Will people ever STOP OVERRATING old primitive era boxers with little skill?

[PRINCEKOOL]

Boxers at elite level have become less aggressive, less offensively minded. Boxing has become at elite level 'A feeling out process'. I honestly think inside fighting, rough house tactics, and body punching has regressed in the past 30 years 'The regression has speed up in the past 2 decades to unprecedented levels'.

And people in this thread, are? Using buzzwords such as distance control, technique. To try and make out, that fighters fight this way because they have evolved. As I have said on this thread or maybe another.

Technology and sports science has improved, but the actual quality of athletes participating in the sport has not. Even with all this technology, all the high tech supplements fighters are still turning up out of condition.

The evidence that they are superior condition wise, is not proven. Fighters where fighting 15 rounds pre- mid 1980's, and even before than 'Did fights not last over 30-40 rounds? Fights would just continue until one of the opponents could fight no more'. You cannot be ignorant to those type of fighting requirements, you cannot just passively ignore what it would take to compete under those conditions.

Fighters of past era's in my opinion, were more specifically trained for fighting. There training was mainly based around getting as fit as possible. There was no culture of body building or vanity.

This can be seen with the heavyweights of the 1970's, who were a lot bigger than people make out 'All those fighters where boiling down to fight weight, while these days? Fighters have a obsession with pumping themselves up'. I specifically remember a weigh in between Muhammad Ali & Ken Norton. Ali was boasting because he was at a light weight, he may have been at 212 pounds'. That right there just shows how the culture of training has changed.

It was all about endurance and fitness going back in past era's.

Who actually pursues boxing these days? Honestly take a look around in your life, and look at the type of people who are pursing the sports. I am not knocking these people, but analysed actually why they are doing the sport. The participation levels and talent pool demographic has dramatically change over the past decades 'The reason why people pursue the sport has change, especially in certain countries'.

Boxing pre-1960s was the biggest Global sport in the world. It was pretty much the only Global sport 'Along with the traditional Olympic Sports'. In fact, I have never classed boxing as a sport or leisure activity. I have always classed it as a survival mechanism 'It is not a leisure activity, and should never truly be classed as a sport'.

Sport science and technology in boxing for me has created a big giant smoke screen. Yes there are some great athletes in the sport, and those fighters will stand out brightly. They will usually be accused of performance enhancing drugs or heavily mocked.

Note: Forget the conditioning. I wanted to highlight in this post, that when you look at fights technically these days. Many fights at elite level are a feeling out process, two fighters that don't want to fight 'They just want to score points'. The higher you go up in the levels, there is less aggression.

I am not sure why this is, culture, training changes, or type of athlete in the sport.

I am not claiming 100% that modern fighters or past fighters are superior. I am just pointing out, that it is not quite as clear as people think. The game is forever changing, I guess it is like Tennis 'No expert but, you don't get players wanting to come to the net anymore, everything his from the back court'.

Even the classical boxers going back in history, could fight. Muhammad Ali could dance and sting, but his fight vs George Foreman was a pivotal moment for inside fighting. Ali beat Foreman up from start to finish, I have never bought into the myth that he was hanging on and taking punishment.

Ken Norton after a few rounds, even predicted that Muhammad Ali was going to stop Foreman.

[Ascended]

Boxers at elite level have become less aggressive, less offensively minded. Boxing has become at elite level 'A feeling out process'. I honestly think inside fighting, rough house tactics, and body punching has regressed in the past 30 years 'The regression has speed up in the past 2 decades to unprecedented levels'.

And people in this thread, are? Using buzzwords such as distance control, technique. To try and make out, that fighters fight this way because they have evolved. As I have said on this thread or maybe another.

Technology and sports science has improved, but the actual quality of athletes participating in the sport has not. Even with all this technology, all the high tech supplements fighters are still turning up out of condition.

The evidence that they are superior condition wise, is not proven. Fighters where fighting 15 rounds pre- mid 1980's, and even before than 'Did fights not last over 30-40 rounds? Fights would just continue until one of the opponents could fight no more'. You cannot be ignorant to those type of fighting requirements, you cannot just passively ignore what it would take to compete under those conditions.

Fighters of past era's in my opinion, were more specifically trained for fighting. There training was mainly based around getting as fit as possible. There was no culture of body building or vanity.

