Wlad was never better

[Elroy1]

Except the combos thrown by prutty little ross, And and Brewwwwwster and Sanders....

And thankyou for reminding us all of your idiocy, because everyone who's seen that fight, or will subsequently watch it after reading your post will know that...

Wladimir one-sidedly delivered 2 of the most handsome bashings to Ross Puritty and Lamon Brewster captured on film in these loss fights, whilst barely getting hit.

Gassing was the ONLY reason he lost to Puritty, Life threatening illness was the ONLY reason he lost to Brewster. Combinations had absolutely nothing to do with it!

Sanders and Wladimir were BOTH involved in a slugfest when the sandwich hook+headbutt occurred from which Wladimir never recoverd.

If you want to CALL than combination punching (which most wouldn't) then I would argue it's precisely BECAUSE Wladimir chose to use them as well, that he LOST!

[TBear]

Hard to realistically compare the present Wlad to Wlad in his prime by the opponents he is fighting now. Doesn't anyone think a prime Wlad would have been very impressive against guys like Pianeta, Leapai and Pulev?

[Ryn0]

Because I will KNOW that even though these were the boxers of my generation, I KNOW that as time goes by, boxers get better and better, athletes get stronger and faster.. And that's just how things roll!

I'd just like to point out that this isn't necessarily true, Sports Illustrated's former senior investigative reporter I believe some people might know him for uncovering Alex Rodriguez (Don't know anything about baseball don't know who he is) and his steroid use conducted a historical study on the progression of runners and the like.

Athletes aren't actually progressing quickly at all, you will get a few and it is very few exceptional individuals such as Usain Bolt that break the mould but it is actually the advancement of sports technology that has been responsible for the majority of the huge leaps in sports.

For example Jesse Owens ran on Cinders without starting blocks (he had holes dug in the dirt) had he been able to use modern shoes/tracks and blocks he would actually have been the second fastest man to ever run 100m based on analysis of his stride speed, joint speed.

The 4 minute mile was first run in 1954, by 2013 1,314 people had done it. When it was first run it was done on cinders rather than tracks (which is slower by 1.5% per stride) the numbers cuts to 530 due to more intelligent training (Rodger Bannister used to train 45 mins a day in between classes supposedly) and the odd exceptional individual.

If you look at swimming though the times are always decreasing they are punctuated by huge downward cliffs with the advent of things like 'flip turning', introduction of gutters at the side of the pool, introduction of full body swimwear.

The longest distance on bike in an hour was just over 30 miles in 1972 if you discount new bike technology, roads, aerodynmaic clothing. In 1996 the record was over 35 miles until the rules were changed in that you had to do the hour long ride with the same equipment as in 1972. The record is now 900 feet better than that set in 1972.

Athletes as a whole aren't actually improving a huge amount. New Gloves, shoes, ring surface is. And we have a few exceptional boxers (and performance enhancing drugs for some of them) but largely the athlete remains unchanged aside from smarter training.

[TBear]

I'd just like to point out that this isn't necessarily true, Sports Illustrated's former senior investigative reporter I believe some people might know him for uncovering Alex Rodriguez (Don't know anything about baseball don't know who he is) and his steroid use conducted a historical study on the progression of runners and the like.

Athletes aren't actually progressing quickly at all, you will get a few and it is very few exceptional individuals such as Usain Bolt that break the mould but it is actually the advancement of sports technology that has been responsible for the majority of the huge leaps in sports.

For example Jesse Owens ran on Cinders without starting blocks (he had holes dug in the dirt) had he been able to use modern shoes/tracks and blocks he would actually have been the second fastest man to ever run 100m based on analysis of his stride speed, joint speed.

The 4 minute mile was first run in 1954, by 2013 1,314 people had done it. When it was first run it was done on cinders rather than tracks (which is slower by 1.5% per stride) the numbers cuts to 530 due to more intelligent training (Rodger Bannister used to train 45 mins a day in between classes supposedly) and the odd exceptional individual.

If you look at swimming though the times are always decreasing they are punctuated by huge downward cliffs with the advent of things like 'flip turning', introduction of gutters at the side of the pool, introduction of full body swimwear.

The longest distance on bike in an hour was just over 30 miles in 1972 if you discount new bike technology, roads, aerodynmaic clothing. In 1996 the record was 1996 until the rules were changed in that you had to do the hour long ride with the same equipment as in 1972. The record is now 900 feet better than that set in 1972.

