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

[Roadblock]

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 trailed 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.

I think where its going off the rails is in the concept of the athlete, you're arguing they haven't improved, and in a physical sense meaning fllesh and bone genetics they haven't changed, a 100 yrs is a spit in the ocean in human evolution, although I think the average size of man in western countries has increased over the last 100 yrs, but that's not the argument here, the debate from what I can see is the old-time fighters vs the modern fighters, one on one, time machine, that's what is being argued, what they were in comparison to now, you are arguing what they could be under the same umbrella of training and same sports science, which I addressed way back when I said a champion will have a champion's heart in any era, that's not the debate, the debate is could they compete at top level today as the version they were in their day. in that I feel they get blown away.

[BodyBagz]

Those fights that went passed 15 were no longer considered fights !!!!

''Let's just lean on each other for a while, wuddyasay ?''

The funny begins @ the 1'14 mark

People praise these 2 as Gods even though none of us has ever seen them fight. Maybe someone can locate a full watchable fight
Pure slop

Juggernaut has better speed bag skills

Present day fight fans call this ''running''
Throwing a ton of punches and missing most of them

On and on....90+% of these guys opponents were full time bartenders.
''If historians wrote it that way, it must be so !''

[Ascended]

Those fights that went passed 15 were no longer considered fights !!!!

''Let's just lean on each other for a while, wuddyasay ?''

The funny begins @ the 1'14 mark

People praise these 2 as Gods even though none of us has ever seen them fight. Maybe someone can locate a full watchable fight
Pure slop

Juggernaut has better speed bag skills

Present day fight fans call this ''running''
Throwing a ton of punches and missing most of them

On and on....90+% of these guys opponents were full time bartenders.
''If historians wrote it that way, it must be so !''

Look at how they fought so sloopy stiff and idiots who pretend to be blind on this site thinks this looks good smh...

Comments like these 2 could beat guys like fury foreman tyson bowe etc get out of here

[Clegg]

I think where its going off the rails is in the concept of the athlete, you're arguing they haven't improved, and in a physical sense meaning fllesh and bone genetics they haven't changed, a 100 yrs is a spit in the ocean in human evolution, although I think the average size of man in western countries has increased over the last 100 yrs, but that's not the argument here, the debate from what I can see is the old-time fighters vs the modern fighters, one on one, time machine, that's what is being argued, what they were in comparison to now, you are arguing what they could be under the same umbrella of training and same sports science, which I addressed way back when I said a champion will have a champion's heart in any era, that's not the debate, the debate is could they compete at top level today as the version they were in their day. in that I feel they get blown away.

What if we did it the other way round, made the modern fighter go back in time and fight the best boxers of the 1920s under the rules of that era?

[Ascended]

What if we did it the other way round, made the modern fighter go back in time and fight the best boxers of the 1920s under the rules of that era?

It all leads to the same outcome the old school fighter gets destroyed

even if we drop them into the future cause we dont know how they would advance we dont know which style they would use or how skilled they would be at that style
so their only way of existence would still be the way they fought in their time

It doesnt matter the rules just them being so stiff/sloopy would lead to them all being destroyed in the 1st or the 2nd
Since they would be facing a person with way better movement and mutiple advances in movement

This goes for any pre 60s vs 70s-90s fighter the pre 60s would all be destroyed and its obvious look at the post of those stiff sloopy trash movement fighters bags posted now you picture any of those dudes vs a foreman ali tucker bowe tyson razor Bruno Lyle earnie Holmes and many more from 70s-90s its obvious they would destroy those dudes

[billeau2]

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.

1. ???? That is just faulty logic... That is like saying well if knives are killing people along with guns we should take away people's knives. Really? So how you gonna cut your corn beef? Lol. And what if intelligence is also an important variable... would you like to give fighter's IQ tests and create divisions? Slippery slope...
2, Its not a question of a blank slate... It has to do with environmental contributions versus an evolutionary change to our genetic structure. Just understand how genetics works... its actually as a relatively simple concept but it takes some understanding.
3. Again, your using faulty logic: If an oarsman has his task down? he can have very good physical conditioning. Does not mean he is the same as an athlete but it does mean he has developed the same qualities. Athletes and fighters, everybody excels at what they train to do... Fighters have a slightly different aspect than athletes per se. This has changed more in modern times, and not for the better.
4. Fair enough, You are correct. I just like people to qualify the difference because there are dunderheads here who Believe that we "evolve" genetically in a few generations.
5. No, there has been no hard data provided. The data you provided was not "hard."
Wow, here I was being respectful, treating you in a respectful manner and you come out with that last statement... Lol. Ok. Thats the sign of a sore loser... Just saying.