This can be seen with the heavyweights of the 1970's, who were a lot bigger than people make out 'All those fighters where boiling down to fight weight, while these days? Fighters have a obsession with pumping themselves up'. I specifically remember a weigh in between Muhammad Ali & Ken Norton. Ali was boasting because he was at a light weight, he may have been at 212 pounds'. That right there just shows how the culture of training has changed.

It was all about endurance and fitness going back in past era's.

Who actually pursues boxing these days? Honestly take a look around in your life, and look at the type of people who are pursing the sports. I am not knocking these people, but analysed actually why they are doing the sport. The participation levels and talent pool demographic has dramatically change over the past decades 'The reason why people pursue the sport has change, especially in certain countries'.

Boxing pre-1960s was the biggest Global sport in the world. It was pretty much the only Global sport 'Along with the traditional Olympic Sports'. In fact, I have never classed boxing as a sport or leisure activity. I have always classed it as a survival mechanism 'It is not a leisure activity, and should never truly be classed as a sport'.

Sport science and technology in boxing for me has created a big giant smoke screen. Yes there are some great athletes in the sport, and those fighters will stand out brightly. They will usually be accused of performance enhancing drugs or heavily mocked.

Note: Forget the conditioning. I wanted to highlight in this post, that when you look at fights technically these days. Many fights at elite level are a feeling out process, two fighters that don't want to fight 'They just want to score points'. The higher you go up in the levels, there is less aggression.

I am not sure why this is, culture, training changes, or type of athlete in the sport.

I am not claiming 100% that modern fighters or past fighters are superior. I am just pointing out, that it is not quite as clear as people think. The game is forever changing, I guess it is like Tennis 'No expert but, you don't get players wanting to come to the net anymore, everything his from the back court'.

Even the classical boxers going back in history, could fight. Muhammad Ali could dance and sting, but his fight vs George Foreman was a pivotal moment for inside fighting. Ali beat Foreman up from start to finish, I have never bought into the myth that he was hanging on and taking punishment.

Ken Norton after a few rounds, even predicted that Muhammad Ali was going to stop Foreman.

Your slow the topic is primitive which means before 60s

so why are you saying 70s when its people there who could do good in other era's
pre 60s wouldnt do good they all would be destroyed by 70s-90s fighters unless they upgraded

And it is proven by vids cause anybody who can see good can see those pre 60s dudes are all trash compared movement and skill compared to 70s-90s

[billeau2]

Saying that "Liston's size was not the issue" is simply untrue given he was the bigger boxer in the vast majority of his bouts. Taller men also tend to have longer reaches and the ability to put more mass on their larger frame, so what point are you trying to make exactly?

Genetics determine all your attributes, not just mass. Environmental factors only affect to what degree you hit your maximum potential. In this case, modern era boxers have the benefit of superior nutrition, medicine and training methods which perfectly explains size increases over time. You could also argue that the material comforts provided by modern life allows children to specialise in athletic pursuits from a younger age.

You confuse biological evolution with technological evolution and growth in knowledge.

I have provided statistical evidence for how smaller HWs are easier to KO and that HW champions have been getting vastly bigger over time.

So are you going to provide evidence for your nostalgia-backed claims or keep wasting my time? Exceptions do not disprove the general rule.

1. The point is to be precise about what is actually an "advantage" versus what is a percieved advantage. Reach often is a much greater advantage than size. Witness Wilder as a great example of this statement.

2. No... Your confusing two distinct processes... A lot of people do. Nature versus Nurture. Our Nature, our genetics have changed little... the various tools on our environment, on the other hand, have changed considerbly. Not all things are better simply because... Fighters always have to adapt to their fighting environment, that is often why they train a certain way, come in at a select weight, etc.

3. Fighting is only partially an athletic pursuit...combatives are a hybrid really.
4. Technical developments are not evolutionary. They can be, but its not a foregone conclusion... no confusion.
5. Ok... if you say so... I provided plenty of evidence in my responses. Actually YOU DID!!! when qualifying size and mentioning half of the recent champs who happen NOT to be typically big for a heavyweight.

[PRINCEKOOL]

Your slow the topic is primitive which means before 60s

so why are you saying 70s when its people there who could do good in other era's
pre 60s wouldnt do good they all would be destroyed by 70s-90s fighters unless they upgraded

And it is proven by vids cause anybody who can see good can see those pre 60s dudes are all trash compared movement and skill compared to 70s-90s

Proven by vids? That has tickled me.

Anyway, I am done with this thread.

All the best.

[Ascended]

Proven by vids? That has tickled me.

Anyway, I am done with this thread.

