MAX POWERISM 101:
--bigger is better
--newer is bigger
∴ newer is better
There you go @maxpower . Now you never have to start another thread or contribute to another post ever again.
Printable View
MAX POWERISM 101:
--bigger is better
--newer is bigger
∴ newer is better
There you go @maxpower . Now you never have to start another thread or contribute to another post ever again.
Screw you Rocco!
I haven't started any threads in months. And shouldn't these slanderous ones be in that nasty little hidden board I stumbled across earlier?
You think size is the only factor I look at when I compare boxers? If that were the case then you could easily refute any argument because obviously smaller boxers can and do beat bigger ones. Otherwise there'd be no point to boxing because we'd know who the winners will be.
But I'm sorry, when discussing the HW division, where you are expressly ALLOWED to outweigh your opponent by an unlimited amount, then proportions become extremely important!
In fact, aside from skill, which is a subjective assessment, weight is the next most important and the first most directly measurable important quality in assessing a HW fighter. It's inescapable.
When for instance, Wladimir Klitschko fought the then only undefeated American HW Ray Austin, there was no height or weight advantage for either, they were exactly the same. So Wladimir must have possessed some other feature that was decisive in this fight... QUALITY.
And when 205lb Holyfield lost to Riddick Bowe, his trainers decided for him to bulk up to 215 for the next fight with Bowe which he won. They did NOT think he should further cut his weight for "speed" reasons!
Whoops my bad! I over complicated the lesson. Let's start over.
MAX POWERISM 101:
Newer is better.
I don't think ray austin was ever undefeated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
???Quote:
Originally Posted by palmerqI don't think ray austin was ever undefeated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
Well he was.. Until he met Wladimir.
In fact even the draw vs Ibragimov was basically a win for Austin. He filed a protest because they did not score a KD during the fight. The panel agreed, did not overturn the decision but based on findings, is what earned Austin his shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
That's because you were banned.
Ray Austin - BoxerQuote:
Originally Posted by Max Power???Quote:
Originally Posted by palmerqI don't think ray austin was ever undefeated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
Well he was.. Until he met Wladimir.
In fact even the draw vs Ibragimov was basically a win for Austin. He filed a protest because they did not score a KD during the fight. The panel agreed, did not overturn the decision but based on findings, is what earned Austin his shot.
:D
I want to write a word support to @Max Power
that sometimes, very untraditional way of thinking might be very valuable.
Thanks, but where I'm from, the tradition is reversed.Quote:
Originally Posted by NVSemin
You could approximately sum up my assertations even more simply, without any analysis..
It goes..
"AS IF most of these guys you try to promote against the ones you bash would stand any chance whatsoever!"
It is unimaginable what the upper echelons of HW boxing today would do to long ago eras boxers.
But all nationalist and racist reasons aside, there is a more basic reason why anybody, even modernist fans sometimes make illegitimate comparison and it is confusion over the term HW.
Past eras were CALLED HW but they were largely synonymous with the Cruiserweight and at even earlier times the current light HW division.
It then becomes obvious that current limit weight boxers are faster, more skilled and more athletic than any boxers of the past.
The only thing these old guys have in common with current HW's is the NAME only.
Take a look at these 2 "boys" here...
http://image.trucktrend.com/f/featur...hammad-ali.jpg.
It's only when you view images like this with respect to what I said above that one realises guys like Clay and Joe were NOT HW's as we describe them today, but GROSSLY OUT OF SHAPE CRUISERS!
Then look at this picture...
http://2l7kr2xl4t7418ewd3w7ur01d2m.w...weigh-in-1.jpg
Do you see the difference, yes or no?
Are we talking up Ray "The Rainman" Austin here??
I saw the fight.
If I were defending Wlad's record, I'd leave Rainman out of the argument. :vd:
Also, I know encyclopedic sources are generally frowned upon around here, but.....
Admittedly, not having been a big "Rainman" follower during his forgettable career, I must resort to Wikipedia for this sort of thing.
So..... weren't there 3 defeats in Rainman's record when he "fought" (and I use the term loosely) Wladimir?
Including one by knockout?
Someone enlighten me how this somehow constitutes an undefeated record.
