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

[BodyBagz]

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

They are diluted AF.
Wilder is coordinated in comparison

[Blond Beast]

One factor that has to be considered among a seemingly infinite amount of others it’s that the population of humans in 1900 is estimated to be 2 BILLION, now it’s close to 8 BILLION!! That’s such a larger genetic pool to draw from.
The fame, glory, hundreds of millions that the top fighters can make now. It attracts the talented as opposed to when fighting attracted the down trodden. Plus we have gleaned all the data that came before us, learned from the those who came before. One of the greatest attributes a fighter can have and it’s stays relative is that they are fighting in the present.
I see vintage film and it looks like the all have chins of steel? The frame rate is also so low of course they look herky jerky. They all seem to be lean and mean too. I haven’t noticed many vintage physiques that look soft. We only get to see so much though. Plus we see a vintage star beat a guy on film we don’t know the iceberg of who that opponent beat and they beat etc. like we do know in our own time.

[Ascended]

They are diluted AF.
Wilder is coordinated in comparison

To me it seems like a case of alot of these people really have bad vision and deluded like you said which is sad

And yea deon is athletic even though he is trash in this era he punches from way more angles and isn't stiff

Its idiotic comments like louis would beat fury a man he never would land on

[Roadblock]

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.

Makes perfect sense Im quite versed on the subject as Ive bred a family of performance dogs for 50 yrs developing my own ideas in some areas, the difference with Mendel and Darwin, is Mendel did his inbreeding with plants, Darwin did his inbreeding from Nature, one is a fully controlled breeding program based on the selection of isolates say a blue flower, and the other is based on adaption to stressors which is survival in the wild, just for the record nothing here is from somebody else this is the way I believe things went that that I have learned from trial and error and researching many areas from the jax mice to the fox farm project to get better performance in my in dogs.

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.

This is true because random crossing will never get anywhere without selection drivers controlling desired traits and being able to lock those traits down to be repeatable in breeding.

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.

Natural selection is survival of the fittest it is a simple concept with a very complicated path along the road of organized chaos, which is how everything evolved beginning with a single cell, we didnt start with a herd of anything every species started from just two, every living thing evolved by being tested for survival with only the strongest adaptors being able to survive being the ones that propagated the next generation passing on their better genetics, every species began with very intense inbreeding and this inbreeding is what set the type of that species. As these groups expanded, they became sub-families to the originals, this pattern of life's expansion just grew with time expanding across the lands with species evolving through adaption to the different stresses presented by the new different environments they were exposed too, this was also setting the time clocks of genes which is the science of Epigenetics, which is basically saying that many genes and polygenes sit dormant and can be turned on or off by the environment. a simplified example would be the genes to grow a thick coat when in cold winter, off course it goes way way deeper involving many things from character traits to immune system, its a fascinating science-based around adaption and triggers.

Thats about as brief I can squash millions of years of the way Nature created the different species.

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.

The environment doesn't eliminate traits it suppresses them, the genetic material doesn't go anywhere, it becomes recessive or dominant, subdued or expressed.
If you want a dog that is more docile, you breed from dogs with better nerve strength, aggression is born from insecurity and weakness, calm is stoic and less excitable, which is nerve strength, think Mastiff to a working Kelpie,
Many think aggression is linked to gameness in a dog, it could not be further from the truth if tested its more inclined to be non-game than a game, its like the loudest guy at the bar is not likely to be the gamest. The other big player in selective breeding is prepotency which is the influence an animal can have over its offspring, the only way to get strong prepotency is through inbreeding which stacks the desired genes so that they dominate when mixed with another set of genes, for instance, let's say a deck of cards is the genetic material, prepotency is the continued selection for the picture cards until such a time when the whole deck is nothing but picture cards.

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...

I dont believe traits are eliminated they stay dormant inside the DNA until switched on by environmental cues, either man-created or by natural forces, Nature is indeed a sculpture her canvas is painted by the adaption to the chaos of competing lifeforms to survive, its the genetic driver behind why the most refined animals on earth are selected for their intensity of desired traits, Racehorses Greyhounds Pit Dogs , Game Roosters etc are the results of the most extreme testing and extreme selection. through line breeding and inbreeding builds the prepotency within an individual, all through history there are animals that threw a high level of great offspring no matter what they were bred to, this is prepotency at work.