All the best.

whats funny you crazy person nothing so yea move on

[Good ol' Douglas]

1. The point is to be precise about what is actually an "advantage" versus what is a percieved advantage. Reach often is a much greater advantage than size. Witness Wilder as a great example of this statement.

2. No... Your confusing two distinct processes... A lot of people do. Nature versus Nurture. Our Nature, our genetics have changed little... the various tools on our environment, on the other hand, have changed considerbly. Not all things are better simply because... Fighters always have to adapt to their fighting environment, that is often why they train a certain way, come in at a select weight, etc.

3. Fighting is only partially an athletic pursuit...combatives are a hybrid really.
4. Technical developments are not evolutionary. They can be, but its not a foregone conclusion... no confusion.
5. Ok... if you say so... I provided plenty of evidence in my responses. Actually YOU DID!!! when qualifying size and mentioning half of the recent champs who happen NOT to be typically big for a heavyweight.

1. That is not true, otherwise, reach divisions would exist.

2. Tabula rasa has been disproved. Physical attributes are highly heritable; i.e. dependent on genes.

3. It is primarily an athletic pursuit because it requires high degrees of coordination, strength, agility, balance, aerobic and anaerobic capacity, etc.

4. Advancements in technology can be referred to as "evolutionary". This is not being used in a biological context.

5. Your opinion does not constitute "evidence". I have provided objective data and you have failed to refute it.

Try harder, sheep.

[Good ol' Douglas]

Boxers at elite level have become less aggressive, less offensively minded. Boxing has become at elite level 'A feeling out process'. I honestly think inside fighting, rough house tactics, and body punching has regressed in the past 30 years 'The regression has speed up in the past 2 decades to unprecedented levels'.

And people in this thread, are? Using buzzwords such as distance control, technique. To try and make out, that fighters fight this way because they have evolved. As I have said on this thread or maybe another.

Technology and sports science has improved, but the actual quality of athletes participating in the sport has not. Even with all this technology, all the high tech supplements fighters are still turning up out of condition.

The evidence that they are superior condition wise, is not proven. Fighters where fighting 15 rounds pre- mid 1980's, and even before than 'Did fights not last over 30-40 rounds? Fights would just continue until one of the opponents could fight no more'. You cannot be ignorant to those type of fighting requirements, you cannot just passively ignore what it would take to compete under those conditions.

Fighters of past era's in my opinion, were more specifically trained for fighting. There training was mainly based around getting as fit as possible. There was no culture of body building or vanity.

This can be seen with the heavyweights of the 1970's, who were a lot bigger than people make out 'All those fighters where boiling down to fight weight, while these days? Fighters have a obsession with pumping themselves up'. I specifically remember a weigh in between Muhammad Ali & Ken Norton. Ali was boasting because he was at a light weight, he may have been at 212 pounds'. That right there just shows how the culture of training has changed.

It was all about endurance and fitness going back in past era's.

Who actually pursues boxing these days? Honestly take a look around in your life, and look at the type of people who are pursing the sports. I am not knocking these people, but analysed actually why they are doing the sport. The participation levels and talent pool demographic has dramatically change over the past decades 'The reason why people pursue the sport has change, especially in certain countries'.

Boxing pre-1960s was the biggest Global sport in the world. It was pretty much the only Global sport 'Along with the traditional Olympic Sports'. In fact, I have never classed boxing as a sport or leisure activity. I have always classed it as a survival mechanism 'It is not a leisure activity, and should never truly be classed as a sport'.

Sport science and technology in boxing for me has created a big giant smoke screen. Yes there are some great athletes in the sport, and those fighters will stand out brightly. They will usually be accused of performance enhancing drugs or heavily mocked.

Note: Forget the conditioning. I wanted to highlight in this post, that when you look at fights technically these days. Many fights at elite level are a feeling out process, two fighters that don't want to fight 'They just want to score points'. The higher you go up in the levels, there is less aggression.

I am not sure why this is, culture, training changes, or type of athlete in the sport.

I am not claiming 100% that modern fighters or past fighters are superior. I am just pointing out, that it is not quite as clear as people think. The game is forever changing, I guess it is like Tennis 'No expert but, you don't get players wanting to come to the net anymore, everything his from the back court'.

Even the classical boxers going back in history, could fight. Muhammad Ali could dance and sting, but his fight vs George Foreman was a pivotal moment for inside fighting. Ali beat Foreman up from start to finish, I have never bought into the myth that he was hanging on and taking punishment.

