At what point has boxing 'moved on' from it's past champions
I cant really think how to phrase this but with nutritional advances, diet technicians, all of these NEWER things being introduced to the sport at what point in history does it become unfair and null to compare fighters in an actual fight -
for example Joe Louis - was new physical conditioning, training methods, legal supplements etc so advanced by the time of Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Hell even Liston came along that they would likely have all beaten him if they had put the two fighters in the ring at their peak with Louis training 30's style and the others 70's and subsequently if we put any of them in with lewis, klitscho etc would they be disadvanatged massively by the subsequent advances in techniques, supplements etc
Also where does the line cross!?. I.e. an 84 holmes or an 88 tyson who are somewhere in the middle -
A badly written post but hard to frame and explain my question!
Re: At what point has boxing 'moved on' from it's past champions
It doesn't. As fans we love to propose inter-generational dream match-ups. We remember these fighters for how they stood out amongst their peers. Its only after that they seem bigger than the game and we start pulling them out of their respective eras and try to scale skills to compare with fighters of other eras. Its rare that we see a fighter that has something so sensational that we pluck them out of a their time and hold them above all. People did it with Louis for the sheer volume of frequency of his title defenses; ali for beating guys he wasn't supposed to (His self confidence obviously added to his aura); Tyson for his penchant for knocking guys out right away and being dwarfed by a lot of the fighters he faced. Jones Jr. for his speed and being able to get away with the clowning, and showman ship, etc. Boxing's never bridged the eras. The fans, the pundits, the live broadcast commentators are the ones that have while in search for sensationalism. 1/3 of it is old fighters greatness, 1/3 is the new fighters success and probably the last 1/3 is the new fighters shortcomings (which adds weight to our natural curiosity). Lets face it, if it was unanimous that the new guy was the best ever, it would be easier to overwrite the legends of yesteryear and leave them there.
Re: At what point has boxing 'moved on' from it's past champions
Quote:
Originally Posted by
oakleyno1
I cant really think how to phrase this but with nutritional advances, diet technicians, all of these NEWER things being introduced to the sport at what point in history does it become unfair and null to compare fighters in an actual fight -
for example Joe Louis - was new physical conditioning, training methods, legal supplements etc so advanced by the time of Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Hell even Liston came along that they would likely have all beaten him if they had put the two fighters in the ring at their peak with Louis training 30's style and the others 70's and subsequently if we put any of them in with lewis, klitscho etc would they be disadvanatged massively by the subsequent advances in techniques, supplements etc
Also where does the line cross!?. I.e. an 84 holmes or an 88 tyson who are somewhere in the middle -
A badly written post but hard to frame and explain my question!
Interesting question/topic. I always look at the fighter before I think about how much better he would have been with today's advantages. Was he a puncher, boxer puncher, aggressive or counter puncher, hand speed, footwork, emotional or calm and positioning-- that kind of thing.
There is no doubt that the old timers would have all been better with today's training methods, but everything hinges on the man. It takes a certain type of person to get in the ring and then to keep getting in the ring.
Conditioning coaches, training methods, diet (supplements), generally better trainers and corner men, all add up to better fighters with a longer ring life. You still have to have that man or woman who is willing to get in the ring, for whatever reason, and keep getting in the ring.
I admire anybody who gets in the ring, it takes a certain mindset, dedication and an unbelievable amount or hard work to be successful, in my opinion.
Re: At what point has boxing 'moved on' from it's past champions
I don't know which of today's training methods are better, or make for better fighters. Certainly, there are more nutritional opportunities than there were for guys that grew up during The Depression, or before.
But I don't see guys that fight at the same pace over the length of a fight as many of the old time guys did. I do see more guys that look like body builders, expend a lot of effort improperly throwing punches, and gas out early on.