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.

I guess its best to get on the same page regarding traits, to be a trait it must be repeatable in breeding, not to be confused with a characteristic that is learned, a trait has a genetic element that controls it and so make its selectable and repeatable in breeding, traits also have simple core drivers, things like gameness, intelligence, nerve strength etc all combine to create a polygenic trait at a certain threshold, for instance, all things have gameness, its only in its volume is it different from a Chihuahuas to a Pitbull.
Natural selection has given us everything because its the raw genetic material before man got his grubby hands on it, If you look at dogs in general, all breeds came from the same place the wolf, its only through selection for types they evolved, although many come about through a genetic mutation many were bred for purpose, its why the pure bred dog has so many issues, they are inbred within a closed genepool with no extreme testing to isolate the most vigorous strongest individuals, basically weaklings are being bred to weaklings to look a certain way, the core is never tested like it would be in nature.

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

Yes the weakest link does not survive in the wild.

Modern Man as a result of travel is a scatterbred mongrel, just full of random genetic material which is why we are so all over the shop, greatness can come from anywhere unlike animals where greatness is selected for genetically, with man its random, imagine breeding a fighter from 100 generations of Olymplic athelets , the different races of people in the beginning all went through the same process as the animals did, all were built from inbreeding for the best adaptors to their world, and every race or species of animals will all carry the same similarities that define them, because those were set in the beginning from the inbreeding between the initial survivers, everything is within, the genes dont go anywhere they only become dormant or expressed, and so over generations the expressed becomes dominant, lifeforms are not going to gain something from nothing they don't grow knew genetic cells that are not already in the system, its all there already it just continues adapting and that adaption process can up or down improve or go backwards, we are inside a big plastic bag, unless we get a alien visit us everything that is yet to come is already here, genetics is the same, nothing comes or goes it just transforms into what it needs to be to adapt.

Probably not the right convo in a boxing forum I apologize to posters I can go on with this stuff to where I give myself a headache, lol it was interesting cheers.

But anyway, the Jack Johnson era had the same genetic materials as today's fighters, if they were to selectively breed boxers like Pitbuls that would probably be a different deal.

[billeau2]

Makes perfect sense Im quite versed on the subject as Ive bred a family of performance dogs for 50 yrs developing my own ideas in some areas, the difference with Mendel and Darwin, is Mendel did his inbreeding with plants, Darwin did his inbreeding from Nature, one is a fully controlled breeding program based on the selection of isolates say a blue flower, and the other is based on adaption to stressors which is survival in the wild, just for the record nothing here is from somebody else this is the way I believe things went that that I have learned from trial and error and researching many areas from the jax mice to the fox farm project to get better performance in my in dogs.

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.

This is true because random crossing will never get anywhere without selection drivers controlling desired traits and being able to lock those traits down to be repeatable in breeding.

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.

Natural selection is survival of the fittest it is a simple concept with a very complicated path along the road of organized chaos, which is how everything evolved beginning with a single cell, we didnt start with a herd of anything every species started from just two, every living thing evolved by being tested for survival with only the strongest adaptors being able to survive being the ones that propagated the next generation passing on their better genetics, every species began with very intense inbreeding and this inbreeding is what set the type of that species. As these groups expanded, they became sub-families to the originals, this pattern of life's expansion just grew with time expanding across the lands with species evolving through adaption to the different stresses presented by the new different environments they were exposed too, this was also setting the time clocks of genes which is the science of Epigenetics, which is basically saying that many genes and polygenes sit dormant and can be turned on or off by the environment. a simplified example would be the genes to grow a thick coat when in cold winter, off course it goes way way deeper involving many things from character traits to immune system, its a fascinating science-based around adaption and triggers.

Thats about as brief I can squash millions of years of the way Nature created the different species.

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.

