Max powerism 101:

[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.

[ruthless rocco]

His posts have retard strength.

[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

[ruthless rocco]

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

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.

[ruthless rocco]

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!!!!!

[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!