I don't see the skill level that existed before, and the drop off has been, over the last 20 years, precipitous. The reason for this, I believe, is all the new 'coaches.' A guy has a strength coach, a conditioning coach, and a nutrition coach. All these guys cut into the time he spends with his boxing coach. So they don't learn how to fight. 90% of the fights I have seen over the last couple years, the footwork is abysmal. They don't punch properly, their defense is ear-muffs....just awful.
There aren't too many trainers available today with the knowledge or the skill to teach a guy to punch like Joe Louis or how to fight like Emile Griffith. And I think that many of these other coaches don't understand that being 'in great shape' is not the same thing as being in great fighting shape.
Re: At what point has boxing 'moved on' from it's past champions
A Great fighter is a Great fighter no matter what the era, and Boxing training hasn't really changed much at all in over 100 years!
The only significant change is chemicals: steroids, Human Growth Hormone, blood-doping with epo, xylocaine injections into the hands.
How has nutrition advanced?
Modern food is full of pesticides, poisons, preservatives, vaccinations, growth hormones, anti-depressants, much is genetically-modified and no one knows the long-term effects of eating it yet.
Do you honestly think that Roger and Floyd Mayweather Sr have some kind of superior knowledge about nutrition and sports-science? World-class gifted athlete Floyd Jr eats at McDonalds and drinks Kool-Aid, for $#!t's sake!
And air and water pollution must be considered.
Some boxers have added weight-training to their routine nowadays, but for stamina, not for bulk. They don't want size that'll take them out of their weight-class.
Boxers from the late 1800s to the early 1940s all grappled and wrestled in training camp as part of the strength-and-conditioning program. They also swam, used wall-pulleys, light dumb-bells, played handball, and chopped a lot of wood.
________________________________
As for the boxing workout routine itself, yeah, virtually unchanged in over 100 years, even the order of exercises is fairly consistent:
Early morning, 5:30 am or 6 am- Roadwork anywhere from 2 to 5 miles. (3 to 8 km.)
Long ago, some would do 10 miles (16 km) because the fights were scheduled for longer durations.
Some run with small handweights.
Boxing Workout: Everything divided up into 3 min rds/1 min rest.
Warmup, stretching.
Mirror-training.
Shadow-boxing.
Sparring.
Heavy bag.
Speed bag and/or double-end bag.
Focus mitts.
Jump rope.
Calisthenics. (stomach exercises, medicine ball, push-ups, pull-ups, dips, neckbridges, duckwalk.)
Massage.
Total workout is 2 hours in the gym. No more than 3.
Last Bareknuckle Champ John L. Sullivan in the 1880s did roadwork early in the morning, and later in the day did some wrestling in camp, and his boxing workout was sparring, punching bags, medicine ball, jump-rope.
Re: At what point has boxing 'moved on' from it's past champions
Re: At what point has boxing 'moved on' from it's past champions
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bradlee180
A Great fighter is a Great fighter no matter what the era, and Boxing training hasn't really changed much at all in over 100 years!
The only significant change is chemicals: steroids, Human Growth Hormone, blood-doping with epo, xylocaine injections into the hands.
How has nutrition advanced?
Modern food is full of pesticides, poisons, preservatives, vaccinations, growth hormones, anti-depressants, much is genetically-modified and no one knows the long-term effects of eating it yet.
Do you honestly think that Roger and Floyd Mayweather Sr have some kind of superior knowledge about nutrition and sports-science? World-class gifted athlete Floyd Jr eats at McDonalds and drinks Kool-Aid, for $#!t's sake!
And air and water pollution must be considered.
Some boxers have added weight-training to their routine nowadays, but for stamina, not for bulk. They don't want size that'll take them out of their weight-class.
Boxers from the late 1800s to the early 1940s all grappled and wrestled in training camp as part of the strength-and-conditioning program. They also swam, used wall-pulleys, light dumb-bells, played handball, and chopped a lot of wood.
________________________________
As for the boxing workout routine itself, yeah, virtually unchanged in over 100 years, even the order of exercises is fairly consistent:
Early morning, 5:30 am or 6 am- Roadwork anywhere from 2 to 5 miles. (3 to 8 km.)
