Pre-1960 and Post-1960 boxers

[The Old LefHook]

Lefty heres another way to look at it....this is what I am seeing at least and again, I may be off but at least you will know what i am seeing...

Would we say heavyweights got marginally smaller when there was a trend where Charles to marciano to Patterson were consecutive champs?

Or would we say that when Foreman first became champ, heavyweight champs were bigger?

correction is I know Walcott was in that list of champs...Walcott was not remarkable in size or stature.

You know I am not on a size kick. Size is the only issue left, as I see it. The discussion of whether moderns or oldsters had better technique is over, as far as I am concerned. The moderns do not have better technique. Reasonable people who have looked at a lot of both know this by now. Therefore, size is the only unsettled issue remaining. It is not some kick I am on. If there is some unsettled question about technique between oldsters and moderns that I have overlooked, someone would mention it. There is nothing to mention.

Huge scrubs beat smaller scrubs. But huge scrubs may not whip smaller great fighters. Vlad is lucky if he makes the middle of my complete heavyweight list of who-beats-who. I think you know that. The heavyweights are on a size kick, not me. Exaggerating the importance of size is Juggy's bag, not mine.

Now since there is no denying the existence and use of juice, it follows there is no denying guys are going to be bigger as they load on muscle mass. For that reason there completely has to be a trend and not a random development this time. Your argument was clever and reasonable but forgot to include juice in the equation. This time it is for real, not a random development like Charles, Walcott and Marciano in a row, because juice has come to stay

Like you say, this big question Sonny has presented would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis to be complete, and we have only our guesswork to estimate how these extra pounds and height would translate across eras and individuals, these are not things we can actually know. Some questions do not have answers. It is amazing to me how people on this forum so frequently claim to know the answers to unanswerable questions.

But like mister Sonny, I feel certain that much of the extra weight and muscle the modern boys are packing around comes from a bottle. Like mister Sonny, I believe that without their juice-paks to do for them what Popeye's spinach did for him, the moderns would find themselves at a dangerous technical disadvantage against guys who fought every ten days against every kind of opponent.

The boxing culture was deepr then. I say it is spread thinner now though wider across the whole world on the internet, with a few gyms anchored on the ground in major cities. There used to be two boxing gyms in Eureka, California, population 27,000. At those boxing gyms is where you could learn how to fight, not on the internet where there is information, misinformation, less knowledge and hardly ever wisdom. Boxing wisdom and tradition had many anchors in those many gyms. The business there was boxing, not talking. Where you get collections of brilliant men sharing the same interest together, things may evolve. But positive boxing evolution was all over by c. 1955, after which it has slowly devolved and technique has deteriorated. Boxing does not have open ended positive evolution available to it anyway. After a point there is nothing more to do that has not been done before. Of mathematics and music, one could not make this statement, but with boxing I think it is true. No one is going to discover a new punch, a new parry, or any other such technical details. It looks like the last bit of positive evolution in boxing may have occurred when Cus introduced the peekaboo. That is at least sixty years ago. Steady-state is rare. Keep evolving or devolve, is a law. Boxing devolved.

I cannot make my position any clearer than that. But I am still trying to consider the impact of increased size and muscularity in my toying with unanswerable questions. We have similar positions. Almost everything we talk about on here involves unanswerable questions. Any of us strays too far whenever we forget we are only expressing opinions on unanswerable questions, regardless of how much research we may have done. Unanswerable questions are my domain. Not because I can answer them any better than others, but because that is where I choose to live and play. It has a great view of the sea.

There is such a thing as critical thinking, and I have learned to do that. But all that does is make the opinions more interesting and allow me to discriminate between blowhards and critical thinkers.

Only a Gog could know the answers we seek.

[JimEarl]

I'd have a hard time seeing Carmen Basilio or Ray Robinson as not competitive in today's welterweight or junior middleweight divisions which is probably where they would be campaigning for a great while in today's scene.

[McGoorty]

If we can't accept Jim Jeffries, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Harry Grebb and the other great fighters from the first quarter of the last century, as being great fighters compared to fighters of the last 50yrs. Then how can we accept fighters like Froch, Golovkin, Floyd, Pacquiao, Wlad and their style of fighting as being better, and them being All Time Great Fighters..Should pre-1960 boxers be deemed inferior to post-1960 boxers ?

No that would be one of the silliest things I ever heard of in boxing, there was nothing remotely inferior about pre 60's fighters, in fact I would rate them as superior ... forget the heavyweights they keep getting bigger, the only way to compare fighters is from the smaller divisions... a 147 lb fighter is a 147 lb fighter all are equal in weight, so more muscular than others, Carmen Basilio for instance was all muscle, what a physique, his back especially, it may be the most impressive set of back muscles I ever saw, he had muscles there I never knew existed until I saw him fight but basically we can compare those who weigh the same. Heavyweights keep getting bigger but they also get slower as the they do so.

