Sugar Ray Robinson

[neems 2,406]

I use Hatton as an example because he was well conditioned using modern methods,but you missed my point entirely.

 

Very briefly; Hatton peaked for a fight maybe three times a year,this explains why he has such a superior work rate etc to the old timers you mention (most of whom I've watched at some point).

 

if Hatton grew up in the 40's he would have trained different (I.e not peaked) and fought more regularly.

 

he probably would have been a very different fighter,more durable,longer career,probably more skilful due not being able to rely so heavily on physical attributes.

 

but that's all if,buts and maybe's.

 

the fact is modern athletes are stronger fitter and faster,and if the old wys were more effective they'd still be used.

 

If you really don't agree you should become a coach and clean up every division.

[inan 841]

I use Hatton as an example because he was well conditioned using modern methods,but you missed my point entirely.

 

Very briefly; Hatton peaked for a fight maybe three times a year,this explains why he has such a superior work rate etc to the old timers you mention (most of whom I've watched at some point).

 

if Hatton grew up in the 40's he would have trained different (I.e not peaked) and fought more regularly.

 

he probably would have been a very different fighter,more durable,longer career,probably more skilful due not being able to rely so heavily on physical attributes.

 

but that's all if,buts and maybe's.

 

the fact is modern athletes are stronger fitter and faster,and if the old wys were more effective they'd still be used.

 

If you really don't agree you should become a coach and clean up every division.

Thats your opinion I'm referring solely to boxing btw, my opinion is that todays fighters are inferior skill wise to the previous generations I mentioned.

 

I've asked several times for examples of improvement in skills,so far no one has answered my question.

 

If your premise is correct then todays champions and contenders would beat yesteryear's would they not?

It's therefore strange that no historian or accredited boxing writer holds that viewpoint.

Wonder why that would be?

Edited August 1, 2014 by inan

[charlie boy 85]

Tyson was one of the biggest bums in boxing he fought bums and old men EVERY time he stepped up in class he was beaten up and KO

joe calazaghe fought domestic fighters his whole carrer and old has been champs from the us way past there prime he has no legacy who had jeff lacey beat before or after calazaghe ?? no one

 

holyfield and roy jnr had been tested an failed many a drugs test google holyfield and peds he had an account with drugs store under name evan fields social security number phone number and address exact same as his.

 

SSR was by far the greatest of all time he fought and beat the best he was robbed of light heavy weight title when he collapsed in the wrong corner from heath miles ahead on the score cards read his book

 

ricky hatton another joke beat a over hill tsyzu and got battered by pacman and mayewather his only noticeable win was luis Costello who took mayeather the distance twice

 

the greatest heavyweight champion of all time was lennox lewis then joe lewis

[gnasher16 30,025]

 

 

 

 

 

Even so,would you not agree they more than over compensate in strength,mass and reach?

Only at heavyweight in my opinion.

I'd say definitely at heavy,but also to varying degrees at every weight.

 

Outside of heavy modern fighters on top of that have much better speed and conditioning.

You use Calzaghe as an example but even a fighter like Hatton would have had an unheard of work rate.

 

Which of Wlad's challengers do you think had better speed and conditioning than say Ali's challengers?

 

Do you think Hatton's work rate is higher than Henry Armstrong's ,[ retired in1945,] or Beau Jacks,[ retired in 1955?] And those guys were fighting an extra 3 rounds.

 

Armstrong won the welterweight title in1938, he held it for 2 years, during which time he defended it 22 times, he also during this time defended his lightweight title twice and fought a draw for the middleweight title all in that 2 years.

In his prime,years 42-44 Beau Jack fought 28 times and not journeymen, champions and top contenders .

 

Do you think Hatton could average 14 fights a year against the likes of,

Bob Montgomery x4 world champ 57-8-3

 

Fritzie Zivic x 2 world champ 126-34-6

 

Allie Stoltz top contender49-5-2

 

Tippy Larkin top contender 89-7-0

 

Bummy Davis top contender 55-7-4

 

Henry Armstrong world champ at 3 weights 126-16-8

 

Fritzie Zivic x2 world champ 126-34-6

 

Lulu Costantino contender 81-7-6

 

Sammy Angott world champ 73-18-5

 

Terrry Young contender 44-11-4

 

Juan Zurita top contender 125-25-1

 

And you talk about better speed and conditioning?