Newer IS better.
You don't often here ''..and the old', do you :p
Logic ;)
I can see your point,modern fighters do have it better in so many ways. In general over all the weights I think the fighters of old were more mentally tough from the work during the times and were more determined grittier fighters that could go for some amazing number of rounds.Most fights were for around an hour but varied from 20 minutes up to 3 and half hours. One bare fisted boxing match went for 3 hours 16 miniutes after which one fighter Simon Byrne died 3 days later (Byrne had also killed a man in the ring prior to his last fight.)
Theres the difference; skills correct diets advanced techniques lesser rounds and gloves.
Cant compare the two really and then there s the guys who fell into the game in between the two extremes some had some of the old grit in them some more of the newer stuff some a touch of both hard to draw a distinct line in the sand though. 20 rounds,15,12,10. You take one fighter from here to there or one from there to here and each may not do so well in the others eras.
So true, thats another point again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimanuel Boogustus
Again Max shows pictures of the bodies of today's heavyweights so what they are fitter, better, stronger, firmer, gayer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFan
Er.. That was my bad. Sorry yes, Ray was not undefeated I made huge mistake. It was his opponent Ibragimov that was undefeated.
Anyway I was not bringing up Austin to promote HIS quality, merely that because him and Wladimir are the same size, obviously Wladimir possesses something else besides size to win.
Some guys try to claim that I ONLY use size in arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Alright, let's dispense with the pictures...
Here is "MAX POWERISM 101" for real.
1/ The TOTAL PACKAGE of HW boxers today in general is FAR GREATER than the total package of boxers past.
2/ At HW there are boxers with better defense, better offence, worse this quality, worse that quality, fat and athletic, tall and short, muscular or skinny and it's always been that way at HW. It does not make SENSE to compare a defensive fighter from yesteryear, to a crude slugger today and vice verse.
3/ When we compare the DEFENSIVE boxers today to yesterday, todays are much better.
4/ When we compare the OFFENSIVE boxers today to yesterday, todays are much better.
5/ Technical boxers today are MUCH better.
6/ Today's ATHLETIC boxers (excluding chubbers) are MUCH more athletic than yesterdays athletic boxers (again, excluding chubbers)
7/ With respect to boxers in the HW division today roughly the same size as past HW's, the newer ones are much FASTER than previous! It doesn't make sense to compare the speed of 6'3" 210lb Clay to 6'9" 260lb Fury for example. It DOES make sense to compare it to David Haye!
Basically individual attributes and skills should be compared cross eras to their natural counterparts, not to opposite extremes.
The problem can be solved even more simply by comparing with the Cruiser division where the weight is under 215lbs (the weight of cruisers today on fight night).
And see law #1 for any other argument LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerQuote:
Originally Posted by Master
Alright, let's dispense with the pictures...
Here is "MAX POWERISM 101" for real.
1/ The TOTAL PACKAGE of HW boxers today in general is FAR GREATER than the total package of boxers past.
2/ At HW there are boxers with better defense, better offence, worse this quality, worse that quality, fat and athletic, tall and short, muscular or skinny and it's always been that way at HW. It does not make SENSE to compare a defensive fighter from yesteryear, to a crude slugger today and vice verse.
3/ When we compare the DEFENSIVE boxers today to yesterday, todays are much better.
4/ When we compare the OFFENSIVE boxers today to yesterday, todays are much better.
5/ Technical boxers today are MUCH better.
6/ Today's ATHLETIC boxers (excluding chubbers) are MUCH more athletic than yesterdays athletic boxers (again, excluding chubbers)
7/ With respect to boxers in the HW division today roughly the same size as past HW's, the newer ones are much FASTER than previous! It doesn't make sense to compare the speed of 6'3" 210lb Clay to 6'9" 260lb Fury for example. It DOES make sense to compare it to David Haye!
Basically individual attributes and skills should be compared cross eras to their natural counterparts, not to opposite extremes.
The problem can be solved even more simply by comparing with the Cruiser division where the weight is under 215lbs (the weight of cruisers today on fight night).
And see law #1 for any other argument LOL
Blah Blah blaHHH!
