Why Dempsey Louis and Marchiano were Heavyweghts not Cruiserweights

[Tony Trick-Pony]

Definitely agree

In Sam Langford's day, he fought everybody from welterweight to heavyweight. I honestly think a fighter should not be tied to a division. People want to see the best fight the best an today we have little of that because of the number of divisions and titles. Guys don't have to fight the best. So they don't. I think the fighters would be much healthier too instead of dehydrating so often. You are right. Those guys knew their best fighting weights and stuck to them.

[Elroy1]

Where do you get these notions about modern athletic progress? People understood basic human physiology in the Roman Times Elroy! many progressive scientific nutritionists believe that the diet human beings had in the 50's was superior to any nutritional advantages we have today....Yes when pastuer discovered bacteria, and when immunology was developed we saw great progress but, not on the fringes of human achievement!

Football and Baseball have better athletes primarily because these endevours have become financially beneficial. But boxing does not have this relattionship to athletics Elroy. People have had methods of fighting in an organized fashion for many many moons. Look at German or Spanish fencing treatises...or Japanese Ju Jutsu Koryu scrolls. Steriods may be a benefit but they are most certainly not the harbinger of a new breed of fighting men that dwarf the old breed.

If you want t point of agreement then consider that with more access to meat and dairy, men like Marciano, Dempsey, Louis and Braddock might have grown bigger in stature. With public assistance today most kids, poor or otherwise do have access to protein sources and these men grew up poor and were probably deprived of a diet rich in animal proteins. That is possible....but one wonders how much that would effect their efficacy in the ring. These men certainly trained in a manner where they could fight for a long time....and outlast any heavy weight we see today on that account.

Being ripped helps Elroy, i.e....Butter Bean has less endurance than Klitschko...but Klitschko would never last fifteen rounds with a champion from the past of the calibre of Dempsey or Marciano. EVEN if one believes Klitschko is so strong that he would KO any one of these guys, I doubt IF the fight lasted he could last and keep pace for a full fight into the championship rounds. So that so called conditioning and nutritional advantage does not hild up. I base my conclusion on watching big guys peter out as the fight progresses, they also throw less punches in general and move a lot less. So I don't see how they are so well conditioned compared to fighters in the past.

To kick off with, this response from you practically in total has just revealed how little you know and how foolish you are for anybody who happens to read that has any kind of credentials on the subject or any lay person with common sense. It is exactly this kind of thinking that has boxing fans labelled as the dumbest of all sports fans in general and is extremely damaging to the sport o boxing today.

Your post had 2 arguments.

1/ That there has been little progress in sports nutrition.

2/ That there has been little progress in sports performance training, especially applied to boxing.

Both of which you also based on the fact that modern scientific inquiry and application of such knowledge have been historically made in steps but not in recent times of any significance.

You made only 1 point of intelligent reflection and that was that modern atheltes have greater access to animal protein sources than previously which is true and serves as an economic reason for a modern advantage anyway.

As for the rest of your nutritional view, it's so totally and obviously wrong I really don't know why you wrote it! Nobody with any connection to the real world can really argue that the carefully monitored diets of top athletes which are composed of and delivered utilising the very latest advances is of less quality than the diets of even 50 years ago. Much less the technology invested in supplements and nutrients that has accompanied it.

50 years ago, it was considered good form to eat steak, fruit, vegetables and carbs for sport which is about the limit of agreeable knowledge of that day. Not long after we seen an EXPLOSION of applied science and development in this field. In fact about 100 years ago, there were boxers who considered consuming stong BEER an effective post-workout sports drink! I've read a paper on that before even!

Really, if you are not aware of the developments in sports nutrition and nutrition in general at all levels then you really have to get out more because it's really beyond a reply.

As for your other allegation, that is even FURTHER from the truth and what's more is totally refuted by a mountain of evidence bigger than Mt. Everest! The training of past boxers was idiotic and ridiculous by comparison of what we now know should be done. The "skinny/fat" physiques of past boxers compared to the "built/ripped" ones of today visually attests to it for a start. As do basically every performance test that could be performed.

