kelly pavlik against past middle and light heavyweights

[southakron314]

Edison Miranda hits harder than Thomas Hearns are you frigging kidding me ? wow you are a deluded Kelly Pavlik fan. I think you need reminding.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=woWSl5PBVAs

Yes Miranda who is todays hardest hitting man at 168 hit6s harder than yesterdays man at 147. That like saying Enzo Macrinelli hits harder than Peter . Miranda punches alot harder than Hearns.

[southakron314]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HM4mps2QD8
But to the Monzon statement. Miranda is stronger than Pavlik and Pavlik pushed him around. Why could he do the same to Monzon who I think looks like Andrade. Same iron head. Both strong and both come at you in strait lines.

[southakron314]

Comparing yesterdays jocks to todays is not for argument. It is evident in every way that todays are much greater. They are stronger , faster , and much better conditioned.

[CFH]

Comparing yesterdays jocks to todays is not for argument. It is evident in every way that todays are much greater. They are stronger , faster , and much better conditioned.

You need to qualify those types of statements. What makes them stronger, faster, and better conditioned. Don't just say improved training etc. or use other sports as an example, explain them. I'd say nutrition, and styles/training may have improved/changed slightly, but not enough to make that much of a dramatic difference in boxing.

Also, if they have changed that much, wouldn't the fighters of the past, if fighting today (ie. a mythical match-up against Pavlik), have all those improved methods available to them?

[southakron314]

Comparing yesterdays jocks to todays is not for argument. It is evident in every way that todays are much greater. They are stronger , faster , and much better conditioned.

You need to qualify those types of statements. What makes them stronger, faster, and better conditioned. Don't just say improved training etc. or use other sports as an example, explain them. I'd say nutrition, and styles/training may have improved/changed slightly, but not enough to make that much of a dramatic difference in boxing.

Also, if they have changed that much, wouldn't the fighters of the past, if fighting today (ie. a mythical match-up against Pavlik), have all those improved methods available to them?

Lets compare Usain Bolt and Jesse Owens. Or Jim Brown and Adrian Peterson. Or how about Roger Clemens to Cy Young. The where great in their time but today would be owned. Jesse Owens was great so was Jim Thorpe but by todays standards they would be good in their sport not considered a ledgend against the compitition of today is so much great in every aspect and to deny that fact shows total ignorance . If athletes yesterday where so much better why are the record books always being rewrote every year or 4 years.

[ICB]

Comparing yesterdays jocks to todays is not for argument. It is evident in every way that todays are much greater. They are stronger , faster , and much better conditioned.

You need to qualify those types of statements. What makes them stronger, faster, and better conditioned. Don't just say improved training etc. or use other sports as an example, explain them. I'd say nutrition, and styles/training may have improved/changed slightly, but not enough to make that much of a dramatic difference in boxing.

Also, if they have changed that much, wouldn't the fighters of the past, if fighting today (ie. a mythical match-up against Pavlik), have all those improved methods available to them?

Lets compare Usain Bolt and Jesse Owens. Or Jim Brown and Adrian Peterson. Or how about Roger Clemens to Cy Young. The where great in their time but today would be owned. Jesse Owens was great so was Jim Thorpe but by todays standards they would be good in their sport not considered a ledgend against the compitition of today is so much great in every aspect and to deny that fact shows total ignorance . If athletes yesterday where so much better why are the record books always being rewrote every year or 4 years.

Uhh Jesse Owens had crap running shoes and crap running conditions, plus he didn't have the modern training techniques/dietitian etc. I can assure you if Jesse Owens had all the luxury's runners have today, aswell as steroids which majority of them use, he would be easily almost 1 second faster atleast IMO.

[CFH]

Comparing yesterdays jocks to todays is not for argument. It is evident in every way that todays are much greater. They are stronger , faster , and much better conditioned.

You need to qualify those types of statements. What makes them stronger, faster, and better conditioned. Don't just say improved training etc. or use other sports as an example, explain them. I'd say nutrition, and styles/training may have improved/changed slightly, but not enough to make that much of a dramatic difference in boxing.

Also, if they have changed that much, wouldn't the fighters of the past, if fighting today (ie. a mythical match-up against Pavlik), have all those improved methods available to them?

Lets compare Usain Bolt and Jesse Owens. Or Jim Brown and Adrian Peterson. Or how about Roger Clemens to Cy Young. The where great in their time but today would be owned. Jesse Owens was great so was Jim Thorpe but by todays standards they would be good in their sport not considered a ledgend against the compitition of today is so much great in every aspect and to deny that fact shows total ignorance . If athletes yesterday where so much better why are the record books always being rewrote every year or 4 years.

What part of qualify it without using other sports as an example do you not understand?

I'll say it again, if Pavlik fought SRR (or any of the other fighters you mentioned) they would both have the same training conditioning methods available to them. So, aside from the fact that you think he has pretty eyes, what about Pavlik's skills makes you think he could beat those ATG fighters?