I'm guessing that your baby's momma stopped banging you right after she got pregnant and hasn't felt like banging since the poor child was born. You haven't had sex in like a year and a half and looking at sweaty, oiled and hulked up fighters is your only sexual release.
See a doctor or therapist or go to prostitutes man! You need help.
There is Wlad and far far far below him are a bunch of inept, unskilled, heartless bums who should play another sport.
The end.
On the number or rounds fought in previous times Andre....Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
With respect to the HW division which has been getting increasingly heavier, RING STAMINA is related not just to cardio efficiency, but also total expenditure of energy during a bout. What I mean is ANY boxer can fight for ANY number of rounds, energy wise, so long as they fight at an appropriate pace for their condition and their size!
The size of the boxer plays an even more important role than the conditioning especially when in the form of muscle mass because they consume so much oxygen.
Basically, slower pace OR lesser rounds is a product of stronger boxers.
There is another important point.
Past time boxers that fought many rounds, the punch was bareable! It's obvious that 2 powerful modern boxers would never be able to fight hard for that long anyway because one would be knocked out long before the end.
MAX POWERISM 101:
12-15-20 Rounds of boxing or whatever.. Is a sign of FAILURE! Failure to win by KO! No boxer WANTS to fight for so long. No boxer PLANS to fight for so long (unless your Chris Byrd). Going the to the cards is a sign that whatever tactics and strategy you had implemented to beat your opponent did not work out optimally the way you wanted. Maybe not necessarily because you YOURSELF were bad, but because maybe your opponent was too good.
Anyway, considering longer round fights from previous times against current 12 round boxers penalises modern fighters in another way too. PREVIOUS boxers had 3 or more extra rounds up there sleeve in order to score a KO! If modern boxers were ALLOWED to continue boxing past 12 when they reached it, there would be more KO's scored and KO ratio's would be even higher today!
Let me tell you right now, any boxer who steps into the ring with Wladimir Klitschko has far more heart that anybody who stepped into the ring with the featherfisted punching bags that you support!Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
This is a guy who has barely lost more than a handful of rounds of boxing EVER and with high frequency canvas KO's his opponents. Any opponent getting in the ring with Klitschko does so with the knowledge that they will probably end up unconscious, that they will barely lay a glove on him, and they will be eating leather for as long as the fight lasts. And all this, no matter how hard they try, no matter what they do, how hard they trained or what tactics they worked on.
Everytime Wladimir enters the ring,
His opponent is a proven boxer
Or someone being praised as "the next big thing"
Maybe an unbeaten southpaw
Or someone who has never lost a fight before
Or a former world champion, or even a beater of a world champion
Or a current world champion
Or one of the best KO'ers with a KO'ratio of 75%, 85% or even 90%
Or one of the fastest boxers of all time
Are you seriously trying to tell me that of the 63 win fights of WK now, that none of them had any heart or any boxing cred? ;D
A generalization with the weakness and ko thing.There were 60 to 100 round fights at times past short two minute rounds. There were plenty of ko's and short fights back then because you cant train a loose chin and ther foot work was nothing like those of later days. There were more fights in towns than were charted down you only get to read about the famous ones. Realistically if you whipped one modern fighter back in time most of the boys who fight today would be bawling about lack of rules, not brawling for their life as you had to do to survive. Plenty of people fighting these days with a weakness they can hide behind because of the rules, gloves,better techniques, better refs. Many are here now with such size and reach they can and do spend the rounds moving around behind their jab, these types you could call smarter or one dimensional compared with some others from the near past too. Just as some from the near past are one dimension compared with some freakish skilled fighters of today. Everything works both ways you cant generalise when theres such vast difference in rules. Those old bare fisters would grab an outstretched arm and roll their body weight around the outside of it throwing the opponent into the ropes,tread on feet, the elbow would always follow the missed punch in close,thumb in eye,head butts you name it,no stopping for little cuts back then.Fuck me Harry the windmill fought blind in one eye for years. The modern boys wouldnt be anywhere near a ring in the same situation.They were not weak cunts mate, they would wield an axe ,a pick or a sledge hammer all day and then train half the night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerOn the number or rounds fought in previous times Andre....Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
With respect to the HW division which has been getting increasingly heavier, RING STAMINA is related not just to cardio efficiency, but also total expenditure of energy during a bout. What I mean is ANY boxer can fight for ANY number of rounds, energy wise, so long as they fight at an appropriate pace for their condition and their size!
