt someone and be willing to be hurt and go through severe pain. Do you think Duran would have been a great sprinter? No. He had unequaled fury and a demon like violence that enabled him to beat the bollocks out of guys who would have beaten him in various timed races and would have been considered today as much greater examples of athletic specimen.

Boxing has not evolved the same way timed sports have. They are so vastly different as to be entirely incomparable and its utterly ludicrous to suggest otherwise. In fact, its plain ****ing moronic.

Seth Mitchell. He's bigger, faster, stronger and a more evolved athlete than Joe Frazier. Who'd win the boxing fight? Without ever having seen them, theoretically you'd say Mitchell as today's guys are more evolved. Bolt destroys Owens, Mitchell destroys Frazier or Louis. In timed races and general athletics, I don't doubt he would. In fact, in a test of general athletes of the times, Frazier lost out to a lot of sports in all sorts of basic tested and timed fields...theoretically speaking, if boxing was like other sports, he wouldn't have been able to beat many of the guys tested at all. Yet, he was the heavyweight champion of the world, and would ****ing tear those guys apart. According to your theory, that shouldn't have been true. Statistically, he was less coordinated, weaker and slower than many other timed and tested sports, but he would have destroyed each and every one of those guys without blinking. He was a natural fighter, not a natural athlete. There's a big difference.

How does a 46 year old man beat a stronger, faster, more athletic, 20 years younger man in athletic sports? He doesn't. What about in boxing? Bizarrely, he can and does. The rules don't apply in the same way.

[New England]

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 like gil clancy, but i don't agree with this. there's a big difference between a 250 lber and a 200 lber. ask david haye, steve cunningham, etc.

[Scott9945]

It's not obvious though. There is no time clock to beat in boxing. You don't fight a stopwatch mate. Someone isn't punching you in the face while you try to run. Sprinting has evolved because of very, very specific single traits and the perfection of singluar motions without any external restriction or restraint.

You don't need to fear running a race like fighting an opponent wishing to do you serious harm and possible death. That is not an obstacle that factors into your general athletics. The track doesnt suck you down, the pool doesnt try to drown you, the shotput doesnt come flying back at you and the Javeliners don't thrown it at each other.

If your point was obvious and correct, Martinez could not have lost to Margarito. It would simply be impossible, or next to. Martinez would annihilate Margarito in just about every single timed race and athletic capacity known to man....but, he got KTFO in a fight.

Timed races don't pit chin against chin or chin against fist, nor do they test your fury, violence, capacity to want to truly hurt someone and be willing to be hurt and go through severe pain. Do you think Duran would have been a great sprinter? No. He had unequaled fury and a demon like violence that enabled him to beat the bollocks out of guys who would have beaten him in various timed races and would have been considered today as much greater examples of athletic specimen.

Boxing has not evolved the same way timed sports have. They are so vastly different as to be entirely incomparable and its utterly ludicrous to suggest otherwise. In fact, its plain ****ing moronic.

Seth Mitchell. He's bigger, faster, stronger and a more evolved athlete than Joe Frazier. Who'd win the boxing fight? Without ever having seen them, theoretically you'd say Mitchell as today's guys are more evolved. Bolt destroys Owens, Mitchell destroys Frazier or Louis. In timed races and general athletics, I don't doubt he would. In fact, in a test of general athletes of the times, Frazier lost out to a lot of sports in all sorts of basic tested and timed fields...theoretically speaking, if boxing was like other sports, he wouldn't have been able to beat many of the guys tested at all. Yet, he was the heavyweight champion of the world, and would ****ing tear those guys apart. According to your theory, that shouldn't have been true. Statistically, he was less coordinated, weaker and slower than many other timed and tested sports, but he would have destroyed each and every one of those guys without blinking. He was a natural fighter, not a natural athlete. There's a big difference.

How does a 46 year old man beat a stronger, faster, more athletic, 20 years younger man in athletic sports? He doesn't. What about in boxing? Bizarrely, he can and does. The rules don't apply in the same way.

Great comments Benny.

[billeau2]

It's not obvious though. There is no time clock to beat in boxing. You don't fight a stopwatch mate. Someone isn't punching you in the face while you try to run. Sprinting has evolved because of very, very specific single traits and the perfection of singluar motions without any external restriction or restraint.

You don't need to fear running a race like fighting an opponent wishing to do you serious harm and possible death. That is not an obstacle that factors into your general athletics. The track doesnt suck you down, the pool doesnt try to drown you, the shotput doesnt come flying back at you and the Javeliners don't thrown it at each other.

If your point was obvious and correct, Martinez could not have lost to Margarito. It would simply be impossible, or next to. Martinez would annihilate Margarito in just about every single timed race and athletic capacity known to man....but, he got KTFO in a fight.

Timed races don't pit chin against chin or chin against fist, nor do they test your fury, violence, capacity to want to truly hurt someone and be willing to be hurt and go through severe pain. Do you think Duran would have been a great sprinter? No. He had unequaled fury and a demon like violence that enabled him to beat the bollocks out of guys who would have beaten him in various timed races and would have been considered today as much greater examples of athletic specimen.

Boxing has not evolved the same way timed sports have. They are so vastly different as to be entirely incomparable and its utterly ludicrous to suggest otherwise. In fact, its plain ****ing moronic.

