Ike Ibeabuchi VS Joe Louis

[billeau2]

Are you guys serious, or just saying crazy things and seeing who responds? I'm new here and not too sure how people like to post. I can tell you that I actually know a few of those guys whose names you've thrown around in the last string of posts, and none of them would say they'd have beaten Joe Fin Louis with a strait face, though I'm guessing some might appreciate your vote of confidence. Boxing isn't like the team sports. It has not evolved a stitch since the 30s and 40s.

Try as you might to explain this point, which I agree with 100%, people just would rather assume that because artie Donovan could never play in the NFL today, it must be so in boxing... you then show them how much money has gone into football since the 80's, etc as compared to the decrease in boxing gyms, fighters starting from a young age, etc... and then you show them tape, they still don't get it...

[StarshipTrooper]

Try as you might to explain this point, which I agree with 100%, people just would rather assume that because artie Donovan could never play in the NFL today, it must be so in boxing... you then show them how much money has gone into football since the 80's, etc as compared to the decrease in boxing gyms, fighters starting from a young age, etc... and then you show them tape, they still don't get it...

Of course, if Art Donovan was given the same diet as a modern NFL player, given access to the same sports medicine, and used the same training regimen, maybe he could play in the NFL. You just don't know and anyone making a definitive claim is literally talking out of his anus.....which the usual suspects here talk exclusively from

[Willie Pep 229]

Try as you might to explain this point, which I agree with 100%, people just would rather assume that because artie Donovan could never play in the NFL today, it must be so in boxing... you then show them how much money has gone into football since the 80's, etc as compared to the decrease in boxing gyms, fighters starting from a young age, etc... and then you show them tape, they still don't get it...

Is Boxing the sport that has changed the least (lets say since 1920)?

What about tennis, would Bill Tilden be able to compete today?

How about Bobby Jones in golf?

Babe Ruth in baseball?

Football we can forget about, players from the 1970s probably couldn't compete today, the 1960s for sure.

I don't know jack about soccer or Hockey.

Some have already pointed out the changes in track and field. I suspect the advancements have been greater in 'field' then 'track,' but both have innovated.

Know what, I got an opinion, free style wrestling!

I think of any sport it has probably changed the least.

I'd bet George Hackenschmidt and Frank Gotch (circa 1910) could still kick butt today. Although I guess Gotch wouldn't be allowed to use his infamous toe hold. (If you never heard of it, it's not a joke; can rip your knee out. There are some videos showing how to apply the move.)

[billeau2]

Of course, if Art Donovan was given the same diet as a modern NFL player, given access to the same sports medicine, and used the same training regimen, maybe he could play in the NFL. You just don't know and anyone making a definitive claim is literally talking out of his anus.....which the usual suspects here talk exclusively from

Totally! We used to do catering events in San Francisco for some of the big companies... It was fun, nice people, it paid ok, and we could eat... So, Stanford would have these events... Usually they were to raise money and were pretty big. Well, there is a humungus event, featuring the president at the time (Bush) attending, like 1000 bucks a plate affair. This event was to raise money for the football program. American Football was a glorified club sport with colorful characters like Namath, Stabler, etc... and suddenly more sports research (the whole Nautilus program came out from Florida football coaches needs in the 80's) and more resources made college football the focus, the main money maker for many universities. There is no comparison to the resources at the disposle of football players before and after the 1980's.

Of course with boxing, a kid would start at 13, hang around the gym, learn from that early age, and everyone wanted to be the heavyweight champ... fighting was a necessity in the cities... by the time these kids got to the golden gloves they were accomplished fighters. Interesting thing is, as far back as the early 1800's British and American boxing coaches were shiating on amatuer fighting, which was considered plodding and predictable. Im not saying I agree with this totally, but it is interesting that we are seeing so many fighters come out of that training path today, and just as back in the day, the critiscism is the same. Fighters just do not learn the sheer amount of skills, and do not experience the complete range that professional fighters get if they are in it at an early age.

[billeau2]

Is Boxing the sport that has changed the least (lets say since 1920)?

What about tennis, would Bill Tilden be able to compete today?

How about Bobby Jones in golf?

Babe Ruth in baseball?

Football we can forget about, players from the 1970s probably couldn't compete today, the 1960s for sure.

I don't know jack about soccer or Hockey.

Some have already pointed out the changes in track and field. I suspect the advancements have been greater in 'field' then 'track,' but both have innovated.

Know what, I got an opinion, free style wrestling!

I think of any sport it has probably changed the least.

I'd bet George Hackenschmidt and Frank Gotch (circa 1910) could still kick butt today. Although I guess Gotch wouldn't be allowed to use his infamous toe hold. (If you never heard of it, it's not a joke; can rip your knee out. There are some videos showing how to apply the move.)

