IPB  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
8 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Klitschko vs Adamek
blackbelt2003
post Jan 26 2011, 04:01 AM
Post #31


Light Heavyweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 4,425
Joined: 29-October 03
Member No.: 84



QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 26 2011, 06:49 AM) *
What is not taken into consideration is the fact that athletes in general, today are bigger, stronger and faster than they were yesterday.



Sorry dude, that may be true in athletics or racing or any sport where you can measure speed and power...but it's not true in boxing.

Today's fighters are NOT faster or stronger than previous generations. BIGGER I'll give you. Perhaps more powerful. But CERTAINLY not faster or stronger or better conditioned.


The reason is that in sports where performances are measured you can see definitive improvements over time. A guy runs the 100ms in 12 seconds, the next guy can quantifiably measure his results against that and improve on it. He can shave tenths of a second off the time and develop his speed against it.

If there were no stopwatches, and he had no clue what the previous guy had ran 100ms in, I guarantee he'd never improve on it. That's how records get broken in sports like this, and the perception is that athletes are faster, stronger etc...and that's true, but only BECAUSE the performances are measured.


In boxing, however, the performances are not measured. A punch speed isn't timed. A fighter's strength isn't measured. Therefore the boxers aren't training to shave split seconds off their speed, and therefore the overall speed and strength of the fighter's HASN'T improved.

In fact, I'd venture to say that due to the generally easier lifestyle of today's western population, the majority of fighter's natural strength attributes has DECREASED a little, which is why Eastern countries where they still live a hard slog have began to take over. The scientific training may have added to their explosive power, but strength is more than that.



Just my two cents, as I keep hearing about faster, stronger athletes, but when I see old 70's vids I see guys just as fast as today's fighters. In fact, with the benefit of today's high quality, HD video, Ali et al would probably look even faster!!!



Black
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hops
post Jan 26 2011, 04:34 AM
Post #32


Super Featherweight


Group: Members
Posts: 653
Joined: 11-April 10
Member No.: 10,849



If we can't really measure performance of boxers both from today and yesterday then how can we or why do we even compare them?

TheOriginalMrFactor: Heavies today are bigger, etc. etc.
Blackbelt2003: Today's fighters are NOT faster or stronger than previous generations. BIGGER I'll give you. Perhaps more powerful. But CERTAINLY not faster or stronger or better conditioned.

So, there are other factors that affect performance. Are those factors measurable? If not, then we can't really compare boxers from different generations. Every comparisons would be subjective.

I'd say Willard was so big and he was a contender during his time. But I'd also say that the big contenders today are infinitely better than Willard. So, there are also craps big men yesterday.

Now, the reason I can see every other greats not having problems with the Klitz is because I think Klitz are just above average heavies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Original MrF...
post Jan 26 2011, 05:14 AM
Post #33


Super Middleweight


Group: Members
Posts: 3,464
Joined: 9-December 04
From: Atlanta
Member No.: 1,309



QUOTE (blackbelt2003 @ Jan 26 2011, 04:01 AM) *
Sorry dude, that may be true in athletics or racing or any sport where you can measure speed and power...but it's not true in boxing.

Today's fighters are NOT faster or stronger than previous generations. BIGGER I'll give you. Perhaps more powerful. But CERTAINLY not faster or stronger or better conditioned.


The reason is that in sports where performances are measured you can see definitive improvements over time. A guy runs the 100ms in 12 seconds, the next guy can quantifiably measure his results against that and improve on it. He can shave tenths of a second off the time and develop his speed against it.

If there were no stopwatches, and he had no clue what the previous guy had ran 100ms in, I guarantee he'd never improve on it. That's how records get broken in sports like this, and the perception is that athletes are faster, stronger etc...and that's true, but only BECAUSE the performances are measured.


In boxing, however, the performances are not measured. A punch speed isn't timed. A fighter's strength isn't measured. Therefore the boxers aren't training to shave split seconds off their speed, and therefore the overall speed and strength of the fighter's HASN'T improved.