These guys were fighting every other week, they were never out of shape,their conditioning had to be excellent to withstand those punishing schedules.

 

 

Ive had this exact conversation with a very succesful trainer his theory which i tend to agree with is no.....Hatton ( using your example ) would not be able to take a schedule like that.....but that he is still a far superior conditioned athlete than those old timers were.

 

This is why i dont get too wrapped up in facts and figures....yes Henry Armstrong had x amount of fights in x amount of days..............but they were much slower paced fights.... fighters were far more durable back then than they are now in terms of punishment absorbed.....but conditioning has changed so much, Henry Armstrong probably weighed in at something like 10% bodyfat....today these boys are weighing in under 3%..........the way a fighter rehydrated after weigh in back then was absolutely nothing like they do today.......fighters today are peaked in such a way that they have less weight/stability to work off during a hard fight than they did back then so their core structure is not as strong........which in turn means Henry Armstrongs recuperation between fights would be far superior to today as today the lines are so much finer between performance and durability.

 

Its a bit like the footballers today they are far superior to years ago in terms of athletes......but are far less tough and durable..........a finely tuned athlete is quite a delicate piece of machinery and the more finely tuned the more core strength is lost.....................in other words Hatton is a fitter athlete than Armstrong was......but not as tough.

 

No one in the last 50 years has had a higher work rate than Armstrong, he had an abnormally slow heart beat and was known to shadow box for 30 minutes before fighting . Armstrong weighed in with weights in his shorts he rarely was up to welter .He would walk through Hatton of that I am convinced

 

 

If your not reading from books Inan then you have an oustanding knowledge of history and fighters way beyond what my little brain could remember it makes for great reading.........but when comparing eras you need to keep in mind the massive differences in fighters,conditioning, even the game itself......I never rated Hatton particularly so i totally agree with you,but there can be no comparison in the actual peak fitness of a fighter today than bygone years.....if it was possible to do blood counts of a peaked Hatton and a peaked Henry Armstrong on fight night and compare them the differences would be amazing.....you have to remember there is no better way to condition the body for fighting than fighting itself so when these old timers were fighting 10/12 times per year their recuperative powers after fights were incompareable to todays they were much harder tougher physical specimens than todays fighters....but they were nowhere near as peaked......there is no way todays fighters could possibly fight 12 times per year at the highest peak of fitness the recovery/healing and then building/peaking again takes so much longer due to the fact that the more finely tuned an athlete is the more delicate they become.

 

And lets not forget Hatton is a fighter who never even lived the life.... look at someone like Mayweather who does,his conditioning is on a completely different level to fighters of bygone days......and rightly so.....again,sport evolves it doesnt reflect badly on previous era,s if you keep comparisons sensible.

[gnasher16 30,025]

Tyson was one of the biggest bums in boxing he fought bums and old men EVERY time he stepped up in class he was beaten up and KO

joe calazaghe fought domestic fighters his whole carrer and old has been champs from the us way past there prime he has no legacy who had jeff lacey beat before or after calazaghe ?? no one

 

holyfield and roy jnr had been tested an failed many a drugs test google holyfield and peds he had an account with drugs store under name evan fields social security number phone number and address exact same as his.

 

SSR was by far the greatest of all time he fought and beat the best he was robbed of light heavy weight title when he collapsed in the wrong corner from heath miles ahead on the score cards read his book

 

ricky hatton another joke beat a over hill tsyzu and got battered by pacman and mayewather his only noticeable win was luis Costello who took mayeather the distance twice

 

the greatest heavyweight champion of all time was lennox lewis then joe lewis

 

Dont hold back mate ..........Harsh as you word things......i agree with pretty much all of it .............apart from the last line.

