A little Perspective on the issue of skills ability through History

[billeau2]

I am a firm believer in looking at the tangibles to find a clue to the intangibles. We often debate about the progress, or lack of progress in boxing. The fights on Saturday demonstrate a point that has been made in this debate many times: NO! when a fighter shows up leaner they will not wither... They will be stronger and better because in boxing being light on the feet is a good thing.

We saw that when Joshua weighed 237 pounds that it benefitted him being less weight.

We also saw how cumbersome Whyte looked carrying extra weight. And speaking of which, Ruiz and Whyte both could not be bothered to come in at fighting weight. What does that say about their ability to fight through pain, suffering, etc?

Fighters start later in life, they do not master all the skills fighters had in the ring in the past, half the time they cannot even be bothered to show up ready to fight at their lightest weight, which is their BEST weight...Yes it is and has been proven time and time again.

I cannot see an argument for how fighters as such are stronger and better than in the past and I only mention this because this weekend was a great example!

Wilder weighs the least of all the heavyweight top guys right now and packs the biggest punch.

[OctoberRed]

I am a firm believer in looking at the tangibles to find a clue to the intangibles. We often debate about the progress, or lack of progress in boxing. The fights on Saturday demonstrate a point that has been made in this debate many times: NO! when a fighter shows up leaner they will not wither... They will be stronger and better because in boxing being light on the feet is a good thing.

We saw that when Joshua weighed 237 pounds that it benefitted him being less weight.

We also saw how cumbersome Whyte looked carrying extra weight. And speaking of which, Ruiz and Whyte both could not be bothered to come in at fighting weight. What does that say about their ability to fight through pain, suffering, etc?

Fighters start later in life, they do not master all the skills fighters had in the ring in the past, half the time they cannot even be bothered to show up ready to fight at their lightest weight, which is their BEST weight...Yes it is and has been proven time and time again.

I cannot see an argument for how fighters as such are stronger and better than in the past and I only mention this because this weekend was a great example!

Wilder weighs the least of all the heavyweight top guys right now and packs the biggest punch.

That was like Hamed's crazy power in the lower weights.

[billeau2]

That was like Hamed's crazy power in the lower weights.

But if one looks at the guys who are the hitters, they are seldom the bigger guys. Foreman was an exception and it made him a force to be reckoned with, but by todays standards he was not a gigantic heavy weight. I am talking about before he came out of retirement.

[QueensburyRules]

I am a firm believer in looking at the tangibles to find a clue to the intangibles. We often debate about the progress, or lack of progress in boxing. The fights on Saturday demonstrate a point that has been made in this debate many times: NO! when a fighter shows up leaner they will not wither... They will be stronger and better because in boxing being light on the feet is a good thing.

We saw that when Joshua weighed 237 pounds that it benefitted him being less weight.

We also saw how cumbersome Whyte looked carrying extra weight. And speaking of which, Ruiz and Whyte both could not be bothered to come in at fighting weight. What does that say about their ability to fight through pain, suffering, etc?

Fighters start later in life, they do not master all the skills fighters had in the ring in the past, half the time they cannot even be bothered to show up ready to fight at their lightest weight, which is their BEST weight...Yes it is and has been proven time and time again.

I cannot see an argument for how fighters as such are stronger and better than in the past and I only mention this because this weekend was a great example!

Wilder weighs the least of all the heavyweight top guys right now and packs the biggest punch.

- -Thanks for pointing out the biggest coddled Sissyboy of the bunch.

[billeau2]

- -Thanks for pointing out the biggest coddled Sissyboy of the bunch.

They are all kind of coddles, sign of the times. Fury may be an exception, at least in some respects. Can you imagine for a moment, it is the second Max Schmelling fight and Louis shows up heavy? Or Tunney showing up to the second Dempsey fight, having started camp late, and a little soft? I know it happened on occasion but at what frequency? I don't buy the fights, I am fortunate that I can catch a free stream lol, but on that last card two of the biggest fights, including the Marque attraction, the fighters were out of shape. Something is wrong here...

[DeeMoney]

The thing is, all measurable athletic records are constantly being broken. Yes, part of that is due to better athletic equipment that is outside of the athlete's ability (synthetic tracks, better swim suits, etc). But part of it is improved athletic training. And before I get a diatribe about Jim Thorpe's mismatched shoes note that he didn't run every race like that- if he had put up better times than anyone today it wouldve been noted.