[Roadblock]

What if we did it the other way round, made the modern fighter go back in time and fight the best boxers of the 1920s under the rules of that era?

If that was the case I think the modern technique would still beat them.

[Ascended]

If that was the case I think the modern technique would still beat them.

Its facts they would not opinion

[Roadblock]

1. ???? That is just faulty logic... That is like saying well if knives are killing people along with guns we should take away people's knives. Really? So how you gonna cut your corn beef? Lol. And what if intelligence is also an important variable... would you like to give fighter's IQ tests and create divisions? Slippery slope...
2, Its not a question of a blank slate... It has to do with environmental contributions versus an evolutionary change to our genetic structure. Just understand how genetics works... its actually as a relatively simple concept but it takes some understanding.
3. Again, your using faulty logic: If an oarsman has his task down? he can have very good physical conditioning. Does not mean he is the same as an athlete but it does mean he has developed the same qualities. Athletes and fighters, everybody excels at what they train to do... Fighters have a slightly different aspect than athletes per se. This has changed more in modern times, and not for the better.
4. Fair enough, You are correct. I just like people to qualify the difference because there are dunderheads here who Believe that we "evolve" genetically in a few generations.
5. No, there has been no hard data provided. The data you provided was not "hard."
Wow, here I was being respectful, treating you in a respectful manner and you come out with that last statement... Lol. Ok. Thats the sign of a sore loser... Just saying.

How does genetics work, Ive been breeding a family of performance dogs for 50 yrs, have 30 at the moment that go back to dogs I had in the 70s, Im interested tell me how you think it works?

[billeau2]

How does genetics work, Ive been breeding a family of performance dogs for 50 yrs, have 30 at the moment that go back to dogs I had in the 70s, Im interested tell me how you think it works?

Well first of all, to understand scientifically how Genetics works, you have to have a decent control... Things like certain plants and flies only live a day or so, meaning that you can actually go through many generations, where as for animals that live a longer lifespan this is not possible... So when setting up a chart of traits... maybe bluer leaves, whatever, you can fairly rapidly control for and isolate that trait. The mechanism is the same, its just easier to see results when you can document many generations of change in an organism.

Natural Selection is the theory that best shapes our understanding of genetics... ironickly Darwin actually had a relatively low IQ compared to some of the other great thinkers... But Natural Selection, which came from older theories, but was truly shaped by Darwin, is perhaps the most brilliant theory ever put fourth in Biological circles... thats an opinion.

For natural selection Evolution is more the process of the environment eliminating traits... Your dogs for example... you want a dog that is more docile ok? So you take away breeding dogs that are aggressive. In nature what happens is similar: If it benefits a dog to be more docile... as opposed to a Wolf, gradually aggressive dogs will die out because of the environment, allowing docile dogs to breed more frequently. In either case, the odds of certain traits coming to be, in offspring increase considerably.

Its not HOW I THINK IT WORKS... It is understanding genetics and the Theory of Natural Selection. Either through nature, or artificially, all living creatures go through the same process: Certain traits are eliminated... Nature is a sculpture, shaving away, more than building up...

Now I want you to notice that I never said the environment, or the trainer (you) GIVE your dogs traits. That idea is actually a misconception. nature/Natural Selection never "gives" anything, it eliminates. By eliminating various traits the desired traits are emphasized... in nature the criteria for strength is survival, in your case, as a trainer, or the Monks who set up Genetic squares to create pea pods with certain traits, you artificially eliminate those undesirable traits by choosing whom is allowed to breed.

Hope that makes sense to you.

PS: editing to give an example... So, big strong dogs bark loud because they are aggressive. Whenm they bark these dogs are attacked by Hyena's... a natural competitor in nature for domestication (by the way) eventually? the dogs in that microenvironment will be quieter because the competition to breed will be skewed given the Hyena's killing the louder dogs.