[neems 2,406]

 

I use Hatton as an example because he was well conditioned using modern methods,but you missed my point entirely.

Very briefly; Hatton peaked for a fight maybe three times a year,this explains why he has such a superior work rate etc to the old timers you mention (most of whom I've watched at some point).

if Hatton grew up in the 40's he would have trained different (I.e not peaked) and fought more regularly.

he probably would have been a very different fighter,more durable,longer career,probably more skilful due not being able to rely so heavily on physical attributes.

but that's all if,buts and maybe's.

the fact is modern athletes are stronger fitter and faster,and if the old wys were more effective they'd still be used.

If you really don't agree you should become a coach and clean up every division.

 

Thats your opinion I'm referring solely to boxing btw, my opinion is that todays fighters are inferior skill wise to the previous generations I mentioned.

 

I've asked several times for examples of improvement in skills,so far no one has answered my question.

 

If your premise is correct then todays champions and contenders would beat yesteryear's would they not?

It's therefore strange that no historian or accredited boxing writer holds that viewpoint.

Wonder why that would be?

I never claimed modern boxers were technically better.

 

just that they're much stronger,faster,fitter and in the case of heavies bigger and heavier.

 

skill is debatable and subjective.

speed,work rate and size aren't.

 

The answer to your last question is easy,nostalgia.

the same people would say the same about runners if we couldn't prove them wrong.

[darbo 4,774]

one thing that baffles me is how are boxers these days faster.Off the top of my head some 80s 90s fighters ray leonard,hector camacho,meldrick taylor, pernell whitaker who today is comparably faster. i thought like punching power speed is a natural thing to the individual?

[satan80 358]

 

 

I use Hatton as an example because he was well conditioned using modern methods,but you missed my point entirely.

Very briefly; Hatton peaked for a fight maybe three times a year,this explains why he has such a superior work rate etc to the old timers you mention (most of whom I've watched at some point).

if Hatton grew up in the 40's he would have trained different (I.e not peaked) and fought more regularly.

he probably would have been a very different fighter,more durable,longer career,probably more skilful due not being able to rely so heavily on physical attributes.

but that's all if,buts and maybe's.

the fact is modern athletes are stronger fitter and faster,and if the old wys were more effective they'd still be used.

If you really don't agree you should become a coach and clean up every division.

Thats your opinion I'm referring solely to boxing btw, my opinion is that todays fighters are inferior skill wise to the previous generations I mentioned.

 

I've asked several times for examples of improvement in skills,so far no one has answered my question.

 

If your premise is correct then todays champions and contenders would beat yesteryear's would they not?

It's therefore strange that no historian or accredited boxing writer holds that viewpoint.

Wonder why that would be?

I never claimed modern boxers were technically better.

 

just that they're much stronger,faster,fitter and in the case of heavies bigger and heavier.

 

skill is debatable and subjective.

speed,work rate and size aren't.

 

The answer to your last question is easy,nostalgia.

the same people would say the same about runners if we couldn't prove them wrong.

 

 

Aside from nutrition and supplements though, the training regimes for boxers have hardly changed in the last 50-60 years - boxing often gets criticized for not embracing 'modern' methods (weights, explosive training, intervals etc) as the standard roadwork, bag/pads, sparring and floor work (sit ups/push ups/push ups pull ups etc) have been used by champion after champion over the last 2/3 generations.

 

This begs the question, in what way are modern boxers 'stronger fitter and faster' than those of 50 years ago? There's no way to compare boxing to a sport like running which is a purely athletic pursuit, as there's so many other factors which make a better conditioned fighter than just arbitrary levels of fitness that can be measured.

 

I've sparred and fought guys who could out sprint me, more explosive, much stronger physically, and handled them with ease and beat them up, similarly i've sparred guys who i've had every physical and athletic advantage over and been given a pasting.

 

I just don't think you can separate physical qualities and skill/craft in a sport like boxing, the lines are much too blurred. There's welterweights i've sparred who've felt as strong as heavyweights as they were so adept at using angles and leverage on the inside, and let's not even get into punching power, because i don't care what anyone says - punchers are born not made.