The environment doesn't eliminate traits it suppresses them, the genetic material doesn't go anywhere, it becomes recessive or dominant, subdued or expressed.
If you want a dog that is more docile, you breed from dogs with better nerve strength, aggression is born from insecurity and weakness, calm is stoic and less excitable, which is nerve strength, think Mastiff to a working Kelpie,
Many think aggression is linked to gameness in a dog, it could not be further from the truth if tested its more inclined to be non-game than a game, its like the loudest guy at the bar is not likely to be the gamest. The other big player in selective breeding is prepotency which is the influence an animal can have over its offspring, the only way to get strong prepotency is through inbreeding which stacks the desired genes so that they dominate when mixed with another set of genes, for instance, let's say a deck of cards is the genetic material, prepotency is the continued selection for the picture cards until such a time when the whole deck is nothing but picture cards.

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...

I dont believe traits are eliminated they stay dormant inside the DNA until switched on by environmental cues, either man-created or by natural forces, Nature is indeed a sculpture her canvas is painted by the adaption to the chaos of competing lifeforms to survive, its the genetic driver behind why the most refined animals on earth are selected for their intensity of desired traits, Racehorses Greyhounds Pit Dogs , Game Roosters etc are the results of the most extreme testing and extreme selection. through line breeding and inbreeding builds the prepotency within an individual, all through history there are animals that threw a high level of great offspring no matter what they were bred to, this is prepotency at work.

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.

I guess its best to get on the same page regarding traits, to be a trait it must be repeatable in breeding, not to be confused with a characteristic that is learned, a trait has a genetic element that controls it and so make its selectable and repeatable in breeding, traits also have simple core drivers, things like gameness, intelligence, nerve strength etc all combine to create a polygenic trait at a certain threshold, for instance, all things have gameness, its only in its volume is it different from a Chihuahuas to a Pitbull.
Natural selection has given us everything because its the raw genetic material before man got his grubby hands on it, If you look at dogs in general, all breeds came from the same place the wolf, its only through selection for types they evolved, although many come about through a genetic mutation many were bred for purpose, its why the pure bred dog has so many issues, they are inbred within a closed genepool with no extreme testing to isolate the most vigorous strongest individuals, basically weaklings are being bred to weaklings to look a certain way, the core is never tested like it would be in nature.

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

Yes the weakest link does not survive in the wild.

Modern Man as a result of travel is a scatterbred mongrel, just full of random genetic material which is why we are so all over the shop, greatness can come from anywhere unlike animals where greatness is selected for genetically, with man its random, imagine breeding a fighter from 100 generations of Olymplic athelets , the different races of people in the beginning all went through the same process as the animals did, all were built from inbreeding for the best adaptors to their world, and every race or species of animals will all carry the same similarities that define them, because those were set in the beginning from the inbreeding between the initial survivers, everything is within, the genes dont go anywhere they only become dormant or expressed, and so over generations the expressed becomes dominant, lifeforms are not going to gain something from nothing they don't grow knew genetic cells that are not already in the system, its all there already it just continues adapting and that adaption process can up or down improve or go backwards, we are inside a big plastic bag, unless we get a alien visit us everything that is yet to come is already here, genetics is the same, nothing comes or goes it just transforms into what it needs to be to adapt.

Probably not the right convo in a boxing forum I apologize to posters I can go on with this stuff to where I give myself a headache, lol it was interesting cheers.

But anyway, the Jack Johnson era had the same genetic materials as today's fighters, if they were to selectively breed boxers like Pitbuls that would probably be a different deal.

Very nice post! Its good to see some intelligence regarding the understanding of genetics. You are actually applying genetics and able to enunciate a more technological, sophisticated point of view regarding application. I agree with you and understand the idea of suppression... again, when you are working with genetic variables you do supress traits, obviously you have all kinds of probabilities (dominant/recessive). When i speak of eliminating traits I speak for long term consequences when eventually traits die out, or, eventually the organism becomes extinct. For example, eventually human beings did change genetically... But if I am breeding human beings for being tall and fast, as you say: I am working to "supress" certain traits, not eliminate them...