Ken Norton after a few rounds, even predicted that Muhammad Ali was going to stop Foreman.

Modern fighters are far more skilled and dangerous than the fighters of yore. So "a feeling out" process is required. Are you one of those people that think feints can just be ignored?

I will agree that the art of infighting has declined overall from a couple decades ago purely because the refs intervene constantly to stop clinch work and the meta as a whole has shifted to boring out-fighters looking to minimise the total amount of exchanges in a fight.

But your claim that the athletes of today are not superior because they are "out of shape" is laughable.

This myth has been debunked: http://www.heavyweightblog.com/126/h...eight-division

Also, look at Fury, fat as ****, yet ridiculously athletic. Name a single HW from the past anywhere near as big with similar levels of speed, fluidity and mobility?

According to your logic: the boxers going 40 rounds in the late 1800s were in superior condition to the "golden generations" of the 70s and 90s.

This is obviously not the case. You are failing to account for various variables such as the pace of the fights, size and skill of the fighters, amount of clinching (you should actually watch some old footage, it is practically wrestling at points), etc.

You have got it backwards. Boxing in the 1960s was primarily an American sport. The global talent pool is bigger than ever now with the arrival of far more elite southpaws, athletic super-heavyweights and skilled amateurs from Cuba and Eastern Europe.

Ali had no inside game. All he did in the 70s was learn how to tie up and grasp behind the head. It was horrible to watch and he should have been docked points in a lot of his big fights.

[Ascended]

Modern fighters are far more skilled and dangerous than the fighters of yore. So "a feeling out" process is required. Are you one of those people that think feints can just be ignored?

I will agree that the art of infighting has declined overall from a couple decades ago purely because the refs intervene constantly to stop clinch work and the meta as a whole has shifted to boring out-fighters looking to minimise the total amount of exchanges in a fight.

But your claim that the athletes of today are not superior because they are "out of shape" is laughable.

This myth has been debunked: http://www.heavyweightblog.com/126/h...eight-division

Also, look at Fury, fat as ****, yet ridiculously athletic. Name a single HW from the past anywhere near as big with similar levels of speed, fluidity and mobility?

According to your logic: the boxers going 40 rounds in the late 1800s were in superior condition to the "golden generations" of the 70s and 90s.

This is obviously not the case. You are failing to account for various variables such as the pace of the fights, size and skill of the fighters, amount of clinching (you should actually watch some old footage, it is practically wrestling at points), etc.

You have got it backwards. Boxing in the 1960s was primarily an American sport. The global talent pool is bigger than ever now with the arrival of far more elite southpaws, athletic super-heavyweights and skilled amateurs from Cuba and Eastern Europe.

Ali had no inside game. All he did in the 70s was learn how to tie up and grasp behind the head. It was horrible to watch and he should have been docked points in a lot of his big fights.

Ask that crazy pretend to be blind person to provide video evidence to prove you wrong see what he gives you

At best you will get conn and jersey both look real stiff slow and missing mutiple advances
Conn was seen as a top guy which says something of that era it was trash compared

I used conn cause have seen on the other forum its mutiple pages saying the lie of conn moved like fury which is a lie moved nothing like him he was missing mutiple angles and wasnt as smooth

Also I have seen this dumb quote repeated for years boxers back then could compete for 15 rounds and not be as tired well obviously look at how much of a slow pace they fought thats not anything impressive

[Roadblock]

Boxers at elite level have become less aggressive, less offensively minded. Boxing has become at elite level 'A feeling out process'. I honestly think inside fighting, rough house tactics, and body punching has regressed in the past 30 years 'The regression has speed up in the past 2 decades to unprecedented levels'.

And people in this thread, are? Using buzzwords such as distance control, technique. To try and make out, that fighters fight this way because they have evolved. As I have said on this thread or maybe another.

Technology and sports science has improved, but the actual quality of athletes participating in the sport has not. Even with all this technology, all the high tech supplements fighters are still turning up out of condition.

The evidence that they are superior condition wise, is not proven. Fighters where fighting 15 rounds pre- mid 1980's, and even before than 'Did fights not last over 30-40 rounds? Fights would just continue until one of the opponents could fight no more'. You cannot be ignorant to those type of fighting requirements, you cannot just passively ignore what it would take to compete under those conditions.

Fighters of past era's in my opinion, were more specifically trained for fighting. There training was mainly based around getting as fit as possible. There was no culture of body building or vanity.