This means that despite every 'improvement' in nutrition/supplements/peds/training regime, nothing sports science could throw at any lightweight in the world today for example, could make them punch as hard as Roberto Duran.

 

 

This is why boxing is the ultimate sport for me, because fighters can keep becoming better athletes, faster, stronger etc, but it's the immeasurable qualities that make an outstanding fighter - timing, judgement of distance, heart, desire, ring intelligence, commitment, aggression, calmness and patience - and these are the attributes that i'd want in any of my fighters, above any physical qualities

[marky b 309]

 

 

 

 

I use Hatton as an example because he was well conditioned using modern methods,but you missed my point entirely.

Very briefly; Hatton peaked for a fight maybe three times a year,this explains why he has such a superior work rate etc to the old timers you mention (most of whom I've watched at some point).

if Hatton grew up in the 40's he would have trained different (I.e not peaked) and fought more regularly.

he probably would have been a very different fighter,more durable,longer career,probably more skilful due not being able to rely so heavily on physical attributes.

but that's all if,buts and maybe's.

the fact is modern athletes are stronger fitter and faster,and if the old wys were more effective they'd still be used.

If you really don't agree you should become a coach and clean up every division.

Thats your opinion I'm referring solely to boxing btw, my opinion is that todays fighters are inferior skill wise to the previous generations I mentioned.

 

I've asked several times for examples of improvement in skills,so far no one has answered my question.

 

If your premise is correct then todays champions and contenders would beat yesteryear's would they not?

It's therefore strange that no historian or accredited boxing writer holds that viewpoint.

Wonder why that would be?

I never claimed modern boxers were technically better.

 

just that they're much stronger,faster,fitter and in the case of heavies bigger and heavier.

 

skill is debatable and subjective.

speed,work rate and size aren't.

 

The answer to your last question is easy,nostalgia.

the same people would say the same about runners if we couldn't prove them wrong.

Aside from nutrition and supplements though, the training regimes for boxers have hardly changed in the last 50-60 years - boxing often gets criticized for not embracing 'modern' methods (weights, explosive training, intervals etc) as the standard roadwork, bag/pads, sparring and floor work (sit ups/push ups/push ups pull ups etc) have been used by champion after champion over the last 2/3 generations.

 

This begs the question, in what way are modern boxers 'stronger fitter and faster' than those of 50 years ago? There's no way to compare boxing to a sport like running which is a purely athletic pursuit, as there's so many other factors which make a better conditioned fighter than just arbitrary levels of fitness that can be measured.

 

I've sparred and fought guys who could out sprint me, more explosive, much stronger physically, and handled them with ease and beat them up, similarly i've sparred guys who i've had every physical and athletic advantage over and been given a pasting.

 

I just don't think you can separate physical qualities and skill/craft in a sport like boxing, the lines are much too blurred. There's welterweights i've sparred who've felt as strong as heavyweights as they were so adept at using angles and leverage on the inside, and let's not even get into punching power, because i don't care what anyone says - punchers are born not made.

This means that despite every 'improvement' in nutrition/supplements/peds/training regime, nothing sports science could throw at any lightweight in the world today for example, could make them punch as hard as Roberto Duran.

 

 

This is why boxing is the ultimate sport for me, because fighters can keep becoming better athletes, faster, stronger etc, but it's the immeasurable qualities that make an outstanding fighter - timing, judgement of distance, heart, desire, ring intelligence, commitment, aggression, calmness and patience - and these are the attributes that i'd want in any of my fighters, above any physical qualities

11 pages later and sussed it in one post! Fair play fella

[neems 2,406]

You do make some good points satan,but if the 'old school' ways were more effective,why aren't they still used?

 

punchers are born,but if a fighter was stronger he would hit harder,my opinion is it's a trade off,todays fighter's being fitter and being able maintain a higher work rate means they don't need to learn skills that will help conserve energy for example.

[satan80 358]

You do make some good points satan,but if the 'old school' ways were more effective,why aren't they still used?