Athletes as a whole aren't actually improving a huge amount. New Gloves, shoes, ring surface is. And we have a few exceptional boxers (and performance enhancing drugs for some of them) but largely the athlete remains unchanged aside from smarter training.

Very interesting.

[Guest]

Very interesting.

I'd just like to point out that this isn't necessarily true, Sports Illustrated's former senior investigative reporter I believe some people might know him for uncovering Alex Rodriguez (Don't know anything about baseball don't know who he is) and his steroid use conducted a historical study on the progression of runners and the like.

Athletes aren't actually progressing quickly at all, you will get a few and it is very few exceptional individuals such as Usain Bolt that break the mould but it is actually the advancement of sports technology that has been responsible for the majority of the huge leaps in sports.

For example Jesse Owens ran on Cinders without starting blocks (he had holes dug in the dirt) had he been able to use modern shoes/tracks and blocks he would actually have been the second fastest man to ever run 100m based on analysis of his stride speed, joint speed.

The 4 minute mile was first run in 1954, by 2013 1,314 people had done it. When it was first run it was done on cinders rather than tracks (which is slower by 1.5% per stride) the numbers cuts to 530 due to more intelligent training (Rodger Bannister used to train 45 mins a day in between classes supposedly) and the odd exceptional individual.

If you look at swimming though the times are always decreasing they are punctuated by huge downward cliffs with the advent of things like 'flip turning', introduction of gutters at the side of the pool, introduction of full body swimwear.

The longest distance on bike in an hour was just over 30 miles in 1972 if you discount new bike technology, roads, aerodynmaic clothing. In 1996 the record was 1996 until the rules were changed in that you had to do the hour long ride with the same equipment as in 1972. The record is now 900 feet better than that set in 1972.

Athletes as a whole aren't actually improving a huge amount. New Gloves, shoes, ring surface is. And we have a few exceptional boxers (and performance enhancing drugs for some of them) but largely the athlete remains unchanged aside from smarter training.

Very good post. I think if you look at the history of mankind humans haven't evolved that much especially in a 50 year time period. If we go back 1000 years yeah maybe but not in such a short time span.

[Elroy1]

I'd just like to point out that this isn't necessarily true, Sports Illustrated's former senior investigative reporter I believe some people might know him for uncovering Alex Rodriguez (Don't know anything about baseball don't know who he is) and his steroid use conducted a historical study on the progression of runners and the like.

Athletes aren't actually progressing quickly at all, you will get a few and it is very few exceptional individuals such as Usain Bolt that break the mould but it is actually the advancement of sports technology that has been responsible for the majority of the huge leaps in sports.

For example Jesse Owens ran on Cinders without starting blocks (he had holes dug in the dirt) had he been able to use modern shoes/tracks and blocks he would actually have been the second fastest man to ever run 100m based on analysis of his stride speed, joint speed.

The 4 minute mile was first run in 1954, by 2013 1,314 people had done it. When it was first run it was done on cinders rather than tracks (which is slower by 1.5% per stride) the numbers cuts to 530 due to more intelligent training (Rodger Bannister used to train 45 mins a day in between classes supposedly) and the odd exceptional individual.

If you look at swimming though the times are always decreasing they are punctuated by huge downward cliffs with the advent of things like 'flip turning', introduction of gutters at the side of the pool, introduction of full body swimwear.

The longest distance on bike in an hour was just over 30 miles in 1972 if you discount new bike technology, roads, aerodynmaic clothing. In 1996 the record was over 35 miles until the rules were changed in that you had to do the hour long ride with the same equipment as in 1972. The record is now 900 feet better than that set in 1972.

Athletes as a whole aren't actually improving a huge amount. New Gloves, shoes, ring surface is. And we have a few exceptional boxers (and performance enhancing drugs for some of them) but largely the athlete remains unchanged aside from smarter training.

I've never seen you before but it was very interesting and a very good post which I gave you green K for.

I agree that human evolution is not the reason at all I promote for athletes improving.

The improved or different conditions (things like surfaces, shoes etc) and also changes in the rules (like your example of swimming) obviously affect the recorded established performance standards by which athletes are measured.

SOME changes I would like to point out actually penalise modern athletes compared with olden days ones. For example bigger gloves today hamper speed and punch damage and endurance compared with smaller ones.

This isn't what I'm referring to though when I claim athletes have improved.

Your comment that the longest distance on a bike in an hour being in 1972 though is definitely related to what I am claiming, which I'm not saying is mistaken, simply that it's amazing if that record still stands today.