[McGoorty]

I agree with this Sonny. Also great post on Darcey.

I would add that many people see a trend where none exists in that while there are perhaps more big men today, there is no trend of big men dominating the heavy weight division. It is often assumed that because lewis and then the Klitschkos came along, all champions are bigger heavyweights and this is not true.

From 1950 on through to liston you had Ezzerd Charles, Marciano and patterson as champs, these guys were combined all relatively small in stature....

Then between Holyfield and Tyson, neither guy a gigantic heavyweight, one a former cruiser, the heavyweights were not bigger than before, and then Lewis and Klitschko, among others.....this does not suggest a trend. So if we want to say what about Bowe? for example, well what about Herbie Hyde? or what about an aged Foreman, then what about Moorer who was alas another renegade Cruiser....again the point being there is no trend towards biger men ruling the roost.

Did he mention a Darcey or was it Darcy ? I must have missed something, if you could steer me in the right direction......................

[sonnyboyx2]

It seems you know more 6'6"-6'8" men who weigh 182 (13 stone) than anyone else in the world.

I did not take an easy route. Since there is no question regarding the lower weight fighters, the only question revolves around those called heavyweights. How much would the extra size and muscle mass matter? I do not dispute that these guys are all on juices, but that is still what Marciano and Dempsey et all would have to deal with.

Don't act like you are springing new ideas on me. I have stated many times that I believe the fighters of yester year were superior. It is I who have stated Dempsey would destroy Vlad the grabber. It is I who have called these modern gorillas scrubs.

And by the way, I do not consider Carnera superior to anyone. Jess Wiillard would beat him up.

I ain't acting like nothing, i am trying to debate with you the sport of boxing. I can live with Jess Willard being better than Carnera and him beating up Carnera, that i have no problem with.. My point is that Big guys from the past like Willard & Carnera who became champion, had stamina in abundance, as well as the ability to take a punch and decent boxing ability compared to Lewis, Briggs & the Klitschko Brothers. Who struggle to go 12rds even when no-one is throwing punches at them...Tranfer fighters pre-1960 to today's modern PEDs supplements etc era. Would they be better or worse?...

Transfer Lewis, Wlad, Vitali & Briggs to pre-1960 era, without steroids, PEDs, supplements etc. would they be able to compete?... IMO they would not be Champions, but they would be better fighters than they are in their own era's.. There is very few fighters who would be capable of competing in any era.

[sonnyboyx2]

No that would be one of the silliest things I ever heard of in boxing, there was nothing remotely inferior about pre 60's fighters, in fact I would rate them as superior ... forget the heavyweights they keep getting bigger, the only way to compare fighters is from the smaller divisions... a 147 lb fighter is a 147 lb fighter all are equal in weight, so more muscular than others, Carmen Basilio for instance was all muscle, what a physique, his back especially, it may be the most impressive set of back muscles I ever saw, he had muscles there I never knew existed until I saw him fight but basically we can compare those who weigh the same. Heavyweights keep getting bigger but they also get slower as the they do so.

You have a point here which we can address, "Heavyweights keep getting Bigger".... They keep getting bigger because the Heavyweight limit of 200lbs and over, gives these guys the window of opportunity to use Steroids, PEDs Etc, Etc. 250lbs is the norm in our days for Heavyweights to weigh-in. Can you imagine Mayweather weighing in at 50lbs heavier. even 10lbs heavier would blunt his reflex's and skills. So what Lennox, Wlad, Vitali, Briggs & Co do not understand is that carrying 30lbs of extra bulk is detrimental to their performance.

[Weltschmerz]

Primo Carnera was considered "The Worst" Heavyweight Champion of All Time, by most boxing writers from 1935-1990 Yet watching film of him today, we can actually see him to be better than Wlad, Lennox, Vitali, Valuev etc. by better i mean, better agility, better boxing skills, better footwork, better stamina..So comparing fighters from 100yrs ago against those fighters of the last 40yrs. We must take into account, the conditions of today and apply those conditions of today, for fighters from 100yrs ago... If we are to do that, then today's fighters would not stand a chance against fighters from pre-1960.

Please show us this footage to prove your point? We can agree that Valuev was garbage, but not the others.

[sonnyboyx2]

Please show us this footage to prove your point? We can agree that Valuev was garbage, but not the others.

here goes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1QA7Q1hOA0

Carnera is easily more light-footed than today's behemoths Lewis, Wlad, Vitali & Briggs. Carnera is more mobile and with better boxing ability...

Legendary trainer Lou Duva said, "Lennox is another Carnera"..

Wlad & Vitali although both very successful, they are like men in slow-motion compared to Carnera.i would think the "Computer Punch Stats" from the above fight would be vastly superior to any fight Lewis, Wlad or Vitali ever fought.