Standard long distance slow roadwork back in the day is probably the quickest example among a hundred others we can look at. It has only little relevance for boxing other than a warm up. Interval sprints as recently proven are far more specific and beneficial for the type of fitness a boxer requires. These guys were weakening and their bodies without ever considering there might be a better way.

Take a look on youtube at the fight Michael Spinks vs Larry Holmes 1. The prologue for this historic match captures the essence perfectly and marks for me and everybody else at the time, the beginning of the modern era for applied sports science to boxing. For about a hundred years not much really changed until then as quoted. Since the 80's, every record in every other event at the Olympics has been broken so thoroughly it is beyond doubt and these are NOT all highly funded activities like baseball!

Finally, your last quip regarding how these past boxers could fight for 15 rounds or how they could move more for longer has been fully addressed by me many times before. A modern fighter is far more explosive, faster and more powerful than their ancient counterparts and so consume more energy. Were those old guys to try and compete in an aerobic test with the new ones there's no way they could keep up even with top amateurs today. And even more important at any weight range the corresponding modern athlete has far more muscle mass which consumes much more oxygen than less muscles but with an obvious benefit that far outweighs not having them. At HW this is even MORE pronounced as the weight differences are now huge! And the maximal output required, all else being equal is very negligible between 12 rounds and 15 in any event which any knowlegable S&C coach would agree.

I think I've pretty thoroughly debunked your hypothesis here but if I missed something or you want more examples/info 'll be happy to provide it.

In the meantime watch Holmes/Spinks 1 prologue and LISTEN.

[Elroy1]

In Sam Langford's day, he fought everybody from welterweight to heavyweight. I honestly think a fighter should not be tied to a division. People want to see the best fight the best an today we have little of that because of the number of divisions and titles. Guys don't have to fight the best. So they don't. I think the fighters would be much healthier too instead of dehydrating so often. You are right. Those guys knew their best fighting weights and stuck to them.

The dehydration of modern fighters is not a healthy practice I agree.

Your claim about Langford fighting the welters etc of his era as a proof of fighting the best is unbelievable.

Any decent HW could line up the very best welter/middleweight and knock them straight out. To think a weight differential percentage of that much is of little relevance to other qualities at a professional level is a very naïve position to take.

[ShoulderRoll]

Standard long distance slow roadwork back in the day is probably the quickest example among a hundred others we can look at. It has only little relevance for boxing other than a warm up. Interval sprints as recently proven are far more specific and beneficial for the type of fitness a boxer requires. These guys were weakening and their bodies without ever considering there might be a better way.

They were well aware of interval training back then even if they didn't call it that.

For example, I have read old boxing material where it was suggested that during a run the fighter should periodically sprint from one telephone pole to another then resume his regular jogging pace.

They weren't as ignorant as you think they are.

[Elroy1]

They were well aware of interval training back then even if they didn't call it that.

For example, I have read old boxing material where it was suggested that during a run the fighter should periodically sprint from one telephone pole to another then resume his regular jogging pace.

They weren't as ignorant as you think they are.

Look man, really did you need to explain that to me?

That was just a single example I provided as it was one of the most basic. And yes, before you decide to enlighten me of other examples too I am well aware that there were elements of modern principles of training before the 80's in this instance and others as well. Including even the use of weights!

But they ARE modern principles, embraced fully by the modern era, worked out with theory and inquiry and backed with evidence in it. Surely that can't be disputed.

And this isn't taking anything away from Dempsey, Louis or Marciano, they did the best with what they had.

But were they have fought today they certainly would not have trained like they did or ignored the structured nutritional program and supplements. Were they to have competed exactly the same, they would not have been HW's as we describe them today. That's all I am trying to say. Whatever speculation I would make on their actual performance today I have purposely left out for this thread.

[billeau2]

if rocky gets on the inside in a fight with wlad, he'd break his ribs with body punches. Marciano is so short compared to wlad I can see him slipping in under the jab and going to work on that long body. it only took one right hand from Marciano to cave in Walcott's face and knock him out cold

Part of the reason the "modernists have such a problem conceiving of this scenerio is because no heavyweight fights on the inside anymore!

If we took Ali and Frazier and made them in the mold of todays fighters then Frazier would get destroyed by Ali....And this is how many view Vlad's prowess. They have no concept of what it would be like if a fighter like....even Hollyfield was allowed to work inside, and how fast either Klitschko would probably crumble if a specialist like Marciano was going to work at that range.