In fact, I'd venture to say that due to the generally easier lifestyle of today's western population, the majority of fighter's natural strength attributes has DECREASED a little, which is why Eastern countries where they still live a hard slog have began to take over. The scientific training may have added to their explosive power, but strength is more than that.



Just my two cents, as I keep hearing about faster, stronger athletes, but when I see old 70's vids I see guys just as fast as today's fighters. In fact, with the benefit of today's high quality, HD video, Ali et al would probably look even faster!!!



Black



Great post!! I agree with you on some of your points. Speed and power are not really measured in fights. I guess they can be though, if someone wanted to take the time to measure these things. There is no speed o meter or power o meter to measure guys, unless of course you're Ivan Drago. With that, I agree that its difficult to measure who is faster or who hits harder other than by what we all see, which is based on personal perception, taste or desire.

Using your logic, can we say Foreman hit any harder than Lennox Lewis or Tyson for that matter. In my opinion, no, because there was no measurement for these things. There is no way to measure wether or not Ali is faster than Chris Byrd because after all, again, these things are not measured. The only thing we have is our personal perception of these things. You brought up a great point about film quality too. I'm sure that may play a role in our perceptions of how fast guys from a particular era were. Would Ali appear faster in today's HD?? Or would the klits appear faster in reel to reel film? It all matters as to what makes us all happy. Many people sit in comfort zones where legends of eras long gone cannot be challenged by todays greats(I am in no way saying you are one of those, I've read many of your posts). Many people on here elevate guys like Ali, Frazier, Foreman to godlike status. They were inhumanly fast, powerful, unstoppable killing machines who would ravage through todays guys like piss through wet tissue paper.

There are measureables though. I do see increases with guys today with one of the things we can measure. The number of punches thrown per round is a measureable stat. Guys are now coming out throwing more than they have in the past. With that, guys may be taking more shots than before as well. That is something that is measured. There have been a few fights over the last 5 years where guys are throwing over 100 punches per round almost effortlessly.
With guys generally being bigger and more muscular, throwing 100 punches per round, I'd argue to say guys are stronger today based on that. Back in the day, guys had to fight 15 rounder and even further back, they fought until one guy was stopped. Those guys had great stamina, but they werent throwing over 100 punches per round.

Though all things are not measurable, or just not measured, I do think that boxing is not dissimilar to other sports in that the competitors today are better athletes than their predecessors.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Original MrF...
post Jan 26 2011, 05:22 AM
Post #34


Super Middleweight


Group: Members
Posts: 3,464
Joined: 9-December 04
From: Atlanta
Member No.: 1,309



QUOTE (Hops @ Jan 26 2011, 04:34 AM) *
If we can't really measure performance of boxers both from today and yesterday then how can we or why do we even compare them?

TheOriginalMrFactor: Heavies today are bigger, etc. etc.
Blackbelt2003: Today's fighters are NOT faster or stronger than previous generations. BIGGER I'll give you. Perhaps more powerful. But CERTAINLY not faster or stronger or better conditioned.

So, there are other factors that affect performance. Are those factors measurable? If not, then we can't really compare boxers from different generations. Every comparisons would be subjective.

I'd say Willard was so big and he was a contender during his time. But I'd also say that the big contenders today are infinitely better than Willard. So, there are also craps big men yesterday.

Now, the reason I can see every other greats not having problems with the Klitz is because I think Klitz are just above average heavies.



Great post. You beat me to it...

I do like the analogy someone above used about the time mahine. If the 1963 Ali were to get into a time machine and be exposed to all of the training advantages in sports medicine we have today, would he destroy the Klits? Personally, I think if that were to happen, Ali would say, "To hell with boxing!!! The Atlanta Falcons need a deep threat. i'm gonna train my ass off and make the team!"