I enjoyed your paragraph on Modern Man. Genes do not go anywhere... traits can be eliminated. That is how I think of it. I think also there might be a semantic aspect... I have no problem saying the environment filters... My bone to pick is simply this: Many people think that the environment acts to create traits in an organism. I find this a little misleading. The environment is not a genetic construction, it only acts on an organism to force the organism to eventually forfeit counterproductive elements (whatever one calls them) regarding survival. Genes are, as you say, not subtracted... Genes are always there and ready to be expressed, then the environment acts upon them.

But alas, you are actually breeding some animals! that is impessive. I love mutts lol. have two rescue guys, I trust random to that extent. But they are so individual that once they leave you can never have them again...

[Roadblock]

Very nice post! Its good to see some intelligence regarding the understanding of genetics. You are actually applying genetics and able to enunciate a more technological, sophisticated point of view regarding application. I agree with you and understand the idea of suppression... again, when you are working with genetic variables you do supress traits, obviously you have all kinds of probabilities (dominant/recessive). When i speak of eliminating traits I speak for long term consequences when eventually traits die out, or, eventually the organism becomes extinct. For example, eventually human beings did change genetically... But if I am breeding human beings for being tall and fast, as you say: I am working to "supress" certain traits, not eliminate them...

I enjoyed your paragraph on Modern Man. Genes do not go anywhere... traits can be eliminated. That is how I think of it. I think also there might be a semantic aspect... I have no problem saying the environment filters... My bone to pick is simply this: Many people think that the environment acts to create traits in an organism. I find this a little misleading. The environment is not a genetic construction, it only acts on an organism to force the organism to eventually forfeit counterproductive elements (whatever one calls them) regarding survival. Genes are, as you say, not subtracted... Genes are always there and ready to be expressed, then the environment acts upon them.

But alas, you are actually breeding some animals! that is impessive. I love mutts lol. have two rescue guys, I trust random to that extent. But they are so individual that once they leave you can never have them again...

Cheers I enjoyed talking to you on this subject.

I don't believe traits disappear completely, Ive seen traits that will come through a dog that was not seen for many generations, but traits can be buried deep and it takes a double copy of the required genes with the right triggers needed for it to express, its probably more complicated than that from a gene perspective as there is so much we don't know and you could very well be right if the time for suppression was long enough they may very well be lost forever, pretty much all the traits in a domesticated dog can be shown in the raw in wolves, man has only isolated them and stacked the intensity into a breeding program to make it a dominate feature. I have always bred dogs focusing on the raw drives, for instance, you can train a dog to climb a ladder, and to enhance that from a breeding perspective you would breed toward a balanced structure steady nerve and determination/gameness, you will never breed a dog to naturally look to climb ladders, if you were to breed from the best ladder climbers and they are non-related gene-wise they will not be uniform and will be hit and miss in the purpose they were bred, people complicate dogs by adding their human way of thinking into the dog instead of observing the situation from the dogs perspective, which is why there is so many issues with dogs in society, people need to think like a dog not expect them to think like people.

Yes I agree the environment doesn't create traits or gene sequences, it is merely the trigger to turn them on, they are already within the genome the environment only brings them to the top.

I have bred and owned probably around 1000 dogs in my time, family-bred dogs that were bred for purpose, meaning they were all related in blood and selectively bred for specific qualities.

I spent 20 yrs with world class competition Pitbulls and there is so much in them that mirrors in the fighting man probably why so many fighters have pitbulls, fans of boxing have no idea of these internal workings within the inside of the fighter, the raw genetic elements that make them tick.

Anyway enough for now posters probably think we are mad lol.

[billeau2]

Cheers I enjoyed talking to you on this subject.