 

punchers are born,but if a fighter was stronger he would hit harder,my opinion is it's a trade off,todays fighter's being fitter and being able maintain a higher work rate means they don't need to learn skills that will help conserve energy for example.

 

that's my point though, the 'old school' ways are still being used! - roadwork, bag/pads, sparring, bodyweight exercises. Some fighters lift weights but many don't, actually stuff like wood chopping, picking and throwing up big rocks, odd object 'functional' training that the real old timers did has now come back into fashion somewhat in a lot of gyms.

 

I've got a couple of great books which detail the exact workouts that many former and current champs used - Archie Moore, Ali, Hearns, Hagler, Buchanan, McCallum, Norton, Duran, Mayweather, Pacquiao etc

What's striking is all their routines are pretty much the same and very basic, nobody is doing anything wildly different than the fighters were doing 60 years ago, the reason being boxing is such a complex sport for all the reasons i mentioned in the last post.

 

In my opinion, you get better conditioned for boxing, by actually boxing, anyone who's ever fought or even sparred, probably you yourself, knows that you could be as fit as you'd ever imagined possible, then you get in the ring and are completely knackered after one round - nervous energy, adrenaline, and like you alluded to, being able to conserve energy and use experience are massive factors.

 

Which is why i think, fighters of yesteryear would stack up against fighters of today with no problem, these men were conditioned to fight, it's not a running race or weightlifting competition, their massive experience would allow them to handle someone like Ricky Hatton steaming in at 100 miles an hour, a Henry Armstrong or Robinson would simply not have been phased, and i'd bet my life wouldn't have been out strengthed or not physical enough.

 

Interesting discussion though

[Accip74 7,112]

Very interesting thread guys.......especially for someone who knows little of the finer points of boxing...;-)

[inan 841]

 

 

I use Hatton as an example because he was well conditioned using modern methods,but you missed my point entirely.

Very briefly; Hatton peaked for a fight maybe three times a year,this explains why he has such a superior work rate etc to the old timers you mention (most of whom I've watched at some point).

if Hatton grew up in the 40's he would have trained different (I.e not peaked) and fought more regularly.

he probably would have been a very different fighter,more durable,longer career,probably more skilful due not being able to rely so heavily on physical attributes.

but that's all if,buts and maybe's.

the fact is modern athletes are stronger fitter and faster,and if the old wys were more effective they'd still be used.

If you really don't agree you should become a coach and clean up every division.

Thats your opinion I'm referring solely to boxing btw, my opinion is that todays fighters are inferior skill wise to the previous generations I mentioned.

 

I've asked several times for examples of improvement in skills,so far no one has answered my question.

 

If your premise is correct then todays champions and contenders would beat yesteryear's would they not?

It's therefore strange that no historian or accredited boxing writer holds that viewpoint.

Wonder why that would be?

I never claimed modern boxers were technically better.

 

just that they're much stronger,faster,fitter and in the case of heavies bigger and heavier.

 

skill is debatable and subjective.

speed,work rate and size aren't.

 

The answer to your last question is easy,nostalgia.

the same people would say the same about runners if we couldn't prove them wrong.

 

So all the boxing writers and historians are wrong because they are influenced by nostalgia.?

 

Excuse me if I disengage at this point.

[oneredtrim 148]

 

 

 

I use Hatton as an example because he was well conditioned using modern methods,but you missed my point entirely.

Very briefly; Hatton peaked for a fight maybe three times a year,this explains why he has such a superior work rate etc to the old timers you mention (most of whom I've watched at some point).

if Hatton grew up in the 40's he would have trained different (I.e not peaked) and fought more regularly.

he probably would have been a very different fighter,more durable,longer career,probably more skilful due not being able to rely so heavily on physical attributes.

but that's all if,buts and maybe's.

the fact is modern athletes are stronger fitter and faster,and if the old wys were more effective they'd still be used.

If you really don't agree you should become a coach and clean up every division.

.

 

 

Hatton was coked upto his bollox for the kostya zu fight, the press moved the comma's to have the public believe his shortcomings were tied into his mopsing around retirment.