Long ago, some would do 10 miles (16 km) because the fights were scheduled for longer durations.
Some run with small handweights.
Boxing Workout: Everything divided up into 3 min rds/1 min rest.
Warmup, stretching.
Mirror-training.
Shadow-boxing.
Sparring.
Heavy bag.
Speed bag and/or double-end bag.
Focus mitts.
Jump rope.
Calisthenics. (stomach exercises, medicine ball, push-ups, pull-ups, dips, neckbridges, duckwalk.)
Massage.
Total workout is 2 hours in the gym. No more than 3.
Last Bareknuckle Champ John L. Sullivan in the 1880s did roadwork early in the morning, and later in the day did some wrestling in camp, and his boxing workout was sparring, punching bags, medicine ball, jump-rope.
^This.
All these "new advances" in sports nutrition and strength training are massively overrated.
Re: At what point has boxing 'moved on' from it's past champions
I might agree that training techniques have not changed much and therefore there isn't a great advancement - however, I will disagree that nutrition hasn't changed much and that supplements are not available that are legal and can be taken that make fighters better.
I will agree that a champion is a champion, if a real champion. Perhaps it's the alphabet soup that has me more questioning whether certain paper champions would have competed with the best... but if you compare the best of one era to the best of another area, I think that you more can go with the strengths and weaknesses of the fighter as compared to other factors... it's the middle of the pack that is hard for me to compare - the second tier guys as opposed to the greats.
The one exception to that would be heavyweight. These guys are bigger than the previous era's heavyweights. It would have been difficult for the former heavyweight champions to imagine the size and quickness of today's heavyweights - as well as to imagine their lack of technical skills and conditioning. Rocky IV somewhat characterized what that might look like, when you look at Drago's sheer size and power versus a smaller, quicker Apollo Creed. Not a thudder like Rocky (Tua/Tyson) who would bang no matter what... but a quick champ (Byrd) is pretty well lost against that size of a champ despite good technical ability.
Re: At what point has boxing 'moved on' from it's past champions
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justaguy
I might agree that training techniques have not changed much and therefore there isn't a great advancement - however, I will disagree that nutrition hasn't changed much and that supplements are not available that are legal and can be taken that make fighters better.
I will agree that a champion is a champion, if a real champion. Perhaps it's the alphabet soup that has me more questioning whether certain paper champions would have competed with the best... but if you compare the best of one era to the best of another area, I think that you more can go with the strengths and weaknesses of the fighter as compared to other factors... it's the middle of the pack that is hard for me to compare - the second tier guys as opposed to the greats.
The one exception to that would be heavyweight. These guys are bigger than the previous era's heavyweights. It would have been difficult for the former heavyweight champions to imagine the size and quickness of today's heavyweights - as well as to imagine their lack of technical skills and conditioning. Rocky IV somewhat characterized what that might look like, when you look at Drago's sheer size and power versus a smaller, quicker Apollo Creed. Not a thudder like Rocky (Tua/Tyson) who would bang no matter what... but a quick champ (Byrd) is pretty well lost against that size of a champ despite good technical ability.
Legal supplements are basically just a bunch of bullshit in fancy packaging with outrageous claims written on it that the manufacturers are not even legally required to back up. If you think you can go into GNC and buy some shit that will make you a better fighter then you clearly don't know shit about boxing.
Re: At what point has boxing 'moved on' from it's past champions
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cormega
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justaguy
I might agree that training techniques have not changed much and therefore there isn't a great advancement - however, I will disagree that nutrition hasn't changed much and that supplements are not available that are legal and can be taken that make fighters better.
I will agree that a champion is a champion, if a real champion. Perhaps it's the alphabet soup that has me more questioning whether certain paper champions would have competed with the best... but if you compare the best of one era to the best of another area, I think that you more can go with the strengths and weaknesses of the fighter as compared to other factors... it's the middle of the pack that is hard for me to compare - the second tier guys as opposed to the greats.