But that is itself a special example.

The general straight forward observation is that over time, all records in say weightlifting and running (sprints and distance) have been steadily broken over time. As the limits of human performance are infringed upon, perhaps the difference in the records being broken might become progressively less. A few hundreths of a second count now whereas 50 years ago only tenths of a second did etc.

I attribute all progression in athletes to sports science, nutritional science, the technology developed from these used to assist the athleses train better, and the methods derived from this inquiry used to train an athlete now. (And of course the increasing and more sophisticated use of pharmaceuticals).

This is what I mean by athletes get stronger and faster. The "special examples" are the ones from the past who did exceptionally well despite being hampered by era.

[Ryn0]

The general straight forward observation is that over time, all records in say weightlifting and running (sprints and distance) have been steadily broken over time. As the limits of human performance are infringed upon, perhaps the difference in the records being broken might become progressively less. A few hundreths of a second count now whereas 50 years ago only tenths of a second did etc.

I attribute all progression in athletes to sports science, nutritional science, the technology developed from these used to assist the athleses train better, and the methods derived from this inquiry used to train an athlete now. (And of course the increasing and more sophisticated use of pharmaceuticals).

This is what I mean by athletes get stronger and faster. The "special examples" are the ones from the past who did exceptionally well despite being hampered by era.

I've been posting for a very long time, I tend to stay away from NSB now due to the sheer amount of alts and idiots.

It is never claimed that it was human evolution that caused any of the improvements at all. Merely that sport science, technology etc. are the causes for these improvements in most athletes except the truly exceptional ones.

My point about was really that you cannot compare eras based on athleticism, because had Ray Robinson been a boxer in this era then he would be have access to all the advantages that a modern day boxer has and vice versa and he wouldn't be training for 15 rounds fights etc. For example imagine just putting a modern day champion boxer in a 15 round fought against a world champion used to fighting 15 rounds. If neither fighting stopped the other in the first 12 rounds then who would you expect to do better in most cases in the final 3 rounds? Is it because the older fighters are fitter? Or because the train differently?

It is why when people say athletes are getting stronger, faster etc. if you transplant the conditions that athletes competed in they often do either similar or worse.

I wouldn't say Gloves etc. are a disadvantage today. They protect fighters hands far more than they used and it works both ways if someone doesn't punch as hard because of gloves surely it means it is harder to get knocked out by someone else? The British Medical Association looked at this actually and found that since the advent of the modern boxing glove boxers were punching harder to the head because there was less risk of hurting their hands (turns out force put into a punch matters more than the force taken out of it by the extra padding if you can follow my train of thought).

[Elroy1]

I've been posting for a very long time, I tend to stay away from NSB now due to the sheer amount of alts and idiots.

It is never claimed that it was human evolution that caused any of the improvements at all. Merely that sport science, technology etc. are the causes for these improvements in most athletes except the truly exceptional ones.

My point about was really that you cannot compare eras based on athleticism, because had Ray Robinson been a boxer in this era then he would be have access to all the advantages that a modern day boxer has and vice versa and he wouldn't be training for 15 rounds fights etc. For example imagine just putting a modern day champion boxer in a 15 round fought against a world champion used to fighting 15 rounds. If neither fighting stopped the other in the first 12 rounds then who would you expect to do better in most cases in the final 3 rounds? Is it because the older fighters are fitter? Or because the train differently?

It is why when people say athletes are getting stronger, faster etc. if you transplant the conditions that athletes competed in they often do either similar or worse.

I wouldn't say Gloves etc. are a disadvantage today. They protect fighters hands far more than they used and it works both ways if someone doesn't punch as hard because of gloves surely it means it is harder to get knocked out by someone else? The British Medical Association looked at this actually and found that since the advent of the modern boxing glove boxers were punching harder to the head because there was less risk of hurting their hands (turns out force put into a punch matters more than the force taken out of it by the extra padding if you can follow my train of thought).

That was a decent point regarding the gloves protecting the hands and allowing them to punch harder because of it. And I would agree with that.

Yes I understood your other point too of the specificity of training to the sport in different eras as it itself undergoes change.

However I think the training today is far in advance of any that was performed for boxing and was more specific for it than the stuff done even back in the day.

Often older posters point to the fact fighters fought more rounds previously and seemed to have a higher workrate on average. But that is a cherrypicked statistic.

Since HW' boxing as opposed to limit weight boxing is a sport where you can be successful if you are athletic OR chubby both (both have merits, depending on style conditions), we will only examine the "athletic" types first.