Seth Mitchell. He's bigger, faster, stronger and a more evolved athlete than Joe Frazier. Who'd win the boxing fight? Without ever having seen them, theoretically you'd say Mitchell as today's guys are more evolved. Bolt destroys Owens, Mitchell destroys Frazier or Louis. In timed races and general athletics, I don't doubt he would. In fact, in a test of general athletes of the times, Frazier lost out to a lot of sports in all sorts of basic tested and timed fields...theoretically speaking, if boxing was like other sports, he wouldn't have been able to beat many of the guys tested at all. Yet, he was the heavyweight champion of the world, and would ****ing tear those guys apart. According to your theory, that shouldn't have been true. Statistically, he was less coordinated, weaker and slower than many other timed and tested sports, but he would have destroyed each and every one of those guys without blinking. He was a natural fighter, not a natural athlete. There's a big difference.

How does a 46 year old man beat a stronger, faster, more athletic, 20 years younger man in athletic sports? He doesn't. What about in boxing? Bizarrely, he can and does. The rules don't apply in the same way.

Wouldn't track and field be sooooo much better if some of the things you mention were in place? Extra points if the javelin thrown lands in the opponent's chest!

Seriously though....very well said.

In actual evolutionary terms we have been fighting a long long time meaning that variable strategies have developed to make a great fighting man per the combat environment. Boxing, even though it is a sport, is very much related to combat. Boxing in the olden days was even more related to combat, with grappling, smaller gloves and a need to deal with contingencies, like a long drawn out battle, not getting brained as one hand was held by the opponent, etc.

The result of this is that we have many visitations of "a heavyweight" for the ages.....We have guys like Ken Norton, built like a linebacker (like dad haha)...and then we have guys like Andy Ruiz....And lets remember: In the James Toney Rahman battle, Rahman was low bodyfat and cut, Toney was fat...yet Toney threw more punches that fight. Something to think about.

[Humean]

It's not obvious though. There is no time clock to beat in boxing. You don't fight a stopwatch mate. Someone isn't punching you in the face while you try to run. Sprinting has evolved because of very, very specific single traits and the perfection of singluar motions without any external restriction or restraint.

You don't need to fear running a race like fighting an opponent wishing to do you serious harm and possible death. That is not an obstacle that factors into your general athletics. The track doesnt suck you down, the pool doesnt try to drown you, the shotput doesnt come flying back at you and the Javeliners don't thrown it at each other.

If your point was obvious and correct, Martinez could not have lost to Margarito. It would simply be impossible, or next to. Martinez would annihilate Margarito in just about every single timed race and athletic capacity known to man....but, he got KTFO in a fight.

Timed races don't pit chin against chin or chin against fist, nor do they test your fury, violence, capacity to want to truly hurt someone and be willing to be hurt and go through severe pain. Do you think Duran would have been a great sprinter? No. He had unequaled fury and a demon like violence that enabled him to beat the bollocks out of guys who would have beaten him in various timed races and would have been considered today as much greater examples of athletic specimen.

Boxing has not evolved the same way timed sports have. They are so vastly different as to be entirely incomparable and its utterly ludicrous to suggest otherwise. In fact, its plain ****ing moronic.

Seth Mitchell. He's bigger, faster, stronger and a more evolved athlete than Joe Frazier. Who'd win the boxing fight? Without ever having seen them, theoretically you'd say Mitchell as today's guys are more evolved. Bolt destroys Owens, Mitchell destroys Frazier or Louis. In timed races and general athletics, I don't doubt he would. In fact, in a test of general athletes of the times, Frazier lost out to a lot of sports in all sorts of basic tested and timed fields...theoretically speaking, if boxing was like other sports, he wouldn't have been able to beat many of the guys tested at all. Yet, he was the heavyweight champion of the world, and would ****ing tear those guys apart. According to your theory, that shouldn't have been true. Statistically, he was less coordinated, weaker and slower than many other timed and tested sports, but he would have destroyed each and every one of those guys without blinking. He was a natural fighter, not a natural athlete. There's a big difference.

How does a 46 year old man beat a stronger, faster, more athletic, 20 years younger man in athletic sports? He doesn't. What about in boxing? Bizarrely, he can and does. The rules don't apply in the same way.

To start with if you had read clearly you would have ascertained that I said that my point was obvious, not the truth of my point. If you haven't the decency and intelligence to actually read and understand what someone has actually said then how can you attempt to criticize that same thing? Therefore this entire post is predicated on a misreading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

I'll offer a response even though most of what you have written is a gross misunderstanding of this entire topic.

1. At no point did I ever claim that just being a better athlete necessarily makes you a better boxer. That point is actually true of pretty much every sport.

2. I see I actually have to spell out my point about Jesse Owens and Usain Bolt. The point was that there has clearly been an improvement in sprinting over time but if we did not have a timing instrument then I suspect there would be plenty of people talking about Owens being faster. The reason being is that people seem to romanticize the figures of the past, act as if they are somehow better, greater and more perfect than currect people. Many of you guys and boxing writers engage in the boxing equivalent of Hesiod or Ovid's ages of man. How we have fallen from a golden age.

3. Let me re-iterate: athleticism is a necessary condition of boxing skill, how could any boxer master the various skills in boxing without athleticism? What do you think is one of the key differences between a mediocre fighter and a good or great one? That one trainer simply taught more skills to the good or great fighter? Sure there are many other factors involved, including mental ones, but they exist in other sports too.

4. Again to re-iterate that with population growth then ceteris paribus we should see an increase in quality. The world doesn't work under ceteris paribus conditions and there are a host of different factors that could easily counteract the effects of population growth. However with my eyes I do not see the decline in boxing quality.