The size of the boxer plays an even more important role than the conditioning especially when in the form of muscle mass because they consume so much oxygen.
Basically, slower pace OR lesser rounds is a product of stronger boxers.
There is another important point.
Past time boxers that fought many rounds, the punch was bareable! It's obvious that 2 powerful modern boxers would never be able to fight hard for that long anyway because one would be knocked out long before the end.
MAX POWERISM 101:
12-15-20 Rounds of boxing or whatever.. Is a sign of FAILURE! Failure to win by KO! No boxer WANTS to fight for so long. No boxer PLANS to fight for so long (unless your Chris Byrd). Going the to the cards is a sign that whatever tactics and strategy you had implemented to beat your opponent did not work out optimally the way you wanted. Maybe not necessarily because you YOURSELF were bad, but because maybe your opponent was too good.
Anyway, considering longer round fights from previous times against current 12 round boxers penalises modern fighters in another way too. PREVIOUS boxers had 3 or more extra rounds up there sleeve in order to score a KO! If modern boxers were ALLOWED to continue boxing past 12 when they reached it, there would be more KO's scored and KO ratio's would be even higher today!
Yes the rules have evolved/changed, which blurs the distinguishment of what it means to even be a "boxer" let alone just a "HW".Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreA generalization with the weakness and ko thing.There were 60 to 100 round fights at times past short two minute rounds. There were plenty of ko's and short fights back then because you cant train a loose chin and ther foot work was nothing like those of later days. There were more fights in towns than were charted down you only get to read about the famous ones. Realistically if you whipped one modern fighter back in time most of the boys who fight today would be bawling about lack of rules, not brawling for their life as you had to do to survive. Plenty of people fighting these days with a weakness they can hide behind because of the rules, gloves,better techniques, better refs. Many are here now with such size and reach they can and do spend the rounds moving around behind their jab, these types you could call smarter or one dimensional compared with some others from the near past too. Just as some from the near past are one dimension compared with some freakish skilled fighters of today. Everything works both ways you cant generalise when theres such vast difference in rules. Those old bare fisters would grab an outstretched arm and roll their body weight around the outside of it throwing the opponent into the ropes,tread on feet, the elbow would always follow the missed punch in close,thumb in eye,head butts you name it,no stopping for little cuts back then.Fuck me Harry the windmill fought blind in one eye for years. The modern boys wouldnt be anywhere near a ring in the same situation.They were not weak cunts mate, they would wield an axe ,a pick or a sledge hammer all day and then train half the night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerOn the number or rounds fought in previous times Andre....Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
With respect to the HW division which has been getting increasingly heavier, RING STAMINA is related not just to cardio efficiency, but also total expenditure of energy during a bout. What I mean is ANY boxer can fight for ANY number of rounds, energy wise, so long as they fight at an appropriate pace for their condition and their size!
The size of the boxer plays an even more important role than the conditioning especially when in the form of muscle mass because they consume so much oxygen.
Basically, slower pace OR lesser rounds is a product of stronger boxers.
There is another important point.
Past time boxers that fought many rounds, the punch was bareable! It's obvious that 2 powerful modern boxers would never be able to fight hard for that long anyway because one would be knocked out long before the end.
MAX POWERISM 101:
12-15-20 Rounds of boxing or whatever.. Is a sign of FAILURE! Failure to win by KO! No boxer WANTS to fight for so long. No boxer PLANS to fight for so long (unless your Chris Byrd). Going the to the cards is a sign that whatever tactics and strategy you had implemented to beat your opponent did not work out optimally the way you wanted. Maybe not necessarily because you YOURSELF were bad, but because maybe your opponent was too good.
Anyway, considering longer round fights from previous times against current 12 round boxers penalises modern fighters in another way too. PREVIOUS boxers had 3 or more extra rounds up there sleeve in order to score a KO! If modern boxers were ALLOWED to continue boxing past 12 when they reached it, there would be more KO's scored and KO ratio's would be even higher today!