This can be seen with the heavyweights of the 1970's, who were a lot bigger than people make out 'All those fighters where boiling down to fight weight, while these days? Fighters have a obsession with pumping themselves up'. I specifically remember a weigh in between Muhammad Ali & Ken Norton. Ali was boasting because he was at a light weight, he may have been at 212 pounds'. That right there just shows how the culture of training has changed.

It was all about endurance and fitness going back in past era's.

Who actually pursues boxing these days? Honestly take a look around in your life, and look at the type of people who are pursing the sports. I am not knocking these people, but analysed actually why they are doing the sport. The participation levels and talent pool demographic has dramatically change over the past decades 'The reason why people pursue the sport has change, especially in certain countries'.

Boxing pre-1960s was the biggest Global sport in the world. It was pretty much the only Global sport 'Along with the traditional Olympic Sports'. In fact, I have never classed boxing as a sport or leisure activity. I have always classed it as a survival mechanism 'It is not a leisure activity, and should never truly be classed as a sport'.

Sport science and technology in boxing for me has created a big giant smoke screen. Yes there are some great athletes in the sport, and those fighters will stand out brightly. They will usually be accused of performance enhancing drugs or heavily mocked.

Note: Forget the conditioning. I wanted to highlight in this post, that when you look at fights technically these days. Many fights at elite level are a feeling out process, two fighters that don't want to fight 'They just want to score points'. The higher you go up in the levels, there is less aggression.

I am not sure why this is, culture, training changes, or type of athlete in the sport.

I am not claiming 100% that modern fighters or past fighters are superior. I am just pointing out, that it is not quite as clear as people think. The game is forever changing, I guess it is like Tennis 'No expert but, you don't get players wanting to come to the net anymore, everything his from the back court'.

Even the classical boxers going back in history, could fight. Muhammad Ali could dance and sting, but his fight vs George Foreman was a pivotal moment for inside fighting. Ali beat Foreman up from start to finish, I have never bought into the myth that he was hanging on and taking punishment.

Ken Norton after a few rounds, even predicted that Muhammad Ali was going to stop Foreman.

With respect, you are making flippant claims based on what, you have 100yrs of boxing videos available how can you not see a great improvement from the 1800s to now, go and pick some pre 60s that show they are superior or equal to modern-day fighters, I think quite a few of the old-time greats pre 60s would get blown out today in a way that would look like Inoue Donarie, the power game, speed and sharpness would just overwhelm them, have you looked at the history of any sporting records, they all have improved coinciding along the same timeline, yet you say boxing doesn't apply, how do you come to that there are no buzzwords just words that describe a fact, refute the fact not just try and blow it off.

The evidence that they are superior condition wise, is not proven. Fighters where fighting 15 rounds pre- mid 1980's, and even before than 'Did fights not last over 30-40 rounds?



How many punches were thrown in those 30-40 rounds, barely 200, the same guys would be knocked out cold in the first round by that weight current world champ, The output power + recovery time is what defines the conditioning, not because 2 dudes can move around like snails for hours, lots of guys run 25k triathlons every weekend and none of them can stand with an Olympic marathon champion, why is that, the distance or the pace, conditioning is not about the distance that's just fitness, as we would say back in the old days air, real conditioning is about speed power and recovery over the distance, its about maximum muscle output over the longest time with shortest repeatable cycles, the key being recovery, the faster you can recover from maximin output is what conditioning is all about.

It took man nearly 100 yrs to break the 4-minute mile, since then, it has been broken 1500 times, Harness horses took the same to break a 2-minute mile which when they did it held for many years now it is something like 1-46 that converts to about 100 yds difference which is massive between champion horses, not only have humans improved by leaps and bounds since sport records began so have all animal competition, and for the very same reasons, conditioning science and technique nutrition which altogether adds up to the evolution in the pursuit of performance.

The amateur programs today for boxing especially in Europe is like art school for fighters, there was none of this back in early boxing, you talk about oh Boxing was the number one sport, so what if they all in the same boat, we are looking at records, not participation, its about improvement that has been made not just going through the motions, they can run tests on blood samples that show how much more conditioned they are, I was training Greyhounds in the 70s and I know how far they come since then, just the methods alone and testing that can be done to fine-tune the athlete is so advanced today.

The teaching today in boxing is so far ahead of old school it's not funny, the defense and the methods of punching, pretty much all aspects have been improved in some way, its so refined now even though its based on the old school ways its just refined.

I think you are romancing the stone and not looking at the big picture of sports science and sporting records.