On the flip side, if the Klits were to go back in time and be limited by the sports medicine of the day, would they beat Ali in 1963?? They could easily become Ingemar Johannsen's of the day. Limited, but big guys who can fight, but can deal with a guy in their chest or a guy who moves around.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
salvador
post Jan 26 2011, 08:32 AM
Post #35


Super Middleweight


Group: Members
Posts: 3,686
Joined: 9-December 04
Member No.: 1,307



QUOTE (The Original MrFactor @ Jan 25 2011, 03:17 AM) *
The Klits are definitly dominant HOF fighters who quite possibly would have dominated any era of boxing due to their unique size and athletic ability.


I agree with you. At the very least they would have been extremely competitive with the very best - Lewis would have also for the same reasons. I think that the fact that they are kind of low key makes most people discount the actual amount of fight they have in them. But the fact is that Wlad has (along with Lewis) the kind of jab that would have given any fighter (particularly the 215 -220 pounders like Tyson and Ali) fits.

And to whoever said that they weren't finishers need to look at their records. Vitali has a higher ko ratio than Tyson and I've never seen him hurt.

Neither one of them is hugely coordinated or fast, but it's hard to imagine many guys handling their power.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
salvador
post Jan 26 2011, 08:50 AM
Post #36


Super Middleweight


Group: Members
Posts: 3,686
Joined: 9-December 04
Member No.: 1,307



QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 25 2011, 02:24 PM) *
Vitali lost to a couple of the last remnants of that division of the 90's...one to Byrd, the other to Lewis...


Vitali was dominating Byrd until he quit on his stool after 9 rounds because he injured his shoulder. You might argue that it was a chickenshit move (I would), but he was absolutely dominating Byrd and would have cruised to a very lop-sided decision (88-83 on 2 cards and 89-82 on the other).

And Vitali was also up on all three scorecards against Lewis (58-56 on all 3) before the fight was stopped because of a cut.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lil-lightsout
post Jan 26 2011, 09:51 AM
Post #37


Light Heavyweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 4,200
Joined: 10-August 05
Member No.: 3,047



QUOTE (salvador @ Jan 26 2011, 08:50 AM) *
Vitali was dominating Byrd until he quit on his stool after 9 rounds because he injured his shoulder. You might argue that it was a chickenshit move (I would), but he was absolutely dominating Byrd and would have cruised to a very lop-sided decision (88-83 on 2 cards and 89-82 on the other).

And Vitali was also up on all three scorecards against Lewis (58-56 on all 3) before the fight was stopped because of a cut.



Sure Vitali WAS dominating Byrd early and mid rounds on, BUT Byrd was very elusive and started getting to Vitali and tagging him and frustrating him and coming on. Shoulder or not, which I never noticed during the fight, Byrd was getting to Vitali and Chris was frustrating Vitali with his defense. I do not think it would have been as lopsided as you suggested considering there were 4 rounds left. Also, Why did Vitali not want a rematch with Byrd? Why did he have big brother do his dirty work?

AND for the Lewis fight...that was LL last fight. He was past his prime and woefully out of shape amd looked his worst ever. I remember watching that and thinking man Lewis did not even train and looked like a sloppy amateur. Man a prime Lewis would have destroyed both Klits.


The bottom line with Wlad is his chin and mentality. Sure he could beat a lot of good heavies, but most of the great ones would surely KO him.

I believe Vitali would match up better cause of his size and his toughness. He is awkward but he makes it work for him.

Also, Vitali was severely hurt in the first round with his fight with Corrie Sanders. He almost went down but the bell pretty much saved him. It's kind of funny how again Vitali had to do little brothers dirty work and stop Sanders, lol.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BGv2.0
post Jan 26 2011, 01:07 PM
Post #38


Cruiserweight


Group: Members
Posts: 5,057
Joined: 9-December 04
From: TX
Member No.: 1,304



There are way too many posts for me to have to qoute in relation to this MORONIC idea that you can justify the Klits wiping out every major gotdamn HW fighter EVER....that one post was insane...having them beat some of the all time greats....

How anybody can HONESTLY justify such thinking based on the last 6-7 years of ZERO compitition for these two guys is totally beyond me.