I find it amusing sometimes today when modern fans complain about Wladimir's or even somewhat nostalgic fans about Ali's "holding" when back in the very old days, wrestling was BUILT into boxing.
I personally, Andre, think that the modern fighters could better adapt to an older system though, whereas a more ancient fighter, no matter how hard he tried, would simply be knocked out anyway.
Now we're moving into my subjective opinion though so I guess yours is equally valid here.
One further thing you have to consider though, is that in the past, where fights went for more rounds, you MUST consider how many fights, as you have alluded to, ACTUALLY WENT that many rounds!
I will consider 13 rounds+ to capture all previous eras...
- Of the approximately 70,000 fights across all eras, only 1,600, 2%! went 13+ rounds! They are extremely rare in the history of HW boxing!
- Of the 80 or so HW champs, only HALF of them even HAD such a long fight at all!
- Such fights always involved not only weaker punches but also a lot of missed punches and a lot of clinching.
- Most of the champs that DID have these longer fights only had 1 or 2 of them.
The 5 HW champs in history who had the MOST over-long fights were,
Ezzard Charles, Jack Johnson, Muhammad Ali, Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns...
All of them cruisers, light heavies or even middleweights by todays standards. And all of them featherfists by even the THEN standards!
There punches were weaker than todays punches and their opponents were weaker too!
I personally feel that nostalgists who claim "past boxers fought more rounds, had better ring stamina" are converting failures, or lacking qualities into virtues to protect legacies. Boxing is not a marathon to me, who can last the longest, for me it's who can either knock their opponent out or win the most number of rounds within the specified limit.
But the REAL clincher is this, when considering MODERN HW (200+), there have only been 31! fights in boxing history that have gone more than 12 rounds! 31 in history! Of which total featherfists Johnson and Ali are responsible for 15 of these failures alone!
And 215+ overlong fights (about the weight of a cruiser on fight night or roughly the smallest HW today) only 12 times in history!
I also like reading max powers posts too(Although sometimes they get a bit repetitive), he certainly offers something different and I think he certainly makes a few interesting points... Different opinions make forum reading funQuote:
Originally Posted by NVSemin
I was never talking just HW. I was thinking more of eras and why. But for some reason thats where the major concentration of general public has always seemed to be the world champ was the largest and best I suppose is the thought behind it. I much prefer the lighter weights speed and actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerYes the rules have evolved/changed, which blurs the distinguishment of what it means to even be a "boxer" let alone just a "HW".Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreA generalization with the weakness and ko thing.There were 60 to 100 round fights at times past short two minute rounds. There were plenty of ko's and short fights back then because you cant train a loose chin and ther foot work was nothing like those of later days. There were more fights in towns than were charted down you only get to read about the famous ones. Realistically if you whipped one modern fighter back in time most of the boys who fight today would be bawling about lack of rules, not brawling for their life as you had to do to survive. Plenty of people fighting these days with a weakness they can hide behind because of the rules, gloves,better techniques, better refs. Many are here now with such size and reach they can and do spend the rounds moving around behind their jab, these types you could call smarter or one dimensional compared with some others from the near past too. Just as some from the near past are one dimension compared with some freakish skilled fighters of today. Everything works both ways you cant generalise when theres such vast difference in rules. Those old bare fisters would grab an outstretched arm and roll their body weight around the outside of it throwing the opponent into the ropes,tread on feet, the elbow would always follow the missed punch in close,thumb in eye,head butts you name it,no stopping for little cuts back then.Fuck me Harry the windmill fought blind in one eye for years. The modern boys wouldnt be anywhere near a ring in the same situation.They were not weak cunts mate, they would wield an axe ,a pick or a sledge hammer all day and then train half the night.Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerOn the number or rounds fought in previous times Andre....Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
With respect to the HW division which has been getting increasingly heavier, RING STAMINA is related not just to cardio efficiency, but also total expenditure of energy during a bout. What I mean is ANY boxer can fight for ANY number of rounds, energy wise, so long as they fight at an appropriate pace for their condition and their size!