[PRINCEKOOL]

With respect, you are making flippant claims based on what, you have 100yrs of boxing videos available how can you not see a great improvement from the 1800s to now, go and pick some pre 60s that show they are superior or equal to modern-day fighters, I think quite a few of the old-time greats pre 60s would get blown out today in a way that would look like Inoue Donarie, the power game, speed and sharpness would just overwhelm them, have you looked at the history of any sporting records, they all have improved coinciding along the same timeline, yet you say boxing doesn't apply, how do you come to that there are no buzzwords just words that describe a fact, refute the fact not just try and blow it off.

The evidence that they are superior condition wise, is not proven. Fighters where fighting 15 rounds pre- mid 1980's, and even before than 'Did fights not last over 30-40 rounds?



How many punches were thrown in those 30-40 rounds, barely 200, the same guys would be knocked out cold in the first round by that weight current world champ, The output power + recovery time is what defines the conditioning, not because 2 dudes can move around like snails for hours, lots of guys run 25k triathlons every weekend and none of them can stand with an Olympic marathon champion, why is that, the distance or the pace, conditioning is not about the distance that's just fitness, as we would say back in the old days air, real conditioning is about speed power and recovery over the distance, its about maximum muscle output over the longest time with shortest repeatable cycles, the key being recovery, the faster you can recover from maximin output is what conditioning is all about.

It took man nearly 100 yrs to break the 4-minute mile, since then, it has been broken 1500 times, Harness horses took the same to break a 2-minute mile which when they did it held for many years now it is something like 1-46 that converts to about 100 yds difference which is massive between champion horses, not only have humans improved by leaps and bounds since sport records began so have all animal competition, and for the very same reasons, conditioning science and technique nutrition which altogether adds up to the evolution in the pursuit of performance.

The amateur programs today for boxing especially in Europe is like art school for fighters, there was none of this back in early boxing, you talk about oh Boxing was the number one sport, so what if they all in the same boat, we are looking at records, not participation, its about improvement that has been made not just going through the motions, they can run tests on blood samples that show how much more conditioned they are, I was training Greyhounds in the 70s and I know how far they come since then, just the methods alone and testing that can be done to fine-tune the athlete is so advanced today.

The teaching today in boxing is so far ahead of old school it's not funny, the defense and the methods of punching, pretty much all aspects have been improved in some way, its so refined now even though its based on the old school ways its just refined.

I think you are romancing the stone and not looking at the big picture of sports science and sporting records.

Your not getting it are you mate? You think you are catching me out, and making a point which proves me wrong 'But you are not'.

The 4 Minute Mile has been broken that many times since, Roger Bannister because of the influence of sports science and technology.

If those same athletes were competing under the same conditions as Bannister, they may produce similar times or run even slower. Nobody knows for sure.

I have already proven to you, that Asafa Powell one of the most prolific 100m sprinters of all-time was struggling to match Jesse Owen's performance level. While not competing entirely under the same conditions, Powell was sprinting on grass while wearing spikes. And Powell was producing similar times as Owens. Yes it was early in the season, but this is a high trained athlete who has benefited from modern training and nutrition.

Do you understand now, how it is not 100% clear that Athletes the actual athletes have evolved into this superior image you are trying to portray. It is the technology and sport science which has evolved 'That is the only 100% fact on this thread'.

I am right in what I am saying, if this debate between me and you was trialed at oxford university? I would win, and you would lose. Forget your buddies giving your posts likes, that proves nothing.

Anybody who compares performances, knows that you must take all variables and conditions into account. Swimming 100 meters in ocean water, is not the same as a indoor pool etc.

The actual quality of athletes in boxing more so than other sports has decreased. Society in certain parts of the world, does not require people to fight anymore 'And there are many other safer sports that are more lucrative, with educational opportunities'.

Tyson Fury is not nature perfecting itself. Fury is great fighter, but I do not class him as some sort of genetic marvel. I actually think he benefits a lot from being a fighter in this modern era.

I have no idea how he would fair going back in history, he definitively would not be weighing 270-80 pounds.

Note: Understand that my argument is that, it is not 100% clear which era of athletes are superior. Nobody can claim with 100% proof that modern athletes are superior. If you was to be ignorant and just post some statistics, that does not tell the whole story. I have came up in this thread, and explained more of the story. Ether people will embrace this information and have flexibility in their perception, or they will ignore it 'And talk complete and utter nonsense'.

It is all up to yourselves. I have said all that needs to be said in this thread. To back my individual argument.