I don't believe traits disappear completely, Ive seen traits that will come through a dog that was not seen for many generations, but traits can be buried deep and it takes a double copy of the required genes with the right triggers needed for it to express, its probably more complicated than that from a gene perspective as there is so much we don't know and you could very well be right if the time for suppression was long enough they may very well be lost forever, pretty much all the traits in a domesticated dog can be shown in the raw in wolves, man has only isolated them and stacked the intensity into a breeding program to make it a dominate feature. I have always bred dogs focusing on the raw drives, for instance, you can train a dog to climb a ladder, and to enhance that from a breeding perspective you would breed toward a balanced structure steady nerve and determination/gameness, you will never breed a dog to naturally look to climb ladders, if you were to breed from the best ladder climbers and they are non-related gene-wise they will not be uniform and will be hit and miss in the purpose they were bred, people complicate dogs by adding their human way of thinking into the dog instead of observing the situation from the dogs perspective, which is why there is so many issues with dogs in society, people need to think like a dog not expect them to think like people.

Yes I agree the environment doesn't create traits or gene sequences, it is merely the trigger to turn them on, they are already within the genome the environment only brings them to the top.

I have bred and owned probably around 1000 dogs in my time, family-bred dogs that were bred for purpose, meaning they were all related in blood and selectively bred for specific qualities.

I spent 20 yrs with world class competition Pitbulls and there is so much in them that mirrors in the fighting man probably why so many fighters have pitbulls, fans of boxing have no idea of these internal workings within the inside of the fighter, the raw genetic elements that make them tick.

Anyway enough for now posters probably think we are mad lol.

I think one has to make a distinction between genetic probability and the ability of the environment to determine what aspects express. We can say that Genes and traits are ever present... I mean that is really partially what a Recessive trait is, simply stated: a genetic aspect that is rare compared to other genetic traits. What we have to understand on some level, even a very basic one, is that the environment works to eliminate... Thats the basic mechanism for natural selection. As far as whether traits totally dissapear? I agree they do not.

I also think your understanding of Genes is such that your aware of the aspects involved on a more complex level: Things like dominant/recessive... The construction of a table to determine predictable outcomes regarding various traits, how to look for traits in the population sample, etc. The theory of Natural Selection is really much more simple: It just concerns itself with how the environment acts on an organism. So, heres a great example: Komodo Dragons. Many people believe that these guys are moniter lizards that lived in an environment that had no apex predator so, they Evolved to grow large. The idea would be that in another environment, regardless of genetic potential, these guys would never express that potential because predators would inhibit the growth.

Another way to look at this: If dinosaurs evolved into chickens, do chickens carry the genetic material to once again be dinosaurs? I personally would agree with your take on Genetics and say "yeah quite possibly so." I would just say that from the perspective of if this environment would allow those traits, the point is academic and will remain so until we look back maybe a million years later and see chickens that have become the size of ostrages lol.

So lets talk about Dogs and Wolves. Again, you see this from a genetic perspective... as traits that are expressed/not expressed. From the stand point of Natural Selection, in a certain environment, perhaps where wolves were lean and not doing well, a group of very smart Wolves overcame resistance to darkness (human camps were in the dark), to mistrust and were rewarded with scraps. Eventually this trait of trust, and understanding the social cues humans give became a benefit that helped these wolves survive, and they flourished around human beings, to the point where the antisocial wolfdogs were not fed. So, with greater amounts of sociable cute looking dogs (this is a trait lol) breeding, eventually more social traits were emphasized and we got dogs. I personally think that dogs and Squirrels are amazingly smart because of their social adaptations. My German Sheppard Mix will bark at me show me how tough he is (playfully), but the MINUTE I go into the kitchen to grab a snack? The ears go back, the eyes get big, I can pet him anywhere... I mean he is turning it on! This learned behavior? It must have taken so many generations lol.

Are the genes from a Wolf in a dog still there? They did a study where mice were taught a maze and found that when taught enough, the next generation of mice could do the maze with no conditioning/teaching the maze! And our bodies? they do not grow "old" the way people think they do... our growth follows a program and in fact, every year or so, virtually every cell in our bodies are new! I think both of these facts show that our genetic code retains all the permutations of the past.

Yes, your ideas about the actual trait you need... identifying it (ladder climbing) and thinking like the dog are great points. As you imply: the traits a person need to climb high are different than those in a dog. Pit Bulls are a great example as well... You can train a Pitbull to be ferocious and not hurt a fly provided you understand WHAT you are isolating to condition and bring out in the training.