The size of the boxer plays an even more important role than the conditioning especially when in the form of muscle mass because they consume so much oxygen.
Basically, slower pace OR lesser rounds is a product of stronger boxers.
There is another important point.
Past time boxers that fought many rounds, the punch was bareable! It's obvious that 2 powerful modern boxers would never be able to fight hard for that long anyway because one would be knocked out long before the end.
MAX POWERISM 101:
12-15-20 Rounds of boxing or whatever.. Is a sign of FAILURE! Failure to win by KO! No boxer WANTS to fight for so long. No boxer PLANS to fight for so long (unless your Chris Byrd). Going the to the cards is a sign that whatever tactics and strategy you had implemented to beat your opponent did not work out optimally the way you wanted. Maybe not necessarily because you YOURSELF were bad, but because maybe your opponent was too good.
Anyway, considering longer round fights from previous times against current 12 round boxers penalises modern fighters in another way too. PREVIOUS boxers had 3 or more extra rounds up there sleeve in order to score a KO! If modern boxers were ALLOWED to continue boxing past 12 when they reached it, there would be more KO's scored and KO ratio's would be even higher today!
I find it amusing sometimes today when modern fans complain about Wladimir's or even somewhat nostalgic fans about Ali's "holding" when back in the very old days, wrestling was BUILT into boxing.
I personally, Andre, think that the modern fighters could better adapt to an older system though, whereas a more ancient fighter, no matter how hard he tried, would simply be knocked out anyway.
Now we're moving into my subjective opinion though so I guess yours is equally valid here.
One further thing you have to consider though, is that in the past, where fights went for more rounds, you MUST consider how many fights, as you have alluded to, ACTUALLY WENT that many rounds!
I will consider 13 rounds+ to capture all previous eras...
- Of the approximately 70,000 fights across all eras, only 1,600, 2%! went 13+ rounds! They are extremely rare in the history of HW boxing!
- Of the 80 or so HW champs, only HALF of them even HAD such a long fight at all!
- Such fights always involved not only weaker punches but also a lot of missed punches and a lot of clinching.
- Most of the champs that DID have these longer fights only had 1 or 2 of them.
The 5 HW champs in history who had the MOST over-long fights were,
Ezzard Charles, Jack Johnson, Muhammad Ali, Marvin Hart, Tommy Burns...
All of them cruisers, light heavies or even middleweights by todays standards. And all of them featherfists by even the THEN standards!
There punches were weaker than todays punches and their opponents were weaker too!
I personally feel that nostalgists who claim "past boxers fought more rounds, had better ring stamina" are converting failures, or lacking qualities into virtues to protect legacies. Boxing is not a marathon to me, who can last the longest, for me it's who can either knock their opponent out or win the most number of rounds within the specified limit.
But the REAL clincher is this, when considering MODERN HW (200+), there have only been 31! fights in boxing history that have gone more than 12 rounds! 31 in history! Of which total featherfists Johnson and Ali are responsible for 15 of these failures alone!
And 215+ overlong fights (about the weight of a cruiser on fight night or roughly the smallest HW today) only 12 times in history!
Also on your side of thinking for the modern fighter; is they get much more power through body mechanics coming all the way from the big toe by the use of modern gripping shoes instead of flat leather shoes and talc tray in the corner.
Modern have all the benefits you've mentioned and more. Shame some of them havent the heart or balls of the old fighters eh? I think thats why Im attracted more to the mid to lighter Mexican fighters now Im thinking about it.
Yeah I cannot argue against the better equipment thing Andre. Better performance and safety equipment and all that too you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
On the heart and balls thing though I fully disagree but this is a subjective assessment that I can't prove or disprove in any way. If you think they had better determination/motivation or just plain guts back in the day, that's your prerogative Andre.
I would much prefer to be in the ring with someone like Ali or Johnson than I would with a Tyson or a Klitschko personally, and would be more apt to try much harder too because the stakes were much lower.
You've mentioned gloves before being thinner back in the day. That's an interesting issue. Today's boxers with thicker gloves actually have far greater incidence of pugilistic dementia (or punch drunkenness) because their skin and bones are better protected that they absorb far more damage before stoppage.
