Pre-1960 and Post-1960 boxers

[Weltschmerz]

here goes:

Carnera is easily more light-footed than today's behemoths Lewis, Wlad, Vitali & Briggs. Carnera is more mobile and with better boxing ability...

Legendary trainer Lou Duva said, "Lennox is another Carnera"..

Wlad & Vitali although both very successful, they are like men in slow-motion compared to Carnera.i would think the "Computer Punch Stats" from the above fight would be vastly superior to any fight Lewis, Wlad or Vitali ever fought.

I see. This footage confirms me that a strong guy like Povetkin with sound fundamentals would have KTFO Carnera.

[billeau2]

I just watched that and he's horrible, he fights with his chin in the air

I dont know what you are looking at. The guy throws combos, has a decent jab, glides around the ring....its all there. he moves. his chin is up because he is fighting big which is what he should be doing its how he won the fight...he got Sharkey to come into him and then beat him up inside. If we were fighting and I am 260 and you are 201 and I have reach...do I really want to chase you around? or give you my chin so you try to take it and allow me to attack at that point? If Sharkey does not attack then he is jabbed and jabbed.

The mere fact that he throws combos, is light on his feet, and fights inside should give one pause to consider him relatively well rounded.

[billeau2]

I see. This footage confirms me that a strong guy like Povetkin with sound fundamentals would have KTFO Carnera.

Its funny you should say that because Sharkey kind of reminds me of the Russian. Indeed Sharkey did beat Carnera the first time. Canera had a good chin I don't know if Povetkin gets a KO.

[sonnyboyx2]

I see. This footage confirms me that a strong guy like Povetkin with sound fundamentals would have KTFO Carnera.

LOL funny... Povetkin would not last more than 6rds with Carnera

[Weltschmerz]

LOL funny... Povetkin would not last more than 6rds with Carnera

Well to me it's vice versa. I just don't see anything great about Carnera and the guy compiled over a dozen loses, while being annihilated by the two best guys he faced in Max Bear and Joe Louis.

[sonnyboyx2]

Well to me it's vice versa. I just don't see anything great about Carnera and the guy compiled over a dozen loses, while being annihilated by the two best guys he faced in Max Bear and Joe Louis.

You should try reading the comments on this subject...

Carnera was agile on his feet for such a huge guy. more agile than Povetkin. Carnera scored more knockouts than any Heavyweight champion in history including Povetkin... i cannot see Povetkin beating or lasting the distance with Max Baer or Joe Louis. i am not trying to make Carnera out to be a brilliant fighter here, i am comparing Carnera to other behemoths who have held the Heavyweight title since 1960.. Povetkin would lose to every single one of them.

[billeau2]

Well to me it's vice versa. I just don't see anything great about Carnera and the guy compiled over a dozen loses, while being annihilated by the two best guys he faced in Max Bear and Joe Louis.

Ill bet you points that you never saw the bauer Carnera fight....Scouts honor, i.e. just tell the truth. You want to see one of the deadliest rights, incredible punch resistance and heart watch below, it was hardly an anniliation. Both guys took a lot, Carnera's jab was superb and he showed he had a chin and a half. There are very few guys I can thnk if who would have survive those shots...Ali is one who could.

[KnockoutNed]

None of these guys today would have dominated pre 70-80s. The touted advantages in training technology, nutrition and size are only a product of current conditions these guys are in today. Wlad for example with his small bone structure would have been a 210 pound beanpole at best if not for the heavy weight training, high protein diet and extra supplementation he's on. Another is Povetkin who for most of his career was a flabby attrition puncher but suddenly found the cocktail of youth. At 36 he's bulked up and seemingly become this big KO artist. The size standard doesn't even universally apply in this era as Wilder won the WBC title at 219 pounds with 18 inch thighs.

[Scott9945]

I see. This footage confirms me that a strong guy like Povetkin with sound fundamentals would have KTFO Carnera.

Of course. Povetkin would have beaten up a slug like Carnera for as long as the fight lasted. We're not talking about him beating Dempsey or Louis here.

[The Old LefHook]

There is a lot of information on roids....Not the mainstream either, but information that comes from all biases. Here is what I find a supreme irony: Probably the single best thing roids have done in boxing is accelerate the healing process. Now, how were the ancients able to fight so much without these accelerants? Again, human potential and the way we shape the body in expected ways, to attain expected goals is very intersting indeed. For example, Fat James Toney had a lot of injuries...many of them perhaps due to his weight gain and steriods allowed him to heal, at the very least.

So why do modern guys get injured to a degree where they feel (the subjective) that they cannot fight injured? Is it that the ancients were used to fighting injured? were they tougher? did they have enough tricks in the bag....i.e would a Pacman from days gone by not be as hindered by a shoulder malfunction?

Human physiology tells us that muscle mass, testosterone and increased aerobic capacity are the things that maintain us in athletic contests....Yet how much of these benefits do steroids really give? I don't pretend to know...I do know that in martial arts the focus is always on what the mind can make the body do....Or as one great Karate man was wont to say: "train the body and the mind will follow.

Its an intersting question and from what I have seen there are many variables involved that have to he isolated to answer things scientifically.

I can intuit a curve for the benefits of muscle mass to a heavyweight. With a few real numbers inserted, it would be an excellent first year calculus problem. At first the curve climbs steadily at an increasing rate, crosses an inflection point, then climbs at a deaccelerating rate. The first derivative reaches zero at the top of the curve. The curve then drops downward, signifying that the subject now has too much muscle muscle mass, whose accquisition has become a detriment.

The only impediment is we don't have those real numbers to insert.