Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The paradox of weight and the development of boxing.

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
    The Carnera thing is sketchy, it might have been preceded by a Bauer Punch that did the damage.

    You may not think it is rocket science but you cannot take someone's ammy record as a reason for the professional profile, do you have a way to compare such to someone like Bauer? who was a hard puncher? Bauer may not have fought much as an ammy...

    Killing is one thing, Im looking at records, and what we know about the power of fighters relative to size. Its not rocket science indeed...
    - -What we know is supersized heavies since Lewis have dominated, usually by ko with no end in sight.

    Do U need to be tutored?

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
      - -What we know is supersized heavies since Lewis have dominated, usually by ko with no end in sight.

      Do U need to be tutored?
      U dum? Thats a very short speck of time, and not even true. Wilder is not supersized, Other contemps of Klitsko not supersized.

      There are trends, like two or three out of many fighters having certain characteristics, and there are definite correlations. For your statement to make any sense we would have to see a lot more of it, despite guys like Ruiz, Wilder, etc... Maybe it will be so, has not happened yet, look at the lineages and who has been champ don't believe me lol.

      Those living in glass houses...You know the rest.

      Comment


        #33
        One reason they are heavier today is that they are less active. During the era of Louis and prior, they fought more often. Today it's twice per year. Fighters back then were in shape throughout the year, and put a finer edge on their conditioning during training camps. Yeah there were the Two-ton Tony Galento's who compare to a guy like Andy Ruiz today, but by and large, the average fighter was more active and their reflexes a little sharper due to activity.

        As for training techniques, I think there are advantages to modern era training methods. We are more educated in how we approach fitness, nutrition, and recovery. One of my boxing coaches was an old-timer who fought during the 50's and 60's. Back then they did their 5 - 8 miles of daily road work in combat boots. I'm sure this contributed to his two knee replacements later on. He told me they used to snort salt water to toughen up their sinuses and nasal cavity to help prevent bleeding so much. Earlier on fighters would soak their hands in brine or horse urine to toughen them up.

        Despite some of the shortcomings of modern training techniques, I'd say they probably were in as good or better overall condition. There weren't many processed foods back then so they ate cleaner too.

        Watch some film on Carnera, then watch some film on Wladmir Klitschko...very similar in style and movement, yet completely different methods of training and conditioning.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
          U dum? Thats a very short speck of time, and not even true. Wilder is not supersized, Other contemps of Klitsko not supersized.

          There are trends, like two or three out of many fighters having certain characteristics, and there are definite correlations. For your statement to make any sense we would have to see a lot more of it, despite guys like Ruiz, Wilder, etc... Maybe it will be so, has not happened yet, look at the lineages and who has been champ don't believe me lol.

          Those living in glass houses...You know the rest.
          - -U take U San Fran fog to Nevada?

          Wildy 6-7 = supersized.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by GhostofDempsey View Post
            One reason they are heavier today is that they are less active. During the era of Louis and prior, they fought more often. Today it's twice per year. Fighters back then were in shape throughout the year, and put a finer edge on their conditioning during training camps. Yeah there were the Two-ton Tony Galento's who compare to a guy like Andy Ruiz today, but by and large, the average fighter was more active and their reflexes a little sharper due to activity.

            As for training techniques, I think there are advantages to modern era training methods. We are more educated in how we approach fitness, nutrition, and recovery. One of my boxing coaches was an old-timer who fought during the 50's and 60's. Back then they did their 5 - 8 miles of daily road work in combat boots. I'm sure this contributed to his two knee replacements later on. He told me they used to snort salt water to toughen up their sinuses and nasal cavity to help prevent bleeding so much. Earlier on fighters would soak their hands in brine or horse urine to toughen them up.

            Despite some of the shortcomings of modern training techniques, I'd say they probably were in as good or better overall condition. There weren't many processed foods back then so they ate cleaner too.

            Watch some film on Carnera, then watch some film on Wladmir Klitschko...very similar in style and movement, yet completely different methods of training and conditioning.
            these are good points, i read about what harry greb ate while he was in training camp getting ready to fight mickey walker, it was not much different from what fighters would eat today, and the meat probably was cleaner, had no hormones or antibiotics added. guys like greb were in shape almost all the time because they were fighting at least once a month, sometimes even every two weeks.
            the old fighters didn't have modern science to help them, but a lot of them worked as unskilled laborers when they weren't fighting and had the best mental and physical toughness. dempsey is a good example, he had been a hobo as a teenager and lived in the kind of conditions where he had to fight adult men for food. dempsey was 6'1" but would be considered a small heavyweight today

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
              - -U take U San Fran fog to Nevada?

              Wildy 6-7 = supersized.
              ruiz aint supersized. unless hes at McDonalds. hes 6 ft

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
                - -U take U San Fran fog to Nevada?

                Wildy 6-7 = supersized.
                Weighs in at less than 220, not really supersized. Not even particularly big for a heavyweight, about average, with very good reach and height.

                Wilder is lanky, not really big.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by billeau2 View Post
                  Weighs in at less than 220, not really supersized. Not even particularly big for a heavyweight, about average, with very good reach and height.

                  Wilder is lanky, not really big.
                  he came in at 209 at one point, going by the standards of this forum he should have lost to the much larger Luis Ortiz and Stiverne.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by them_apples View Post
                    ruiz aint supersized. unless hes at McDonalds. hes 6 ft
                    - -250-270lbs = supersized.

                    Them apples= pie.

                    The formerly prototype top heavy aka Ali not likely to dominate like the last 4 HOF quality heavies have been.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by GhostofDempsey View Post
                      One reason they are heavier today is that they are less active. During the era of Louis and prior, they fought more often. Today it's twice per year. Fighters back then were in shape throughout the year, and put a finer edge on their conditioning during training camps. Yeah there were the Two-ton Tony Galento's who compare to a guy like Andy Ruiz today, but by and large, the average fighter was more active and their reflexes a little sharper due to activity.

                      As for training techniques, I think there are advantages to modern era training methods. We are more educated in how we approach fitness, nutrition, and recovery. One of my boxing coaches was an old-timer who fought during the 50's and 60's. Back then they did their 5 - 8 miles of daily road work in combat boots. I'm sure this contributed to his two knee replacements later on. He told me they used to snort salt water to toughen up their sinuses and nasal cavity to help prevent bleeding so much. Earlier on fighters would soak their hands in brine or horse urine to toughen them up.

                      Despite some of the shortcomings of modern training techniques, I'd say they probably were in as good or better overall condition. There weren't many processed foods back then so they ate cleaner too.

                      Watch some film on Carnera, then watch some film on Wladmir Klitschko...very similar in style and movement, yet completely different methods of training and conditioning.
                      So back in the day the average fighter had sharper reflexes than today - because they were more active?

                      You could also argue, that taking punches to the head, without enough time to recuperate (because of a busy schedule) - would in fact dull your reflexes, and not make them sharper.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP