Max powerism 101:

[Max Power]

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.

I don't think ray austin was ever undefeated.

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.

[p4pking]

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.

I don't think ray austin was ever undefeated.

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.

Ray Austin - Boxer

[SugarBoxing]

I want to write a word support to @Max Power

that sometimes, very untraditional way of thinking might be very valuable.

[Max Power]

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.

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?

[TitoFan]

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.


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.

[Max Power]

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.


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.

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.

[Beanflicker]

Max is a powerful poster

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

Newer IS better.

You don't often here ''..and the old', do you

Logic

[Andre]

Newer IS better.

You don't often here ''..and the old', do you

Logic

So true, thats another point again.

[Master]

Again Max shows pictures of the bodies of today's heavyweights so what they are fitter, better, stronger, firmer, gayer?

[Andre]

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.

[Max Power]

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.

On the number or rounds fought in previous times 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!

[Andre]

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.

On the number or rounds fought in previous times 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!

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.

[palmerq]

I want to write a word support to @Max Power

that sometimes, very untraditional way of thinking might be very valuable.

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 fun

[Max Power]

I want to write a word support to @Max Power

that sometimes, very untraditional way of thinking might be very valuable.

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 fun

@palmerq and @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.