Is the "Old vs New" debate unique to boxing?

[juggernaut666]

Different, surely. Better? I don't agree. I am willing to extend different out quite a ways but I don't see evidence of better. Sometimes what appears apparent is not so, take Fury for example. The man has one of the higher KO/stoppage percents as a heavy.

There are also examples where a guy like Toney held the division hostage,
that does not speak to better... At least not as far as I can see it.

One doesnt need to be always better as much as effective there can be a differance....Haye will be more effective at his second route here...at 210 he was obviously to small....will this change the outcome? maybe? point being you cannot go into a modern HW class and think you will be better suited being smaller....Tyson is literally the only example I can think of skill wise of someone getting away with it.Fury has not k.od anyone of note that he shouldn't have...I doubt he ever will.The lighter HW's may be better or look better gracefully but are they more effective?Well that's ones opinion.


Holyfield of mid 90's would own Toney...who lets be real never defeated anyone worth while at Hw when he fought them ,he put up good fights with Peter but stylistically it was fight where toney being about 230 pounds had the girth to stand in their with him he was slow footed but consistant like a gnat that wouldn't go away.But proved little as peter was not relatvley considered a top guy at that point anymore.

[billeau2]

Basically the more rounds, the LESS actual boxing there is and the more standing around.

I emphasise "standing" in anticipation of the next nut bag response which will target punch outputs which is another easily dispatched subject.

Basically it's the same revolving wheel of nut bag excuses, each of which avoiding the overall picture, each of which is smashed in quick succession, until after the whole wheel has been run through, the nut bag again starts at the beginning seemingly forgetting how badly beaten they were on the subject and trying to tuck it under the rug...

This "cyclical narrow focussed argumentative" style is the cornerstone of the nut bag attack and is best combatted by exposing it from an overview perspective rather than playing the game they way they want it played, answering their questions step by step.

OF course in reality it is the nut bag who makes the extraordinary claims here and who rightfully should be producing evidence.

OF course any such conversation would be extremely short as no nut bag has ever been able to formulate a coherent answer as to any realistic questions about their old school favourites.

Really? what proof of this principle do you have Elroy? by all means share it please. Sounds more like you are trying to argue with nonsense again...there is no indication that fighters fought less in 15 round contests.

[juggernaut666]

But these guys threw more punches in those rounds, generally speaking most fighters were well conditioned and more active than today. It would look to most people that they didn't need to pace themselves. They also fought in many different ranges when today we don't see those ranges utilized...

Another thing is that MMA by comparison has much slimmer looking heavyweights...I may have told you this, when the first sanctioned fights took place in San Francisco I saw the fighters up close because i had helped train some of our guys and Juggy, these guys looked really small! so I would question whether real progress has a relationship to size. The MMA guys are very active and are certainly privy to the training you speak of, it just looks like because of what they need to do in the ring they are more lean and mean.

In general they probably did..however modern HW's hold the records for most punches thrown....

David Bostice 121, against Ed Mahone 10th round
Lou Savarese 120, against Buster Mathis 1st round
Joe Mesi 118, against John Rainwater 2nd round
Sergei Liakhovich 116, against Friday Ahunanya 10th round
Sedreck Fields 116, against Willie Palms 5th round
Owen Beck 114, against George Arias 12th round
Juan Carlos Gomez 113, against Sinan Samil Sam 4th round
Sedreck Fields (again) 113, against Willie Palms 6th round
Corey Sanders 112, against James Gaines 9th round

The record for a heavyweight bout is Owen Beck with 1102 against George Arias on September 20, 2003overall punches.
The HW's are more than capable of such out puts. does this mean most are out of shape if they don't throw as many as the old schoolers? I would say no,they are carrying more mass ,so they have to be somewhat strong as well.

[juggernaut666]

Basically the more rounds, the LESS actual boxing there is and the more standing around.

I emphasise "standing" in anticipation of the next nut bag response which will target punch outputs which is another easily dispatched subject.

Basically it's the same revolving wheel of nut bag excuses, each of which avoiding the overall picture, each of which is smashed in quick succession, until after the whole wheel has been run through, the nut bag again starts at the beginning seemingly forgetting how badly beaten they were on the subject and trying to tuck it under the rug...

This "cyclical narrow focussed argumentative" style is the cornerstone of the nut bag attack and is best combatted by exposing it from an overview perspective rather than playing the game they way they want it played, answering their questions step by step.

OF course in reality it is the nut bag who makes the extraordinary claims here and who rightfully should be producing evidence.

OF course any such conversation would be extremely short as no nut bag has ever been able to formulate a coherent answer as to any realistic questions about their old school favourites.

Shorter time frames would be more action its like the toughman concept make the rnds one minute and bombs away......if this is in every weight class I do not know? but it for the most part has to have an effect from 15 to 12 rounds,in a more punches thrown amount...some fighters used to coast until those 13/15 rnds until they started to throw so?

[billeau2]

One doesnt need to be always better as much as effective there can be a differance....Haye will be more effective at his second route here...at 210 he was obviously to small....will this change the outcome? maybe? point being you cannot go into a modern HW class and think you will be better suited being smaller....Tyson is literally the only example I can think of skill wise of someone getting away with it.Fury has not k.od anyone of note that he shouldn't have...I doubt he ever will.The lighter HW's may be better or look better gracefully but are they more effective?Well that's ones opinion.


Holyfield of mid 90's would own Toney...who lets be real never defeated anyone worth while at Hw when he fought them ,he put up good fights with Peter but stylistically it was fight where toney being about 230 pounds had the girth to stand in their with him he was slow footed but consistant like a gnat that wouldn't go away.But proved little as peter was not relatvley considered a top guy at that point anymore.

90's Holyfield was an atg heavyweight....ironickly many had said that Evander would be too small thats just funny because Holly sure bulked up...but was never a super sized guy.

Toney beat fighters who were contenders at the time...I think that the basis of your argument works much better if you say something to the effect of, an aberation like a James Toney was sufficiently different and, as a throwb ack fighter could beat some of the average comp at that time. Where it gets problematic is asserting that there was something inherently evolved that made these guys superior...when they obviously were not. Peter was actually pretty good at that time the second time when he beat Toney he was probably in the best shape of his life...the proof was that he showed up the lightest he had ever been for a fight! Come on Juggy thats ironick!

With that said I agree with you that it does not suit one to go in lean and mean as a heavyweight. That certainly should not preoccupy one. I tend to see it as being in the range to compete. Big punchers like Tyson and Haye can be more mobile, on the smaller side of the range because it suits their strengths.

I do think many guys are too heavy though. If its fat and your gassing thats a problem...people like Chris Aeroala for example.

[billeau2]

In general they probably did..however modern HW's hold the records for most punches thrown....

David Bostice 121, against Ed Mahone 10th round
Lou Savarese 120, against Buster Mathis 1st round
Joe Mesi 118, against John Rainwater 2nd round
Sergei Liakhovich 116, against Friday Ahunanya 10th round
Sedreck Fields 116, against Willie Palms 5th round
Owen Beck 114, against George Arias 12th round
Juan Carlos Gomez 113, against Sinan Samil Sam 4th round
Sedreck Fields (again) 113, against Willie Palms 6th round
Corey Sanders 112, against James Gaines 9th round

The record for a heavyweight bout is Owen Beck with 1102 against George Arias on September 20, 2003overall punches.
The HW's are more than capable of such out puts. does this mean most are out of shape if they don't throw as many as the old schoolers? I would say no,they are carrying more mass ,so they have to be somewhat strong as well.

No punch output by itself would not indicate the shape of a fighter. Its all about training for the conditions one will encounter. I think one point of confusion is what one might call "coasting" can be viewed when looking at the real old timers. But these guys also grappled a lot, they had to make sure they did not break a hand, and set up attacks and defense from a greater distance. I do think these fights were fought at a slower pace...because of conditions primarily. It seems that hands breaking was a real problem for fighters back then...I read this somewhere.

[juggernaut666]

90's Holyfield was an atg heavyweight....ironickly many had said that Evander would be too small thats just funny because Holly sure bulked up...but was never a super sized guy.

