How to correctly honour the history of boxing. MaxPower 101
During all the discussions of various topics, many a reader might reach the unfortunate conclusion that myself, as well as perhaps certain few others, HATE boxing history. Nothing I can assure you is further from the truth!
I think that one can only have an appreciation of boxing at all, if one first has knowledge and an appreciation of the sports history first. Just as in any other endeavour.
The difference between the modernist (my) perspective and the nostalgist (or OTNB) perspective, comes down to how the past is to be properly honoured. It seems almost that embracing the present or recent eras of the sport is akin to dismissing the past, even forgetting it somewhat. These 2 views do not HAVE to be immutable. They CAN be held without the other as a necessary positive.
Seems to me that OTNB posters feel that the only way to ensure the memory or legacy of their favourite old time boxers is to construct a mythology, an almost religious sect in which the achievements.qualities of such boxers are held to some kind of unmatchable or indomitable standard which no boxer thereafter can ever encroach upon.
Take for instance the Shavers dilemma, recently highlighten on the forum "Shavers, the hardest puncher ever".
It is in fact IMPOSSIBLE in theory for Shavers (or any boxer) to really be the hardest puncher for all time. As soon as something like this is declared, boxers with a harder punch will, via the law of entropy, appear, but because they will have no common opponents or punch pads to measure against, there will never be any way to show numerically that these guys unequivocally hit harder. There in fact ARE methods which I used on the Shavers thread myself which go largely ignored, which are basically conclusively overwhelming but leave room for OTNB to debate.
Similarly the "Joe Louis best right hand of all time", or Muhammad Ali, "greatest of all time", with such statements made, and subjective argument allowed together, it doesn't matter if 100 boxers exceeded these guys here, the immutable statements can no longer be assailed as they are set in stone as some kind of Moses law which can never be tested without a time machine.
Again, there are ways to show beyond any reasonable doubt that it is false, but subjective opinions are allowed to overshadow facts for nostalgic posters because their favourite boxer is removed from common opponents to test against empirically.
Max Power 101: Any nostalgist claim which involves "OF ALL TIME" can immediately considered false, on the grounds where it is applied to a boxer in a past era from which empirical evidence to support the claim is now impossible to obtain FOR ALL TIME as well!
There is another way to honour the past, a twist on one of my previous laws...
"Every Generation of boxers and trainers, does the groundwork and lays the foundations of the sport for the generations that follow"
AND
"Every generation of boxers and trainers has the previous generation of boxers, trainers and sports scientists to thank for their development of the sport to lead to the success which they themselves have in it in their generation. Without them, their own performance would not be possible!"
It is in this way and ONLY in this way that we can properly honour the heroes of our sport past and current together, without ANY disrespect OR conflict. That's what it SHOULD be about.
The preferred method promoted by the large nostalgic OTNB community is causing enormous damage to the sport and is its single biggest continuity threat. Boxing will die a death from being eroded by stupidity from within long before health authorities or competition with other sports will ever do it serious harm.
Re: How to correctly honour the history of boxing. MaxPower 101
If you got a punching bag and measured the punches of fighters you would be right a lot of fighters today may puch harder because they weigh more.
Actually landing that punch is a fight against quality opponents is much harder to do.
Punch power makes up a lot of things more than just weight it includes speed, accuracy, timing, technique and experience.
To knock someone down and out at the highest level takes years and does not come over night.
Guys like Louis and Shavers fought the best in their era and demonstrated their power against the best chins of all time.
Do not demean what they have achieved ever.
Re: How to correctly honour the history of boxing. MaxPower 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
If you got a punching bag and measured the punches of fighters you would be right a lot of fighters today may puch harder because they weigh more.
Actually landing that punch is a fight against quality opponents is much harder to do.
Punch power makes up a lot of things more than just weight it includes speed, accuracy, timing, technique and experience.
To knock someone down and out at the highest level takes years and does not come over night.
Guys like Louis and Shavers fought the best in their era and demonstrated their power against the best chins of all time.
Do not demean what they have achieved ever.
I agree with you on the intricacies of punch power. Which is why I think KOratio vs quality+heavy opponents is a better indicator than lbs per square inch of force. and why I think an even better measure is "rounds per KO vs quality+relevant opponents" an even better measure because it encompasses delivery skills.
However I obviously completely disagree on your final points.
These guys proved their power/delivery on guys with FAR weaker chins than the guys today do, obvious by the general size of the opponents.
When analysing 2 boxers of different sizes, the chances are much greater that the larger boxer has the better chin. OF course, in practice it often still occurs that the smaller boxer can obviously have the harder chin. But when we analyse a representative sample of boxers, a population of fighters, a whole resume or a whole era, the sample with the heavier boxers ALWAYS has the harder chins in general. This is just plain obvious fact!
When we analyse Shavers opponents, they are without much exception, mostly cruiserweights (much easier to KO than genuine HW's) and bums (much easier to land his power on than quality opponents) or both (much easier to land on AND knock out).
So yeah, I think one can ONLY objectively state it this way and it isn't degrading at all.
Objectively speaking Deontay Wilder has a resume approximately 500x better than Earnie Shavers. Yet we don't comment on the hardness of his opponents chins he cracked or the quality of their skills he managed to overcome do we? I wonder why that is and I wonder why we should have to do that for Shavers but not for Deontay? Hmmm
It is what it is!
Re: How to correctly honour the history of boxing. MaxPower 101
Wilder is as yet untested.
Shavers knocked down Holmes. Holmes said he was the hardest puncher he faced.
Ali said he was the hardest puncher he faced.
Until Wilder gets anywhere near Wlad and does the same then it will be mentioned until then it will not.
Re: How to correctly honour the history of boxing. MaxPower 101
Shavers wasted a string of bums and cruisers = his power was tested.
Wilder wasted a string of HW bums = untested?
AND
Wilder hasn't fought Wlad yet = untested
Shavers landed a good punch on Ali, failed to knock him down, knocked Holmes down whom got up and beat him anyway = tested. ?
I would say that Wilder was a puncher vs HEAVIER bums than Shavers whom he never failed to KO whereas Earnie sometimes did and sometimes even LOST to and Wilder finished his all much faster too!
And on quality opponents, Wilder has so far succeeded in KOing the few he has fought whereas Shavers ALWAYS failed against them except for the single exception of Ken Norton!
I wonder what Malik Scott has to say regarding the power of Wilder's punch. Scott, who has a better record than almost any opponent Shavers ever fought!
Re: How to correctly honour the history of boxing. MaxPower 101
Scott lay down for his friend. Not the best example. :)
Re: How to correctly honour the history of boxing. MaxPower 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Scott lay down for his friend. Not the best example. :)
Yeah alright I actually agree there. Scott was a credible opponent I'd expect to provide solid resistance and the KO seemed REALLY fishy to me, almost like it was a payroll job.
Bad example.
Re: How to correctly honour the history of boxing. MaxPower 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Master
Guys like Louis and Shavers fought the best in their era and demonstrated their power against the best chins of all time.
Do not demean what they have achieved ever.
Why are you using Louis and Shavers in the same sentence? WHY? Hahahaha
Re: How to correctly honour the history of boxing. MaxPower 101
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ruthless rocco
Max Power 101:
Max became a dad, now his woman won't bang him. She doesn't respect him and thinks he's a pathetic wank. His only place he gets attention or feels any control in his life is here.
Get help Max, before you go shooting up a shopping mall full of people.
Your actually not far wrong there at all! How do you know about any of this shit? Who are you?