Now, this isn't to say that people today are naturally better, but we have better understanding of how the body works and thus better training methods, better medicine, and better diets (and sure some of them are illegal).

Now, if we are willing to accept that athletes as a whole are better (athletically speaking) then its easy to see why people can assume that boxers would be better-boxing is a sport and it relies on athletic ability to be successful.

Now, that isn't to write that boxers now MUST be superior, simply that there is a logic for why they could be. There is more to the sport than simple athletic ability. Has the talent pool shrunk, are people willing to train to be successful, and of course to what extent are athletes better (I don't think its as much as some believe).

Specifically to your AJ example, I think that speaks to how much Boxing is an endurance sport. As opposed to say the NFL, where 300+ lb lineman would dominate the 270lbers of 50 years ago because they would do so for spurts of 5 seconds with long breaks between; boxing requires constant aerobic exercise. And as such, carrying that extra weight can be of a greater detriment.

[QueensburyRules]

The thing is, all measurable athletic records are constantly being broken. Yes, part of that is due to better athletic equipment that is outside of the athlete's ability (synthetic tracks, better swim suits, etc). But part of it is improved athletic training. And before I get a diatribe about Jim Thorpe's mismatched shoes note that he didn't run every race like that- if he had put up better times than anyone today it wouldve been noted.

Now, this isn't to say that people today are naturally better, but we have better understanding of how the body works and thus better training methods, better medicine, and better diets (and sure some of them are illegal).

Now, if we are willing to accept that athletes as a whole are better (athletically speaking) then its easy to see why people can assume that boxers would be better-boxing is a sport and it relies on athletic ability to be successful.

Now, that isn't to write that boxers now MUST be superior, simply that there is a logic for why they could be. There is more to the sport than simple athletic ability. Has the talent pool shrunk, are people willing to train to be successful, and of course to what extent are athletes better (I don't think its as much as some believe).

Specifically to your AJ example, I think that speaks to how much Boxing is an endurance sport. As opposed to say the NFL, where 300+ lb lineman would dominate the 270lbers of 50 years ago because they would do so for spurts of 5 seconds with long breaks between; boxing requires constant aerobic exercise. And as such, carrying that extra weight can be of a greater detriment.

- -The perfessers of modern physiology maintain boxing is a non aerobic sport because of 1 min breaks, but nonetheless boxers are more than just track and field athletes where many would exceed them, ideally they are fighters far beyond the athletic realm, and that's the way they've always been rated.

[billeau2]

The thing is, all measurable athletic records are constantly being broken. Yes, part of that is due to better athletic equipment that is outside of the athlete's ability (synthetic tracks, better swim suits, etc). But part of it is improved athletic training. And before I get a diatribe about Jim Thorpe's mismatched shoes note that he didn't run every race like that- if he had put up better times than anyone today it wouldve been noted.

Now, this isn't to say that people today are naturally better, but we have better understanding of how the body works and thus better training methods, better medicine, and better diets (and sure some of them are illegal).

Now, if we are willing to accept that athletes as a whole are better (athletically speaking) then its easy to see why people can assume that boxers would be better-boxing is a sport and it relies on athletic ability to be successful.

Now, that isn't to write that boxers now MUST be superior, simply that there is a logic for why they could be. There is more to the sport than simple athletic ability. Has the talent pool shrunk, are people willing to train to be successful, and of course to what extent are athletes better (I don't think its as much as some believe).

Specifically to your AJ example, I think that speaks to how much Boxing is an endurance sport. As opposed to say the NFL, where 300+ lb lineman would dominate the 270lbers of 50 years ago because they would do so for spurts of 5 seconds with long breaks between; boxing requires constant aerobic exercise. And as such, carrying that extra weight can be of a greater detriment.

A lot of your post is the kind of things that one assumes and for good reason. It is when we look at the specifics under a careful analysis, that certain things diverge from common patterns and trends. Like some of the issues you raised with boxing and the talent pool.

[billeau2]

- -The perfessers of modern physiology maintain boxing is a non aerobic sport because of 1 min breaks, but nonetheless boxers are more than just track and field athletes where many would exceed them, ideally they are fighters far beyond the athletic realm, and that's the way they've always been rated.

Excellent post. Boxers are athletes Boxers are fighters... and they are not the same thing in many respects.

[QueensburyRules]

- -BTW, it was several decades into the modern PEDs era when a Decathlete finally broke Thorpes 1500 meter time.

Moreover his highjumps and 100 meters were touching the medalists. There is no better all around athlete in the world in that time.