The one exception to that would be heavyweight. These guys are bigger than the previous era's heavyweights. It would have been difficult for the former heavyweight champions to imagine the size and quickness of today's heavyweights - as well as to imagine their lack of technical skills and conditioning. Rocky IV somewhat characterized what that might look like, when you look at Drago's sheer size and power versus a smaller, quicker Apollo Creed. Not a thudder like Rocky (Tua/Tyson) who would bang no matter what... but a quick champ (Byrd) is pretty well lost against that size of a champ despite good technical ability.
Legal supplements are basically just a bunch of bullshit in fancy packaging with outrageous claims written on it that the manufacturers are not even legally required to back up. If you think you can go into GNC and buy some shit that will make you a better fighter then you clearly don't know shit about boxing.
I didn't say that it would make you a better boxer... what I said was that it made fighters better - stronger - faster (cue the Million Dollar Man theme). Boxing skills are technical ability and of course you can't go into a store and buy that. You can, however, buy things that give you a slight advantage over people who are not taking what you are taking or who are taking things that don't work as well as what you are taking... a 5% gain at the elite level can make a huge difference.
And I will say this... if these things are just fancy packaging and they don't help with strength and speed, why are so many people taking them and so many nutritionists agreeing that they can give a small advantage? Now, can they make a weakling into a powerhouse? No... but they can enhance what one already has and assist in the training phase for recovery and muscle development. But I probably just don't know anything about boxing... let's go with that one.
Re: At what point has boxing 'moved on' from it's past champions
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justaguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cormega
Quote:
Originally Posted by
justaguy
I might agree that training techniques have not changed much and therefore there isn't a great advancement - however, I will disagree that nutrition hasn't changed much and that supplements are not available that are legal and can be taken that make fighters better.
I will agree that a champion is a champion, if a real champion. Perhaps it's the alphabet soup that has me more questioning whether certain paper champions would have competed with the best... but if you compare the best of one era to the best of another area, I think that you more can go with the strengths and weaknesses of the fighter as compared to other factors... it's the middle of the pack that is hard for me to compare - the second tier guys as opposed to the greats.
The one exception to that would be heavyweight. These guys are bigger than the previous era's heavyweights. It would have been difficult for the former heavyweight champions to imagine the size and quickness of today's heavyweights - as well as to imagine their lack of technical skills and conditioning. Rocky IV somewhat characterized what that might look like, when you look at Drago's sheer size and power versus a smaller, quicker Apollo Creed. Not a thudder like Rocky (Tua/Tyson) who would bang no matter what... but a quick champ (Byrd) is pretty well lost against that size of a champ despite good technical ability.
Legal supplements are basically just a bunch of bullshit in fancy packaging with outrageous claims written on it that the manufacturers are not even legally required to back up. If you think you can go into GNC and buy some shit that will make you a better fighter then you clearly don't know shit about boxing.
I didn't say that it would make you a better boxer... what I said was that it made fighters better - stronger - faster (cue the Million Dollar Man theme). Boxing skills are technical ability and of course you can't go into a store and buy that. You can, however, buy things that give you a slight advantage over people who are not taking what you are taking or who are taking things that don't work as well as what you are taking... a 5% gain at the elite level can make a huge difference.
And I will say this... if these things are just fancy packaging and they don't help with strength and speed, why are so many people taking them and so many nutritionists agreeing that they can give a small advantage? Now, can they make a weakling into a powerhouse? No... but they can enhance what one already has and assist in the training phase for recovery and muscle development. But I probably just don't know anything about boxing... let's go with that one.
You can bet your ass that any of these supplements that really do anything for you have been banned for use in just about every pro sport in the world. Now, if we're talking about banned supplements then you may have a point, but legal supplements? Shit, andro is even banned and clinical studies have shown that it isn't worth a shit for performance enhancement.