 

We now have heavys with sore toes and ill-relatives...Clay went 13 rounds with Norton with a broken jaw knowing he could have called the 4 round points ruling and won, Douglas in the lead-up to the Baddest man on the planet meet...lost his sister, his mother was identified to have cancer and his mrs told him she wanted out of him..he insisted his young son had a ringside seat to watch his pa lift the big en.

 

not always are modern athletes stronger, Alan hansen once declared the new young City and England fullback Micah Richards was strong, in fact i think he said it three times.....the coffee i was drinking exited thru me nostrils. Strong is a word folk use when people may look strong and with Micah being fond of his biceps....Hansen got away with talking shite. The truth of the matter was/is Richards aint ever been strong enough to do an emergency stop without face planting the floor....but that did'nt stop fans running around declaring 'aint he strong' somewhat safe in knowing Hansen had declared it first (a kinda freddie parrot syndrome)...since then 5 managers have dropped him and his careers at heads or tails at 26yr old, nobody wants to tip up 5 mill for him. Tony Book was strong, he could do the emergency stop in full flight and take off the opposite direction.... in 1968.

Edited August 3, 2014 by oneredtrim

[gnasher16 30,025]

 

 

Aside from nutrition and supplements though, the training regimes for boxers have hardly changed in the last 50-60 years - boxing often gets criticized for not embracing 'modern' methods (weights, explosive training, intervals etc) as the standard roadwork, bag/pads, sparring and floor work (sit ups/push ups/push ups pull ups etc) have been used by champion after champion over the last 2/3 generations.

 

This begs the question, in what way are modern boxers 'stronger fitter and faster' than those of 50 years ago? There's no way to compare boxing to a sport like running which is a purely athletic pursuit, as there's so many other factors which make a better conditioned fighter than just arbitrary levels of fitness that can be measured.

 

I've sparred and fought guys who could out sprint me, more explosive, much stronger physically, and handled them with ease and beat them up, similarly i've sparred guys who i've had every physical and athletic advantage over and been given a pasting.

 

I just don't think you can separate physical qualities and skill/craft in a sport like boxing, the lines are much too blurred. There's welterweights i've sparred who've felt as strong as heavyweights as they were so adept at using angles and leverage on the inside, and let's not even get into punching power, because i don't care what anyone says - punchers are born not made.

This means that despite every 'improvement' in nutrition/supplements/peds/training regime, nothing sports science could throw at any lightweight in the world today for example, could make them punch as hard as Roberto Duran.

 

 

This is why boxing is the ultimate sport for me, because fighters can keep becoming better athletes, faster, stronger etc, but it's the immeasurable qualities that make an outstanding fighter - timing, judgement of distance, heart, desire, ring intelligence, commitment, aggression, calmness and patience - and these are the attributes that i'd want in any of my fighters, above any physical qualities

 

Speak with a reasonably succesful trainer of a certain age who has trained fighters through the generations and ask them if fighters today are physically fitter......all else being equal ( skills/ability etc ) .....The thing we do when comparing like this is we look at the highest level to compare......but if you take the average journeyman pro of today and compare fitness levels to the average journeyman pro of even only 30 years ago it is like chalk and cheese.......apart from the obvious nutrition side of things,think of things like sponsorship......years ago pro fighters were not sponsored,most had 9 to 5 jobs and would see a 5 mile run before work and an hour hitting the bags at night as a days training.....today even average pros have sponsorship meaning they can dedicate themself to the sport so much better both financially and timewise by not having to work.

Also look at equipment.....fighters years ago didnt have for example treadmills.....the amount of training days you would lose through the rain years ago as no trainer would suggest going out doing your roadwork in the pouring rain.....today fighters need never lose days at all........simple scientific knowledge of conditioning is far and beyond what anybody understood years ago and that is going to show itself in the athlete stood in front of you.....i just think its really naive to think the conditioning of fighters hasnt evolved over the years.

Edited August 4, 2014 by gnasher16