Its really just nice for people to think genetics and conditioning programs through and understand them. So this dialogue is a great thing for posters. And your capacity to work training schedules and understand the theoretical elements behind them is a wonderful pursuit, especially considering the benefit to the dogs you work with. Dogs want to be with us... they want to evolve more traits that make them part of the human experiment.

[Roadblock]

I think one has to make a distinction between genetic probability and the ability of the environment to determine what aspects express. We can say that Genes and traits are ever-present... I mean that is really partially what a Recessive trait is, simply stated: a genetic aspect that is rare compared to other genetic traits. What we have to understand on some level, even a very basic one, is that the environment works to eliminate... Thats the basic mechanism for natural selection. As far as whether traits totally dissapear? I agree they do not.

You touch on some interesting areas, genetic probability and lets say the pressure over time of its environment can be conflicting forces when taken out of the hands of Nature, lets say a pair of Greyhounds were shipped of to Antartica, intially those dogs are going to produce very slick short hair coats which is their genetc code, how long would it take Nature to impose the making of all the born dogs to have thick double coats with an extra layer of fat in a dog thats has the highest muscle to fat ratio in all dogs, which through racing was not needed so its enviroment stressors of racing changed the physical makeup at a genetic level, The Artic enviroment needs to be able to expose many generations to the bitter cold to make the same genetic change and many would die before it happened effectively purifying the bloodline, just as man will cull to purify the race dog, if a breeder kept those dogs in a warmed environment and selected slick short coats in puppies the Artic pressure would never express, but it could be said the Artic was never exposed in full to those dogs.

I feel the Natural section is driven by two forces, life energies obsession to survive and the overall harmony of all other species allowing that to happen in balance, too many prey animals and not enough prey they will die off until they regain balance again, the consequences of feast and famine, this is Natures way of culling the undesirable traits that slip through the system, say a weak low vigor Horse mated to the lead mare while the Stallion was sleeping on the job those weakened genes will be eliminated by Nature over time, but they will be tested because that weakened Horse came from the same genes the lead stallion came from and so can actually create a great individual, this is Natures wildcard as all internal potential is intact genetically in the offspring, but to keep getting the best survivers they must be isolated and bred together and even then the wild card will always be there, its Natures way of always adapting to any new force, it just needs the time to cause adaption to filter the dominate genes bringing them to the top.

When you think about it, the Earth contains all the same elements from every dimension today, as it contained the day after the big **** or however we began, things, anything, does not come from nothing, its all made up of what was already there, it has only transformed through adaption to make a change or it won't survive. look at climate change which is just balance, the same water that was on earth a million years ago is still here, it only goes from one form to another, the total volume never changes, while one country is flooded, another is in drought, Nature had it pretty well balanced with few extremes, then in a few hundred years Man upsets that balance and now we have extremes of everything. Funny thing with Man we are the only species on Earth with the power to create our own destiny, at the individual level, a person can truly be anything they choose to be if they have the power to adapt to the new environments that will be needed to be conquered, people quit just as the non-survivers in Nature quit, everything is here one only has to look hard enough to see it.

Another way to look at this: If dinosaurs evolved into chickens, do chickens carry the genetic material to once again be dinosaurs? I personally would agree with your take on Genetics and say "yeah quite possibly so." I would just say that from the perspective of if this environment would allow those traits, the point is academic and will remain so until we look back maybe a million years later and see chickens that have become the size of ostrages lol.

So lets talk about Dogs and Wolves. Again, you see this from a genetic perspective... as traits that are expressed/not expressed. From the stand point of Natural Selection, in a certain environment, perhaps where wolves were lean and not doing well, a group of very smart Wolves overcame resistance to darkness (human camps were in the dark), to mistrust and were rewarded with scraps. Eventually this trait of trust, and understanding the social cues humans give became a benefit that helped these wolves survive, and they flourished around human beings, to the point where the antisocial wolfdogs were not fed. So, with greater amounts of sociable cute looking dogs (this is a trait lol) breeding, eventually more social traits were emphasized and we got dogs. I personally think that dogs and Squirrels are amazingly smart because of their social adaptations. My German Sheppard Mix will bark at me show me how tough he is (playfully), but the MINUTE I go into the kitchen to grab a snack? The ears go back, the eyes get big, I can pet him anywhere... I mean he is turning it on! This learned behavior? It must have taken so many generations lol.