I have researched in a study somewhere which escapes me now that the boxers were not so brain damaged by the use of bare knuckles or only thin gloves.
But of course the price to pay then was obviously far greater and deforming, sometimes horrific structural damage to skin, and bones of the face and bones etc. that society would never accept today. Brain damage is mostly a long term and most times not immediately visible effect which is how it goes under the radar.
@palmerq and @NVSeminQuote:
Originally Posted by palmerqI also like reading max powers posts too(Although sometimes they get a bit repetitive), he certainly offers something different and I think he certainly makes a few interesting points... Different opinions make forum reading funQuote:
Originally Posted by NVSemin
I appreciate your tolerance of opinions of course and thank you.
I try to not become repetitive but sometimes the topics argued against are themselves repetitive. A typical thing I have found with many posters I argue with is "merry go rounding". By the time something has been fully argued out, it goes back to square one.
Can't we just get to the thick of things...? Which is that Max Power's whole argument is that the new fighters have better science and diet a drugs over the older fighters. That, combined with the technique gained by the advancements made by the older fighters, leads us to the conclusion that ALL NEW fighters are better than ALL OLD fighters.
There's no need for further discussion on his part. That's his entire argument.
Newer is better. Period!
And yet he continues to make post after post after post after post post after post after post after post post after post after post after post post after post after post after post post after post after post after post post after post after post after post post after post after post after post post after post after post after post post after post after post after post about the same fucking point.
It's senseless and it's stupid and it's wrong!!!!!
Sounds like you've been chasing the dragon for quite some time my friend. Put the glassware down and try the bottle instead, you will sleep better ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthless rocco
He is wrong period.
Wlad has been unbeaten in 10 years because the division is the worst it has ever been. The vast majority of challengers are so far below the standard 1990's that he has remained champion for so long. Wlad is a great heavyweight champion and a good role model but he does not clinically knock out fighters until he is 100% they have no resistance. He takes 10 rounds when it should be 5. He has a vulnerable chin and that is why he fights the way he does with excessive holding.
Better science my ass.
He CAN and DID knock out fighters much quicker and more aggressively in the past, look at the record, watch the fights!Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Trouble is his opposition got much better and much more dangerous. He probably still could waste most of them anyway but why would he want to take more damage in the process when he can do it without it? And why would he increase his chance of losing to show off? He completely dissects his opponents, then knocks them out. Safely! That is smart science of boxing whether you have a strong chin or a weak one!
Let's say he has the weakest chin of all time (which is wrong but let's have it your way for now Master), basically your admitting that he is so unbelievably good that he can be successful in the hardest hitting and heaviest era ever on record for 10 years straight with a glass jaw.
LOL Which is it?
Well over in Europe, they consider the 90's a bum era. I have heard many Slavic posters make this claim with decent arguments too! Nationally biased? NO DOUBT!
The truth is, the 90's, 00's and now the 10's were VERY COMPARABLE!
Average boxer weight in Holyfield/Lewis era 220lbs. Average boxer weight in Klitschko (combined) era, 225lbs. Similar records. Look similarly good on film. Sorry but I personally see no clear advantage of either era!
You do the exact same thing with Manny you knucklehead.Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthless rocco
I actually thought the majority were in agreement that the last few years has been the worse HW division ever?
Bores the shit out of me, plodding slow rounds, no big risks taken,no heart.
I can appreciate WK like I could that German who perfected just a few moves around a very tight defense fuck what was his name that guy who ko'ed Mundine :D then retired unbeaten. Spen Oktte.
I had my head on Oktte Urkal for a second,poor bastard I shouldnt even have his name in the same paragraph as Spen, Urkal was an exciting hard hitting fighter who put it all on the line.
good ol' max power. always trying to make the same arguments about the HW division today being really good. talks about guys like chagaev and ibromigov as if they are ATGs. if these HWs were as good as he says, the HW division would be super popular today in the US. people in the US arent as bad as others make them out to be. we like fighters from different countries and they can just as easily be our favorite fighters as a foreigner can be. if the division were that good, it would be popular and wlad would be a big name. if wlad were american, i dont think that things would change too much.