Before even delving into your post I would say this: One must resist the temptation to assume uniform progress/or lack there of. There well might be principles related to evolution, nutrition, etc... But we must be circumspect about making assumptions. Starship Trooper dovetailing off my example of Artie Donovan cited a perfect example of why we cannot assume human virtues are in and of themselves a reason for progress. The reasons why football is different today is everything about money which has dictated the progress of sports science and made it so football players are now elite athletes.

Now, reading through: I think boxing has changed a lot. I actually don't see a difference in ability between classical and preclassical because the aims were so diametrically different. Gloves help a man punch harder because it protects his hands. So if Mike Tyson walloped someone like he does with gloves he would break his hand. With that said the biggest difference is between the social role of the fighter. Marg's research on this is exemplory. He and researchers like Jim Arvantis ( a Greek Martial Artist) demonstrate that at some time in history fighting developed as an exerscize in personal power... One was allowed to fight, not for the team (military) but for their own glory and bragging rights. Since that time we have the fighter. The fighter comes in many shapes and sizes... But is motivated to fight for his/her own personal enrichment.

I think boxing has slowly became more of an athletic endevour and less the province of "the fighting man." You can actually see it in MMA. It started out as a proving ground for fighters, then athletes moved in, learned how to game the ring, and that is what we get now... I think that fighters fight better than athletes, and having had experience as a martial artist fighting... without being a fighter myself... you learn that when a fighter can apply technique and has the desire to fight, you get technically sound, willful, strong fighters. With athletes? you get more along the lines of a Joshua, Klitsko... Just not the same level of intensity and perfection of craft imo.

I think your right about wrestling. Wrestling traditions all seem to have a purity about them. All over the world in fact...Iran, Sumo(Japanese), Mongolia, India, Brazil... There is always purification rituals, mutual respect, and a respect for technique. Goch was incredibly well conditioned. Le Bell could probably, at 80 something, wrestle a bear lol.

[them_apples]

Things don’t automatically improve with time. They improve if we try to improve them, and by improving it means all inputs must be the same when measuring improvement.

as others had said, boxing has declined. Writers have declined as well because reading books isn’t the first world medium anymore. If we all picked up swords and shields again, I’m absolutely positive we wouldn’t win on a battlefield in 1250 a.d. because a lot of strategies, tactics and training have long since been lost.

boxings rules have changed and so has the times we live in. Professional boxing is a lot more like amatuer boxing now. Old professional boxing was a dangerous sport full of strategists, often with styles unique to fighting gyms. Everyone now fights the same, isn't creative and really, in comparison has no heart. As soon as they get hit you can tell it bothers them to no end.

even in sports with apparent athletic enhancement, I like to think I already proved this wrong with the Jesse Owens post. In boxing, theres no way the champion from the great depression would ever lose to a contemporary heavyweight lol. Not in any world. Sorry. You cant just view tapes to decide, once they were in the ring together - all things being equal - time would tell even if it took a few rounds.

this is what I think would happen if we actually pitted eras against eachother:

1: most oldschool champ would surprise everyone today with how tough they are, and how much effort they put in.

2: old fighters got up off the canvas and fought back to avoid a stoppage. Scrambling to your feet and turtling doesn't mean you have heart - its begging for the ref to stop it.

3: some old styles would completely nullify modern methods, given the ref let it go.

4: the contemporary fighters would gas faster. Not because they aren’t in shape, but they lack the experience and skills to know how to pace themselves and fight in an energy conserving state. (Lets be real, the amateur amir khan style of doing everything at 100 percent speed is not a smart way to fight and is one of the reasons he keeps getting knocked out).

5: contemporary fighters can lift more weight in the gym, but it wouldn’t show up in the ring, just like today how it doesn’t show up in the ring - yet we keep ****ing our heads against the wall and saying 2+2 = 5

I can’t think of anything better about todays boxers, outside of better career management and they sculpt their physiques to look good on tv. I want to say some of them are more athletic overall - I just don’t think it would matter or do much. I think the skills and mentality of past eras would be simply too much.


for example in this fantasy fight:

Canelo Alvarez vs Jake Lamotta. You can watch all you want Canelo dismantle a guy like Chavez jr or even struggle with GGG. But if you want a more accurate depiction of how this fight would play out - then first understand that Jake Lamotta isn't scared of Canelo nor would he respect him. This is the absolute biggest factor thats overlooked. Canelo gets tired but nobody presses him. Nobody imposes anything on him because they arent real champions and they don’t think they are the best. They are in it strictly for the money, and probably partake in the management aspect just as eagerly as their own managers do. Its about money and safety.

This post should be taken as an average. Not an absolute. Since obviously it varies fighter to fighter and era to era. Circumstance to circumstance.