[Earl-Hickey]

here goes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1QA7Q1hOA0

Carnera is easily more light-footed than today's behemoths Lewis, Wlad, Vitali & Briggs. Carnera is more mobile and with better boxing ability...

Legendary trainer Lou Duva said, "Lennox is another Carnera"..

Wlad & Vitali although both very successful, they are like men in slow-motion compared to Carnera.i would think the "Computer Punch Stats" from the above fight would be vastly superior to any fight Lewis, Wlad or Vitali ever fought.

I just watched that and he's horrible, he fights with his chin in the air

[billeau2]

You know I am not on a size kick. Size is the only issue left, as I see it. The discussion of whether moderns or oldsters had better technique is over, as far as I am concerned. The moderns do not have better technique. Reasonable people who have looked at a lot of both know this by now. Therefore, size is the only unsettled issue remaining. It is not some kick I am on. If there is some unsettled question about technique between oldsters and moderns that I have overlooked, someone would mention it. There is nothing to mention.

Huge scrubs beat smaller scrubs. But huge scrubs may not whip smaller great fighters. Vlad is lucky if he makes the middle of my complete heavyweight list of who-beats-who. I think you know that. The heavyweights are on a size kick, not me. Exaggerating the importance of size is Juggy's bag, not mine.

Now since there is no denying the existence and use of juice, it follows there is no denying guys are going to be bigger as they load on muscle mass. For that reason there completely has to be a trend and not a random development this time. Your argument was clever and reasonable but forgot to include juice in the equation. This time it is for real, not a random development like Charles, Walcott and Marciano in a row, because juice has come to stay

Like you say, this big question Sonny has presented would need to be evaluated on a case by case basis to be complete, and we have only our guesswork to estimate how these extra pounds and height would translate across eras and individuals, these are not things we can actually know. Some questions do not have answers. It is amazing to me how people on this forum so frequently claim to know the answers to unanswerable questions.

But like mister Sonny, I feel certain that much of the extra weight and muscle the modern boys are packing around comes from a bottle. Like mister Sonny, I believe that without their juice-paks to do for them what Popeye's spinach did for him, the moderns would find themselves at a dangerous technical disadvantage against guys who fought every ten days against every kind of opponent.

The boxing culture was deepr then. I say it is spread thinner now though wider across the whole world on the internet, with a few gyms anchored on the ground in major cities. There used to be two boxing gyms in Eureka, California, population 27,000. At those boxing gyms is where you could learn how to fight, not on the internet where there is information, misinformation, less knowledge and hardly ever wisdom. Boxing wisdom and tradition had many anchors in those many gyms. The business there was boxing, not talking. Where you get collections of brilliant men sharing the same interest together, things may evolve. But positive boxing evolution was all over by c. 1955, after which it has slowly devolved and technique has deteriorated. Boxing does not have open ended positive evolution available to it anyway. After a point there is nothing more to do that has not been done before. Of mathematics and music, one could not make this statement, but with boxing I think it is true. No one is going to discover a new punch, a new parry, or any other such technical details. It looks like the last bit of positive evolution in boxing may have occurred when Cus introduced the peekaboo. That is at least sixty years ago. Steady-state is rare. Keep evolving or devolve, is a law. Boxing devolved.

I cannot make my position any clearer than that. But I am still trying to consider the impact of increased size and muscularity in my toying with unanswerable questions. We have similar positions. Almost everything we talk about on here involves unanswerable questions. Any of us strays too far whenever we forget we are only expressing opinions on unanswerable questions, regardless of how much research we may have done. Unanswerable questions are my domain. Not because I can answer them any better than others, but because that is where I choose to live and play. It has a great view of the sea.

There is such a thing as critical thinking, and I have learned to do that. But all that does is make the opinions more interesting and allow me to discriminate between blowhards and critical thinkers.

Only a Gog could know the answers we seek.

There is a lot of information on roids....Not the mainstream either, but information that comes from all biases. Here is what I find a supreme irony: Probably the single best thing roids have done in boxing is accelerate the healing process. Now, how were the ancients able to fight so much without these accelerants? Again, human potential and the way we shape the body in expected ways, to attain expected goals is very intersting indeed. For example, Fat James Toney had a lot of injuries...many of them perhaps due to his weight gain and steriods allowed him to heal, at the very least.

So why do modern guys get injured to a degree where they feel (the subjective) that they cannot fight injured? Is it that the ancients were used to fighting injured? were they tougher? did they have enough tricks in the bag....i.e would a Pacman from days gone by not be as hindered by a shoulder malfunction?

Human physiology tells us that muscle mass, testosterone and increased aerobic capacity are the things that maintain us in athletic contests....Yet how much of these benefits do steroids really give? I don't pretend to know...I do know that in martial arts the focus is always on what the mind can make the body do....Or as one great Karate man was wont to say: "train the body and the mind will follow.

Its an intersting question and from what I have seen there are many variables involved that have to he isolated to answer things scientifically.