[billeau2]

To kick off with, this response from you practically in total has just revealed how little you know and how foolish you are for anybody who happens to read that has any kind of credentials on the subject or any lay person with common sense. It is exactly this kind of thinking that has boxing fans labelled as the dumbest of all sports fans in general and is extremely damaging to the sport o boxing today.

Your post had 2 arguments.

1/ That there has been little progress in sports nutrition.

2/ That there has been little progress in sports performance training, especially applied to boxing.

Both of which you also based on the fact that modern scientific inquiry and application of such knowledge have been historically made in steps but not in recent times of any significance.

You made only 1 point of intelligent reflection and that was that modern atheltes have greater access to animal protein sources than previously which is true and serves as an economic reason for a modern advantage anyway.

As for the rest of your nutritional view, it's so totally and obviously wrong I really don't know why you wrote it! Nobody with any connection to the real world can really argue that the carefully monitored diets of top athletes which are composed of and delivered utilising the very latest advances is of less quality than the diets of even 50 years ago. Much less the technology invested in supplements and nutrients that has accompanied it.

50 years ago, it was considered good form to eat steak, fruit, vegetables and carbs for sport which is about the limit of agreeable knowledge of that day. Not long after we seen an EXPLOSION of applied science and development in this field. In fact about 100 years ago, there were boxers who considered consuming stong BEER an effective post-workout sports drink! I've read a paper on that before even!

Really, if you are not aware of the developments in sports nutrition and nutrition in general at all levels then you really have to get out more because it's really beyond a reply.

As for your other allegation, that is even FURTHER from the truth and what's more is totally refuted by a mountain of evidence bigger than Mt. Everest! The training of past boxers was idiotic and ridiculous by comparison of what we now know should be done. The "skinny/fat" physiques of past boxers compared to the "built/ripped" ones of today visually attests to it for a start. As do basically every performance test that could be performed.

Standard long distance slow roadwork back in the day is probably the quickest example among a hundred others we can look at. It has only little relevance for boxing other than a warm up. Interval sprints as recently proven are far more specific and beneficial for the type of fitness a boxer requires. These guys were weakening and their bodies without ever considering there might be a better way.

Take a look on youtube at the fight Michael Spinks vs Larry Holmes 1. The prologue for this historic match captures the essence perfectly and marks for me and everybody else at the time, the beginning of the modern era for applied sports science to boxing. For about a hundred years not much really changed until then as quoted. Since the 80's, every record in every other event at the Olympics has been broken so thoroughly it is beyond doubt and these are NOT all highly funded activities like baseball!

Finally, your last quip regarding how these past boxers could fight for 15 rounds or how they could move more for longer has been fully addressed by me many times before. A modern fighter is far more explosive, faster and more powerful than their ancient counterparts and so consume more energy. Were those old guys to try and compete in an aerobic test with the new ones there's no way they could keep up even with top amateurs today. And even more important at any weight range the corresponding modern athlete has far more muscle mass which consumes much more oxygen than less muscles but with an obvious benefit that far outweighs not having them. At HW this is even MORE pronounced as the weight differences are now huge! And the maximal output required, all else being equal is very negligible between 12 rounds and 15 in any event which any knowlegable S&C coach would agree.

I think I've pretty thoroughly debunked your hypothesis here but if I missed something or you want more examples/info 'll be happy to provide it.

In the meantime watch Holmes/Spinks 1 prologue and LISTEN.

Your post is roughly 90 percent hyperbole. Your point can be reduced to "athletes have more specialized diets in this day and age."

First off there is no absolute proof that what was considered a good diet then was not correct. Basic nutrirional science states that the quality of proteins is such that animal proteins are the best source for the basic amino acids that build muscle....boxers eating steak does not violate that, it happens that todays people prefer fish and chicken, that could easily change tomorrow (though lactic acid production caused by red meat is a problem with muscle faigue)....THERE ARE VIRTUALLY NO NUTRITIONAL RULES THAT DEMONSTRATE ANY VARIATION FROM THE BASICS OF NUTRITIONAL SCIENCE. You are a pinhead that does not understand that.