It can't be argued that modern boxers have a higher VO2max than past ones, which is the ultimate measure of intrinsic fitness. The reason why they seem to gas easier regardless of this is that by far the biggest measure of "ring-stamina" is size of the boxer. A bigger guy consumes far more oxygen than a little one for similar movements, but everybody knows a bigger guy compensates with other qualities. A punch is not a punch if you know what I mean.

Also, despite being more conditioned, a more muscular boxer most times gasses faster than a chubby one! Because muscles consume far more oxygen than fat does!

I think any good HW can go any number of rounds really if they fight at an appropriate pace. You could claim a smaller olden days boxer might push the pace on the bigger boxer to tire him out. But I would argue that usually that would get him knocked out.

The bigger guy can also apply his weight to the smaller boxer, tiring HIM out faster.

[Ryn0]

That was a decent point regarding the gloves protecting the hands and allowing them to punch harder because of it. And I would agree with that.

Yes I understood your other point too of the specificity of training to the sport in different eras as it itself undergoes change.

However I think the training today is far in advance of any that was performed for boxing and was more specific for it than the stuff done even back in the day.

Often older posters point to the fact fighters fought more rounds previously and seemed to have a higher workrate on average. But that is a cherrypicked statistic.

Since HW' boxing as opposed to limit weight boxing is a sport where you can be successful if you are athletic OR chubby both (both have merits, depending on style conditions), we will only examine the "athletic" types first.

It can't be argued that modern boxers have a higher VO2max than past ones, which is the ultimate measure of intrinsic fitness. The reason why they seem to gas easier regardless of this is that by far the biggest measure of "ring-stamina" is size of the boxer. A bigger guy consumes far more oxygen than a little one for similar movements, but everybody knows a bigger guy compensates with other qualities. A punch is not a punch if you know what I mean.

Also, despite being more conditioned, a more muscular boxer most times gasses faster than a chubby one! Because muscles consume far more oxygen than fat does!

I think any good HW can go any number of rounds really if they fight at an appropriate pace. You could claim a smaller olden days boxer might push the pace on the bigger boxer to tire him out. But I would argue that usually that would get him knocked out.

The bigger guy can also apply his weight to the smaller boxer, tiring HIM out faster.

'Appropriate pace' is precisely the point, we are talking about training methods a modern day boxer trains for a 12 rounds fight. We are in your scenario literally transplanting a modern day fighting into a older era and vice versa so they pace they would fight at is a 12 round pace rather than 15. You see heavyweights even today tired when they reach the 12th round and since we know that excluding greater sport technology a 220lbs boxer today vs a 220 boxer 50 years ago would have very similar punching power pushing the pace and getting KO'd seems just as likely on both sides.

Also the idea that a more muscular boxer tires than a chubby one is absolutely 100% ridiculous. It might be the case at the extremes such as bodybuilder type boxer but if this were the case then all boxers would be chubby, and endurance athletes as a whole would be chubby. A muscular body that trains for explosiveness, power with no endurance may tire quicker but look at the bodies of athletes that do ultra marathons, of the bodies of elite tennis players that can go for 5 hour matches and play many of these over a grand slam period, marathon runners haven't an ounce of body fat on them. It is absolutely not true that more muscular people tire faster, if they are trained for endurance their hearts are bigger, stronger, require less BPM to pump oxygen around the body, their muscles also become more efficient at using oxygen and dealing with lactic acid build up.

It can also be completely argued against that modern days boxers have a higher VO2 max. What evidence do you have outside of your assumption? We have established that outside of very few exceptions few athletes are actually greater than past athletes it would make sense than some modern day athletes have a greater VO2 max. Also had you read Tim Vokes study on VO2 max you would know its limitations in predicting aerobic performance because of movement and running economy and mental fatigue which is why the athlete with the higher VO2 max is not always the one who wins a race. In endurance sport VO2 economy is actually just as important.

Additionally the argument was athletes are not improving as quickly or as drastically as most people think in terms of their athletic performance in sports. Not that athletes aren't getting bigger. It is undeniable that in sports where it is an advantage athletes are getting bigger what tactics they would use (lean on therm etc.) can vary with the fighter but we aren't talking about specific fighters just athletes.