[southakron314]

You need to qualify those types of statements. What makes them stronger, faster, and better conditioned. Don't just say improved training etc. or use other sports as an example, explain them. I'd say nutrition, and styles/training may have improved/changed slightly, but not enough to make that much of a dramatic difference in boxing.

Also, if they have changed that much, wouldn't the fighters of the past, if fighting today (ie. a mythical match-up against Pavlik), have all those improved methods available to them?

Lets compare Usain Bolt and Jesse Owens. Or Jim Brown and Adrian Peterson. Or how about Roger Clemens to Cy Young. The where great in their time but today would be owned. Jesse Owens was great so was Jim Thorpe but by todays standards they would be good in their sport not considered a ledgend against the compitition of today is so much great in every aspect and to deny that fact shows total ignorance . If athletes yesterday where so much better why are the record books always being rewrote every year or 4 years.

What part of qualify it without using other sports as an example do you not understand?

I'll say it again, if Pavlik fought SRR (or any of the other fighters you mentioned) they would both have the same training conditioning methods available to them. So, aside from the fact that you think he has pretty eyes, what about Pavlik's skills makes you think he could beat those ATG fighters?

So are he would be born around the same times so SRR would be in his prime today and he was born in 1980 or his skills and yesteryears training and he slipped into to a time porthole and here he is in the ring with Pavlik. The sad fukin part is he could ko a bigger Hopkins and kill Abrham and you losers still wont give him a fukin bone . Grow the phuk up.

[southakron314]

You need to qualify those types of statements. What makes them stronger, faster, and better conditioned. Don't just say improved training etc. or use other sports as an example, explain them. I'd say nutrition, and styles/training may have improved/changed slightly, but not enough to make that much of a dramatic difference in boxing.

Also, if they have changed that much, wouldn't the fighters of the past, if fighting today (ie. a mythical match-up against Pavlik), have all those improved methods available to them?

Lets compare Usain Bolt and Jesse Owens. Or Jim Brown and Adrian Peterson. Or how about Roger Clemens to Cy Young. The where great in their time but today would be owned. Jesse Owens was great so was Jim Thorpe but by todays standards they would be good in their sport not considered a ledgend against the compitition of today is so much great in every aspect and to deny that fact shows total ignorance . If athletes yesterday where so much better why are the record books always being rewrote every year or 4 years.

What part of qualify it without using other sports as an example do you not understand?

I'll say it again, if Pavlik fought SRR (or any of the other fighters you mentioned) they would both have the same training conditioning methods available to them. So, aside from the fact that you think he has pretty eyes, what about Pavlik's skills makes you think he could beat those ATG fighters?

Well go find doc flying Delorean. You are the biggest douche bag ever born. This is a comparision not a fantasy if they trained and fought today the same way. We are comparing . I feel at 160 Pavlik would own a SRR the same stlye 60 years ago. This is a dumb thread . Why would you assume if they trained and fought in modern day. i am comparing time and styles. Not a world of warcraft fantasy what if time warp thing that you are doing. Did you ever box or wrestle , play football , baseball or anything. I did all of those. I am comparing.Thats like saying how would Bill Walton do one on one with Lebron James or Babe Ruth trying to hit off of Cliff Lee. Things are better these days athletes included. If Jesse Owens had todays shoes and tracks Usian Bolt would still smoke him.

[ICB]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HM4mps2QD8
But to the Monzon statement. Miranda is stronger than Pavlik and Pavlik pushed him around. Why could he do the same to Monzon who I think looks like Andrade. Same iron head. Both strong and both come at you in strait lines.

Because Carlos Monzon is a better boxer than Librado Andrade obviously, he uses his jab/good technical skills he punches very precise with good technqiue. I can't believe your actually comparing Librado Andrade. To one of the best Middleweights of all time are you serious ?

Carlos Monzon was only knocked down once in 100 fights when he was 35, of course he will but Kelly Pavlik on the backfoot. Exactly how many fights have you seen of Carlos Monzon ? because it doesn't sound like you have seen many if any.

[ICB]

Edison Miranda hits harder than Thomas Hearns are you frigging kidding me ? wow you are a deluded Kelly Pavlik fan. I think you need reminding.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=woWSl5PBVAs

Yes Miranda who is todays hardest hitting man at 168 hit6s harder than yesterdays man at 147. That like saying Enzo Macrinelli hits harder than Peter . Miranda punches alot harder than Hearns.

Thomas Hearns was naturally bigger than 147, thats why he moved all the way up to Cruiserweight. Thomas Hearns had more speed which generates power, better punching technique. And was just a much better boxer than Edison Miranda.

Your comparison's are ridiculous of course Samuel Peter who is 240+ pounds, hits harder than 190+ pounds Enzo Maccarinelli. But whats that got to do with Thomas Hearns and Edison Miranda