Toney beat fighters who were contenders at the time...I think that the basis of your argument works much better if you say something to the effect of, an aberation like a James Toney was sufficiently different and, as a throwb ack fighter could beat some of the average comp at that time. Where it gets problematic is asserting that there was something inherently evolved that made these guys superior...when they obviously were not. Peter was actually pretty good at that time the second time when he beat Toney he was probably in the best shape of his life...the proof was that he showed up the lightest he had ever been for a fight! Come on Juggy thats ironick!

With that said I agree with you that it does not suit one to go in lean and mean as a heavyweight. That certainly should not preoccupy one. I tend to see it as being in the range to compete. Big punchers like Tyson and Haye can be more mobile, on the smaller side of the range because it suits their strengths.

I do think many guys are too heavy though. If its fat and your gassing thats a problem...people like Chris Aeroala for example.

Holy was tough, however he never actually beat a SHW that was relevant other than Foreman who was slow and maybe Mercer...Holyfield was maybe as close to perfect fighter as one can get, his main problem was long tall jabbers...He beat Bowe once but that's maybe his top win. he surley would have been more successful at cruiserweight, with less competiton and much weaker punchers along with having less to deal with rangy fighters.Toney never beat anyone of note we all know this, certainly don't think beating a fighter way past prime is anything special also considering Toney rarely took solid shots and had excellent defense ,I find it hard to believe Holyfield after Lewis had much left, without that footwork he relied on he was done he slowed down tremendously no matter what shape was in ,Toney fought in the pocket and didn't have to really move anywhere so advantage...Toney .In short Holyfield could look good against Valuev rather easy b/c of how extremely slow he was and less talented...im not really sure what any 2000's Holyfield proves no matter what he would weigh?


I don't consider Arreola the top heap of the division maybe at some poinhe was,he was a pretty good track star and basketball player...I don't recall him ever gassing ,he was a pretty good athlete like Toney very deceptive looking. The thing with Toney is hes not structured to carry 230 plus pounds at 5'11 but it makes him very difficult to take out.Looking at te current stack of the heap you have extrely in shape guys...Haye /Wilder/ Povetkin Klitchko /Joshua/Parker/ Pulev / Arias / Chisora/ the Bowe look alike I forgot his name...there are many in shape guys...and even Fury who is also deceiving looking.

[juggernaut666]

No punch output by itself would not indicate the shape of a fighter. Its all about training for the conditions one will encounter. I think one point of confusion is what one might call "coasting" can be viewed when looking at the real old timers. But these guys also grappled a lot, they had to make sure they did not break a hand, and set up attacks and defense from a greater distance. I do think these fights were fought at a slower pace...because of conditions primarily. It seems that hands breaking was a real problem for fighters back then...I read this somewhere.

If you can punch that many punches in a fight that's a clear indication of the shape someones in if anything. Well grappling was allowed more in those days,however does it take more out you ,or does it give you more rest?I think its probably both bt you cant go by grappling,isnt that is what todays division is most noted for? I think theres more grappling today but it gets broken up more,so its a what if? I do agree that its the conditions of the eras..however that's the point...the myth todays fighters are out of shape isn't really true...they may breath heavier but so does any bigger guy who has to intake more oxygen.....the smaller fighter can beat a bigger one but that's also depending on the individual.

[The Old LefHook]

"Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for their elders, and love chatter in
places of exercise. They no longer rise when elders enter the room.
They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their
food and tyrannize their teachers."

Socrates c. 415 B.C.

[Elroy1]

Really? what proof of this principle do you have Elroy? by all means share it please. Sounds more like you are trying to argue with nonsense again...there is no indication that fighters fought less in 15 round contests.

Nice try.

It not only makes for sound common sense, but it is also observable from any sample of fights.

In fact the same is true today even without invoking old time nut baggery. What I mean is it can be seen that the pace of amateur boxing is fought more furiously for less rounds than are todays 12 rounders overall.

If you don't like my empirical evidence of observation and anecdotal common sense then you can add in your own favourite, word of mouth from those real boxing men I have encountered on the subject..

Of course all nut bag sources of repute would deny it because it represents a serious blow to their agenda.