[Elroy1]

'Appropriate pace' is precisely the point, we are talking about training methods a modern day boxer trains for a 12 rounds fight. We are in your scenario literally transplanting a modern day fighting into a older era and vice versa so they pace they would fight at is a 12 round pace rather than 15. You see heavyweights even today tired when they reach the 12th round and since we know that excluding greater sport technology a 220lbs boxer today vs a 220 boxer 50 years ago would have very similar punching power pushing the pace and getting KO'd seems just as likely on both sides.

Also the idea that a more muscular boxer tires than a chubby one is absolutely 100% ridiculous. It might be the case at the extremes such as bodybuilder type boxer but if this were the case then all boxers would be chubby, and endurance athletes as a whole would be chubby. A muscular body that trains for explosiveness, power with no endurance may tire quicker but look at the bodies of athletes that do ultra marathons, of the bodies of elite tennis players that can go for 5 hour matches and play many of these over a grand slam period, marathon runners haven't an ounce of body fat on them. It is absolutely not true that more muscular people tire faster, if they are trained for endurance their hearts are bigger, stronger, require less BPM to pump oxygen around the body, their muscles also become more efficient at using oxygen and dealing with lactic acid build up.

It can also be completely argued against that modern days boxers have a higher VO2 max. What evidence do you have outside of your assumption? We have established that outside of very few exceptions few athletes are actually greater than past athletes it would make sense than some modern day athletes have a greater VO2 max. Also had you read Tim Vokes study on VO2 max you would know its limitations in predicting aerobic performance because of movement and running economy and mental fatigue which is why the athlete with the higher VO2 max is not always the one who wins a race. In endurance sport VO2 economy is actually just as important.

Additionally the argument was athletes are not improving as quickly or as drastically as most people think in terms of their athletic performance in sports. Not that athletes aren't getting bigger. It is undeniable that in sports where it is an advantage athletes are getting bigger what tactics they would use (lean on therm etc.) can vary with the fighter but we aren't talking about specific fighters just athletes.

- The reason I brought up size here, is because the specific example you provided about the number of rounds is inescapably linked to output which when considering ring stamina is inescapably linked to size. If your argument was that the athletes are not imporving as quickly or drastically then I have no real argument there, as long as it is acknowledged they ARE improving in general.

- We can test VO2max of boxers today but not yesterday for a direct comparison, that's true. VO2max records are increasing as are the records of every kind of endurance event. Yes, sure, I never said it was perfect but the oxygen uptake test is still the established measure, and running is the most natural athletic activity. We are built for it.

- You would THINK that the chubbier guy was always worse but it simply isn't true in boxing and I'll elaborate. For a start, how often do you see chubby boxers gas? Not too often! How often do you see the muscular boxers gas? Much more often! Straight forward end point evidence shows something is up here. Now follow me more closely, I am not claiming that a chubby bloke down the pub, couch potato or obese boxer has better ring stamina than an athletic one.

What I am implying is that, given the same weight & height and (key) similar conditioning, but one guy is all muscle and the other less muscles and the rest made up in fat, the chubbier one can punch more and for longer, because the energy required to move that extra fat is not as much as the energy for the extra muscle to move itself, the muscles are far more metabolically taxing. Notice I claimed similar conditioning. I would actually argue that muscle size is probably more important factor than the conditioning anyhow but I wanted to make it clear I was not talking about lazy HW's who don't train, I'm referring to the ones that do train hard, they are just chubby because they eat more than they burn. Chris Arreola is the prime example of this, he is a big guy who is chibby, he fights hard for 12 rounds. WK is even bigger, all muscles and in elite condition but gasses if he exerts too much.

- I think the pacing "strategy" for fighting 15 rounds to 12 would be little different but even still that would be the only thing different there. The TRAINING I understand the point you are making, that it should be specific to the event (more rounds, more endurance, less rounds, more explosion etc), but I also think the modern training methods is specifically better even for 15 rounds, even for 20 maybe!

Olden days training (pre Michael Spinks HW) was simply terrible and non specific to the event of boxing. I AGREE with you that past boxers coming to the future and vice verse completely skews the comparison, I compare them as they were and what they had. Your comment regarding a 220lb boxer now vs then was valid of course, except by definition, the 220lb boxers of the past were considered giant and DID gas (Foreman 218lbs), today they are considered small and don't (Jennings 226lbs) and the fact that the boxers now and then are clearly NOT the same size, which as I stated, is where the fallacy of the past boxers could fight more rounds, past boxers have better stamina come from. Only if you define stamina by how many punches you can throw during those rounds do the oldies win out but that is a cherry picked stat because a 250lb punch is much different from a 200lb punch in enery and effects.