Lewis, Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield from 1990’s v your top 4 2010?Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerHe CAN and DID knock out fighters much quicker and more aggressively in the past, look at the record, watch the fights!Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Trouble is his opposition got much better and much more dangerous. He probably still could waste most of them anyway but why would he want to take more damage in the process when he can do it without it? And why would he increase his chance of losing to show off? He completely dissects his opponents, then knocks them out. Safely! That is smart science of boxing whether you have a strong chin or a weak one!
Let's say he has the weakest chin of all time (which is wrong but let's have it your way for now Master), basically your admitting that he is so unbelievably good that he can be successful in the hardest hitting and heaviest era ever on record for 10 years straight with a glass jaw.
LOL Which is it?
Well over in Europe, they consider the 90's a bum era. I have heard many Slavic posters make this claim with decent arguments too! Nationally biased? NO DOUBT!
The truth is, the 90's, 00's and now the 10's were VERY COMPARABLE!
Average boxer weight in Holyfield/Lewis era 220lbs. Average boxer weight in Klitschko (combined) era, 225lbs. Similar records. Look similarly good on film. Sorry but I personally see no clear advantage of either era!
REALLY?Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
Watch Ibragimov whack out your big Lance Whitaker, then tell me he isn't no good, or Ruslan outbox the 7'2" 320lb Valuev for 12 rounds and tell me he isn't no good.
Before you can be taken seriously at all, I need you to first complete this little questionnaire...
Where are you from?
What colour are you?
Are you a writer or in any position where you might profit somehow by making such claims (socially or financially?
Do you think European fans would feel the same way as you? That your black and white American greats were class acts, drunkenly falling around the ring with each other but their own boxers now are garbage? BS
Wladimir KlitschkoQuote:
Originally Posted by MasterLewis, Bowe, Tyson, Holyfield from 1990’s v your top 4 2010?Quote:
Originally Posted by Max PowerHe CAN and DID knock out fighters much quicker and more aggressively in the past, look at the record, watch the fights!Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
Trouble is his opposition got much better and much more dangerous. He probably still could waste most of them anyway but why would he want to take more damage in the process when he can do it without it? And why would he increase his chance of losing to show off? He completely dissects his opponents, then knocks them out. Safely! That is smart science of boxing whether you have a strong chin or a weak one!
Let's say he has the weakest chin of all time (which is wrong but let's have it your way for now Master), basically your admitting that he is so unbelievably good that he can be successful in the hardest hitting and heaviest era ever on record for 10 years straight with a glass jaw.
LOL Which is it?
Well over in Europe, they consider the 90's a bum era. I have heard many Slavic posters make this claim with decent arguments too! Nationally biased? NO DOUBT!
The truth is, the 90's, 00's and now the 10's were VERY COMPARABLE!
Average boxer weight in Holyfield/Lewis era 220lbs. Average boxer weight in Klitschko (combined) era, 225lbs. Similar records. Look similarly good on film. Sorry but I personally see no clear advantage of either era!
Vitali Klitschko
David Haye
Bermane Stiverne.
You picked 4 boxers from a span of 10 years, I picked 4 from a span of 4 years. And I see no clear dominance I'm sorry!
You make the mistake of so many by comparing modern HW's with Cruiserweights of the past that were CALLED HW's then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre
In general, OF COURSE a 210lb boxer is going to be faster than a 250lb one.
In general, OF COURSE a 210lb boxer is going to be capable of more movement and punch output than a 250lb one.
If that's what you regard as being good quality boxing Andre, then I am sorry to say, but the HW's are ONLY going to get bigger and this situation is never going back to the way you liked it.
Therefore hold on to that old DVD collection, because it'll never be seen again.
OR you could get acquainted with the Cruiserweight division ;)
HaAHHAHahaHHAHahaHa!Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Power
oh... @Max Power!
Excellent post, and I'll break down the reasons why:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
You offered nothing but agreeing with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by TitoFanExcellent post, and I'll break down the reasons why:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master
I exposed the Wlad chin myth.
And exposed the 90's superiority myth too.
The Klitschko's would have dominated in the 90's too imo. Lennox Lewis would have been the most serious factor for them.