Tweet
Especially when judging / evaluating / rating modern heavyweights by ancient standards.
Modern heavyweights are vastly different. The idea that because they lack the attributes which ancient heavyweights mostly possessed, that they are comparatively inferior is a false equivalence logical fallacy. The modern heavyweights are bigger in size and therefore, what they lack compared to ancient heavyweights, they make up for with other attributes which ancient heavyweights lacked.
Furthermore, most of the ancient heavyweights wouldn't even qualify as heavyweights today and they don't even have much feats against boxers that are of the weight and size of the average heavyweight today. Therefore, those ancient standards are outdated to evaluate modern heavyweights because modern heavyweights are significantly different from those ancient heavyweights in terms of characteristics and styles. Thus, modern heavyweights should instead be evaluated based on the system of boxing that has proven to be effective in modern heavyweight boxing.
Typical examples of discrediting modern heavyweights by listing advantages which ancient heavyweights possessed compared to modern ones:
1) Ancient heavyweights can box for more rounds unlike modern ones. Therefore, modern heavyweights are better.
My first response: Ancient heavyweights were the same size as modern cruiser weights / light heavyweights on average. Therefore, the more logical comparison to be to compare ancient heavyweights to modern cruiser weights / light heavyweights and modern cruiserweights / light heavyweights can box for just as long as ancient ones.
My second response: Modern heavyweights don't need to box for as many rounds as ancient heavyweights because modern heavyweights more frequently KO / stop their opponents earlier whilst taking less time.
2) Ancient heavyweights throw more punches per round on average compared to modern heavyweights.
My 1st response: Modern cruiser weights / light heavyweights (who are more comparable to ancient heavyweights) roughly throw just as many punches on average compared to ancient heavyweights.
My 2nd response: Modern heavyweights don't need to throw as many punches as ancient heavyweights because every punch modern heavyweights land on their opponents usually inflict more damage compared to the damage inflicted by ancient heavyweights on their opponents when they land the same number of punches. Thus, modern heavyweights tend to score knockouts whilst landing less punches whilst ancient heavyweights need to land more punches.
3) Modern heavyweights are overweight and out of shape compared to ancient heavyweights.
My 1st response: Modern cruiser weights / light heavyweights (who are more comparable to ancient heavyweights) are on average, in even better looking shape compared to ancient heavyweights.
My 2nd response: At heavyweight boxing, the physical aesthetic of a boxer's body doesn't correlate with the boxer's conditioning. A boxer can look fat and be well conditioned. On the other hand, a boxer can look athletic with less fat and be in inferior condition. Fat boxers rarely have as much stamina problems in heavyweight boxing compared to muscular looking athletic boxers. Therefore, what matters ultimately is not the physical aesthetics of a heavyweight boxer, but their level of conditioning, irrespective of how much or how little fat they have.
My 3rd response: At heavyweight boxing above 200 pounds where boxers can be outweighed by an unlimited amount of weight or outweigh their opponents by an unlimited amount of weight. There isn't any direct evidence that not being aesthetically pleasing or having more fat than others is a disadvantage. Fat in the heavyweight division, unlike in any other weight division can actually be an advantage. Much like how fat is usually an advantage in other sports. Such as sumo wrestling, shot put, weight lifting and strong man competitions.
4) Ancient heavyweights are faster than modern heavyweights.
My 1st response: Modern cruiser weights / light heavyweights (who are more comparable to ancient heavyweights) are just as fast, if not faster compared to ancient heavyweights on average.
My 2nd response: Ancient heavyweights being faster doesn't make them better. Nor does it increase their chances of beating modern heavyweights. Much like how boxers like Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather Jr, Roy Jones Jr are even faster compared to modern heavyweights but their chances of beating the best modern heavyweights are just as low. Modern heavyweights can make up for their lack of speed through their advantages in power and physical strength.
5) Ancient heavyweights were involved in more entertaining bouts because their bouts were more competitive with more punch exchanges between the boxers.
My response: That's evidence of inferior boxing skills simply because if they were more skilled, they wouldn't need to exchange as much as they could and would rather be able to hit and not get hit. Modern heavyweights fulfill this criteria better since they are not ONLY able to hit their opponents whilst getting hit less themselves, but they are able to destroy their opponents whilst rarely getting hit. On the other hand, ancient heavyweights on the contrary would need to more often get involved in brawls which included hitting and getting hit by both boxers = evidence of lacking boxing skills.