You again assett that athletes are more powerful and explosive in boxing today....no proof whatsoever.

What people are finding is in fact that basic unprocessed lean forms of protein with smaller carbo levels are the best diets...these diets vary by specialized training routines....If a boxer's diet was so bad why could they perform so much better than today's fighters over the long haul? You buy the hyperbole Elroy, but the science shows nothing of the sort that you assert.

Even physical modes of training like Pilates, yoga and other forms of explosive training show that the training routines of the bygone eras were a lot more effective than the weight training dominated 70s, 80,s and even 90s. A pilates routine has more in common with a boxer's routine back in the day, than many bulk building techniques.

So keep up with the hyperbole and BS...I like desroying the likes of these arguments in these threads because it will always be in cyberspace. Ignorance destroyed for all to see....because there is alas, no proof that a fighter today is better, or even as well conditioned as fighters of a bygone era...period.

[billeau2]

Look man, really did you need to explain that to me?

That was just a single example I provided as it was one of the most basic. And yes, before you decide to enlighten me of other examples too I am well aware that there were elements of modern principles of training before the 80's in this instance and others as well. Including even the use of weights!

But they ARE modern principles, embraced fully by the modern era, worked out with theory and inquiry and backed with evidence in it. Surely that can't be disputed.

And this isn't taking anything away from Dempsey, Louis or Marciano, they did the best with what they had.

But were they have fought today they certainly would not have trained like they did or ignored the structured nutritional program and supplements. Were they to have competed exactly the same, they would not have been HW's as we describe them today. That's all I am trying to say. Whatever speculation I would make on their actual performance today I have purposely left out for this thread.

You see how ignorant you are? There is no proof that any supplements enhance training any more than the snake oil and other concoctions sold in those days did any good. Show me one shred of scientific evidence that a supplement in a healthy athlete demonstrated a real, repeatable, tangible degree of physiological acceleration compared to a control.....Go ahead!

Why do you think athletes take steriods? Even steriods are such that most of the advances are to mask their detection...We have known for some time that certain hormones help us heal and grow....hence steriodal medicines. Ya pin head!

[ShoulderRoll]

Look man, really did you need to explain that to me?

That was just a single example I provided as it was one of the most basic. And yes, before you decide to enlighten me of other examples too I am well aware that there were elements of modern principles of training before the 80's in this instance and others as well. Including even the use of weights!

But they ARE modern principles, embraced fully by the modern era, worked out with theory and inquiry and backed with evidence in it. Surely that can't be disputed.

Apparently I did need to explain it to you since you implied that interval training was something that made modern fighters superior to the old timers.

When in fact the fighting men of that time had intuitively figured out how to train that way anyway, despite not having scientists in lab coats theorizing and giving evidence that these methods worked.

[DondiNeverLeft]

I remember reading in one of Dempseys autobiographies
him stating he needed to lose like 25 pounds to make ideal fighting weight
I think for Gibbons fight..
I also thought how Moore in his fight with Marchiano
i think weighed 2-3 more pounds at weighin then Rocky..Even though he weighed more he was not aconsidered a natural heavy
like Rocky was considered..Not as strong even though same weight

People say they are criuserweights today,,but they were heavys who trained to be at what they considered their best fighting weight
Dempsey could have trained to enter the ring at 200 pounds but he didnt ,,wouldn't have made him stronger his speed is what made 225 lbs and up guys get their asses whipped..Nobody said Jack this guy has 40 pounds on you we need to bulk you up
They probably said this guy has 25 lbs on you we need to get you under 200 pounds otherwise you will be to slow

Joe louis was best at 197lb not cause he couldn't
make 210 pounds but because he trained what his best fighting weight was..The idea thinking any 6'6" 250 pound guy is a lock on the championship has been tried more then once but never worked because thats to big after a certain point it causes a negative effect on things like speed balance agility
to say today Louis would be a 225lb guy not a 197lb one..He could of been 225 back then but that would impede him and not made his chances against 240lb Baer more competitive..
They trained to lose that 20-30 pounds ..slim down n..ot bulk up..
Interesting how they didnt need a cruiserweight division back then..

They did what the mafia wanted them to do in those days...that's why I'm still skeptical about a lot of those old fights.