[QueensburyRules]

Canelo Alvarez vs Jake Lamotta. You can watch all you want Canelo dismantle a guy like Chavez jr or even struggle with GGG. But if you want a more accurate depiction of how this fight would play out - then first understand that Jake Lamotta isn't scared of Canelo nor would he respect him. This is the absolute biggest factor thats overlooked. Canelo gets tired but nobody presses him. Nobody imposes anything on him because they arent real champions and they don’t think they are the best. They are in it strictly for the money, and probably partake in the management aspect just as eagerly as their own managers do. Its about money and safety.

This post should be taken as an average. Not an absolute. Since obviously it varies fighter to fighter and era to era. Circumstance to circumstance.

- - Waiting for you to tell when Canelo who has never shown up out of shape or unable to make weight, well, please do pray tell us when he gets tired.

[Anthony342]

Before even delving into your post I would say this: One must resist the temptation to assume uniform progress/or lack there of. There well might be principles related to evolution, nutrition, etc... But we must be circumspect about making assumptions. Starship Trooper dovetailing off my example of Artie Donovan cited a perfect example of why we cannot assume human virtues are in and of themselves a reason for progress. The reasons why football is different today is everything about money which has dictated the progress of sports science and made it so football players are now elite athletes.

Now, reading through: I think boxing has changed a lot. I actually don't see a difference in ability between classical and preclassical because the aims were so diametrically different. Gloves help a man punch harder because it protects his hands. So if Mike Tyson walloped someone like he does with gloves he would break his hand. With that said the biggest difference is between the social role of the fighter. Marg's research on this is exemplory. He and researchers like Jim Arvantis ( a Greek Martial Artist) demonstrate that at some time in history fighting developed as an exerscize in personal power... One was allowed to fight, not for the team (military) but for their own glory and bragging rights. Since that time we have the fighter. The fighter comes in many shapes and sizes... But is motivated to fight for his/her own personal enrichment.

I think boxing has slowly became more of an athletic endevour and less the province of "the fighting man." You can actually see it in MMA. It started out as a proving ground for fighters, then athletes moved in, learned how to game the ring, and that is what we get now... I think that fighters fight better than athletes, and having had experience as a martial artist fighting... without being a fighter myself... you learn that when a fighter can apply technique and has the desire to fight, you get technically sound, willful, strong fighters. With athletes? you get more along the lines of a Joshua, Klitsko... Just not the same level of intensity and perfection of craft imo.

I think your right about wrestling. Wrestling traditions all seem to have a purity about them. All over the world in fact...Iran, Sumo(Japanese), Mongolia, India, Brazil... There is always purification rituals, mutual respect, and a respect for technique. Goch was incredibly well conditioned. Le Bell could probably, at 80 something, wrestle a bear lol.

Karl Gotch or Frank Gotch?

[Willie Pep 229]

Karl Gotch or Frank Gotch?

I know you dislike me but anyway . . . I suspect Bill is referring to Karl Gotch when he speaks of superior technique. His reputation was that of being a wrestler's wrestler. Superb conditioning and innovative techniques, campaigning between 1950 to 1970.

Frank Gotch was a bruiser with a bad reputation, thought to be a bully who punished opponents for pleasure and would use tricks like the toe hold or appearing in the ring oiled up so his opponent couldn't get a good hold. He butted and tumbed often. He wrestled in a manner the always professional Karl Gotch wouldn't. Frank campaigned circa 1910s.

Frank Gotch vs. George Hackenschmidt fought several times eventually packing Cominsky Park, making it wrestling biggest event thus far.

It is too bad that Gotch and Hackenschmidt didn't come a decade later in the 1920s. They might have made wrestling a premier sport the way Dempsey made boxing. Wrestling was missing a great champion just as the Golden Age of Sport was beginning. (Circa 1920)

Karl The Strangler Lewis was never able to reach the level of prestige of a Red Grange, Bobby Jones, Bill Tilden, Babe Ruth, or Jack Dempsey.

Frank Gotch might have been that guy for wrestling if he had just come a decade later.

Karl took the name Gotch because of its reputation, his actual name was Charles Istaz.

P.S. There is a video showing the toe hold that credits it to Karl Gotch. But this is unlikely. One, Karl wouldn't stoop to such moves, second his Wikipedia page makes no mention of it. While Frank Gotch's page does make mention of the toe hold. Also Hackenschmidt tells how he trained specifically to stop Frank Gotch's toe hold and was finally able to beat him.

Your Douche Bag Willie.

P.S.S. Sorry we are at such odds over scoring but I just see the game different. Don't particularly think your wrong, I think the fight game has become wrong.

[billeau2]

Karl Gotch or Frank Gotch?

Karl Gotch... But Frank Gotch also had a reputation as a fitness icon.