Modern heavyweights are vastly different. The idea that because they lack the attributes which ancient heavyweights mostly possessed, that they are comparatively inferior is a false equivalence logical fallacy. The modern heavyweights are bigger in size and therefore, what they lack compared to ancient heavyweights, they make up for with other attributes which ancient heavyweights lacked.
Furthermore, most of the ancient heavyweights wouldn't even qualify as heavyweights today and they don't even have much feats against boxers that are of the weight and size of the average heavyweight today. Therefore, those ancient standards are outdated to evaluate modern heavyweights because modern heavyweights are significantly different from those ancient heavyweights in terms of characteristics and styles. Thus, modern heavyweights should instead be evaluated based on the system of boxing that has proven to be effective in modern heavyweight boxing.
Typical examples of discrediting modern heavyweights by listing advantages which ancient heavyweights possessed compared to modern ones:
1) Ancient heavyweights can box for more rounds unlike modern ones. Therefore, modern heavyweights are better.
My first response: Ancient heavyweights were the same size as modern cruiser weights / light heavyweights on average. Therefore, the more logical comparison to be to compare ancient heavyweights to modern cruiser weights / light heavyweights and modern cruiserweights / light heavyweights can box for just as long as ancient ones.
My second response: Modern heavyweights don't need to box for as many rounds as ancient heavyweights because modern heavyweights more frequently KO / stop their opponents earlier whilst taking less time.
2) Ancient heavyweights throw more punches per round on average compared to modern heavyweights.
My 1st response: Modern cruiser weights / light heavyweights (who are more comparable to ancient heavyweights) roughly throw just as many punches on average compared to ancient heavyweights.
My 2nd response: Modern heavyweights don't need to throw as many punches as ancient heavyweights because every punch modern heavyweights land on their opponents usually inflict more damage compared to the damage inflicted by ancient heavyweights on their opponents when they land the same number of punches. Thus, modern heavyweights tend to score knockouts whilst landing less punches whilst ancient heavyweights need to land more punches.
3) Modern heavyweights are overweight and out of shape compared to ancient heavyweights.
My 1st response: Modern cruiser weights / light heavyweights (who are more comparable to ancient heavyweights) are on average, in even better looking shape compared to ancient heavyweights.
My 2nd response: At heavyweight boxing, the physical aesthetic of a boxer's body doesn't correlate with the boxer's conditioning. A boxer can look fat and be well conditioned. On the other hand, a boxer can look athletic with less fat and be in inferior condition. Fat boxers rarely have as much stamina problems in heavyweight boxing compared to muscular looking athletic boxers. Therefore, what matters ultimately is not the physical aesthetics of a heavyweight boxer, but their level of conditioning, irrespective of how much or how little fat they have.
My 3rd response: At heavyweight boxing above 200 pounds where boxers can be outweighed by an unlimited amount of weight or outweigh their opponents by an unlimited amount of weight. There isn't any direct evidence that not being aesthetically pleasing or having more fat than others is a disadvantage. Fat in the heavyweight division, unlike in any other weight division can actually be an advantage. Much like how fat is usually an advantage in other sports. Such as sumo wrestling, shot put, weight lifting and strong man competitions.
4) Ancient heavyweights are faster than modern heavyweights.
My 1st response: Modern cruiser weights / light heavyweights (who are more comparable to ancient heavyweights) are just as fast, if not faster compared to ancient heavyweights on average.
My 2nd response: Ancient heavyweights being faster doesn't make them better. Nor does it increase their chances of beating modern heavyweights. Much like how boxers like Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather Jr, Roy Jones Jr are even faster compared to modern heavyweights but their chances of beating the best modern heavyweights are just as low. Modern heavyweights can make up for their lack of speed through their advantages in power and physical strength.
5) Ancient heavyweights were involved in more entertaining bouts because their bouts were more competitive with more punch exchanges between the boxers.
My response: That's evidence of inferior boxing skills simply because if they were more skilled, they wouldn't need to exchange as much as they could and would rather be able to hit and not get hit. Modern heavyweights fulfill this criteria better since they are not ONLY able to hit their opponents whilst getting hit less themselves, but they are able to destroy their opponents whilst rarely getting hit. On the other hand, ancient heavyweights on the contrary would need to more often get involved in brawls which included hitting and getting hit by both boxers = evidence of lacking boxing skills.
Comment