Yes I think the Chicken does contain genes of the Dinosaur, and theory would say you could recreate them from Chickens, but you would need the eons of years to do it just as Nature did, and the Chicken house would need to be the World to inflict all its forces, I believe the power of life is its ability to adapt and when looking at the time in the realm of eternity, is it feasible to think this planet has gone from particles of matter to teaming with life many times over, are we going to self implode civilization or will Nature do it for us only to reshuffle the world and start all over again.

With the Wolf-Dog-Man link as always driven by adaption to survive, the Wolf being not a predator but a scavenger he learned if he followed Man he got sc****s, then the man began to get trust and domesticate them, it wouldn't have taken much to tame them, from there, man started to selectively breed the ones that suited his purpose and this time was the dawn of the domesticated dog. The difference between a very genetically dominant predator and the scavengers is the predator is not as intelligent and more set in his ways, maybe Nature created them only as of the cullers of the weak and sick, they don't need brains they need Braun and weaponry, she made scavengers for the cleanup job and they had to be able be a predator but also sly and cunning, this took more developed intelligence pass into the next generation. This is why dogs are so broad genetically being great at adaption, its why dogs share a bond with man that cats never will, goes back to orignal inbreeding of the ancesters setting in stone the genome of that species, your not going to turn a Turnip into a Cherry, although Nature probably did, how do we know whether all life started from the one cell or many different ones that combined in different ways making something different.

Fascinating stuff, I dont get to talk to many on these subjects, Ive spoken with great breeders of all sorts of live stock, and I mean world champions in their fields and when you drill down on what's actually being said it all goes back to the forces of Nature, everything to be learned in breeding animals is all there to be seen in Nature, she is the master of creation.

What's youre role, do you work in genetics or you're just interested in it.

PS A bit of story for you, Ive seen a bit of that evolution process happen and it led me down the path of a life breeding dogs, when I was 18 I shot foxes for a living for their pelts, when I started, you could go out and shoot 20/40 every night of the week, they were small sickly and many had mange and be throwaways, out of the 40 you may get 6-7 good pelts, now over a period the price of pelts was super high because of the European market, so every man and his dog was chasing them, now over as little as 15 years of extreme hunting pressure, a super fox was created, if you were getting 6-10 a night you were doing good and they were all keepers large and prime pelts. the weakest were eliminated from the gene pool, only the smartest and strongest survived.

And there were estimated to be millions of wild foxes in the country at the time, as for breeding dogs it was a profound moment when I learned all those millions of foxes came from 4 that were imported from the UK and were released at a racetrack 150 years earlier, that's are a very intense load of inbreeding and I saw its ability to produce a superior animal, and in doing so it defied inbreeding depression, I've been searching for the key to Natures golden fleece ever since, Im now 70 and still creating a dog to be better than the one before it.

[Ascended]

So instead of these crazy idiots providing video evidence of how were so called wrong talks about something else instead of the topic

[LoadedWraps]

My East Bay Brother! Yes... and it is not a foregone conclusion that a sport evolves over time... A lot depends on economics. Football is a perfect example. It became big money and eventually real money was invested... But, are lacrosse players better today? Boxing had more resources back in the day and more elite fighters.

The other thing is how styles have changed... You cannot compare preclassical boxing, which was essentially based in fencing, to modern fighting techniques.

I partially agree, I do think older techniques work, but many things are situaltional and styles make fights is always true, which means there is always someone out there who can counter your style.

by the way, I start youtubing boxing scoring and discussions either tonight or tomorrow! Wanted to do a post fight show for the Rungvisai fight but it might be tomorrow as I got home late and might not be setup.