Max powerism 101:

[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

[Master]

Max is a powerful poster

That is one way of putting it.

Others would call it daft.

[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?

[Max Power]

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

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

[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.

[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!

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.

Yes the rules have evolved/changed, which blurs the distinguishment of what it means to even be a "boxer" let alone just a "HW".

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!