And Max you trying to say that TODAY'S HW divison is not as bad as the early 80's....you have clearly lost your mind....give me a list of active HW's that are as good as the following, Thomas, Smith, Witherspoon, Page, Dokes, Tillis, Coatzee, Ribalta, Weaver, Tate, Berbick, Snipes...

Granted, they were not the golden age of HWs...but they showed more drive, ability, skill and conditioning than 95% of what we have today!

NOW...I say all of this, but have always said that due to their sheer size and ability they would be very good in any era. There is no denying that. BUT...to say they beat most or all of much of the ATG's....is insane, as they have lost to lesser fighters, for sure in the case of Wlad and have never been tested during their "reign"....and it is NOT that they are that good as some try to say that their comp LOOKS bad because they are so good....no...it's not like Sam Peter and many more of their opposition looked awful with JUST the bros.

Like I've said before...it truely is NOT their fault that they rule over the single worst HW division in the history of the sport...and I'd bet being the kind of guys they are...they themselves would prefer to have better comp....

and you can also put away that STUPID "ranch in Montanta" BS theory. I am so sick of seeing that, I'd like to beat with a rubber hose the guy that chose that quote for this particular argument...I've seen it EVRYWHERE..on other sites, by mutiple posters...

It's a BS EXCUSE for lackluster performances. America has time and time again embraced fighters from other countries AS LONG AS THEY ARE GETTING IMPRESSIVE KO's/WINS....now I realize that the Klits do administer slow beat downs...but that is a style of fighting that Americans do NOT see as impressive and that falls back on the shouldres of the fighters. You can't say that America would love these guys if they were themselves American. Eddie Chambers is American, it's not like America loves him...so was Chris Byrd...and they are skilled fighters that win/won fights....it's their style that does not generate a fan following. Sam Peter and David Tua on the other hand...as well as Ike Ibeibutchi, were FAR from American....yet they had huge fan support...because of their fight style. AND in the case of Peter...that support faded when he started to look less and less impressive with lower comp and failed to get the KO's....so their nationality has ZERO to do with it. If they were smashing shitty comp the way Tyson did in the mid-80's...all of America would take notice and embrace them. That never happened.

BUT...it is the way it is...and for anyone to base their supposed ability to beat ATG's and dominate any era based on what they have had as a HW division...well that's just putting blinders on to the facts.

This post has been edited by BGv2.0: Jan 26 2011, 02:26 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gravytrain
post Jan 26 2011, 02:47 PM
Post #39


Junior Middleweight


Group: Team BU
Posts: 2,498
Joined: 25-July 10
Member No.: 10,970



QUOTE (JLUVBABY @ Jan 26 2011, 03:00 AM) *
i really dont think so gravy... ali would slice vitali up like he had a straight razor... sonny liston would knock him out... dempsey was a big man killer as well and would get inside on him and eat him up (if that guy guy sinsnowski or what eveer his name is could get inside dempsey tears his ass up).... i think larry holmes could get to him in his prime... a few guys i think vitali would get to because of their styles would be a frazier, marciano type of great heavyweight simply because a tall fighter with a jab would trouble them... i think a young mike tyson struggles with him though would eventually get to him... but ali... ali would toy with vatali... post exile id say the ali to the point of the foreman fight beats him as well.. after foreman ali just took too much punishment, vitali would beat that version of ali.. tell you another guy i think would get deep down in vitalis shit... ike ibeabuchi... had he not gone to prison i think he would have been lennox's nightmare... oh yeah speaking of lennox a primed lennox beats him (vitali) as well.. lol..


I don't know, I just see Ali after the exile having some trouble with Vitali. I think he could beat Wlad though. Pre-exile I think Ali would just seriously fuck with both of them. He'd dance in the first round and really frustrate them then be in and out before they could really land much, Ali had some slick reflexes too so I think he could track their punches pretty easily and only get hit if he left himself open to it. Plus even if he got hit he'd a serious chin and could take punishment.

QUOTE (blackbelt2003 @ Jan 26 2011, 04:01 AM) *
Sorry dude, that may be true in athletics or racing or any sport where you can measure speed and power...but it's not true in boxing.

Today's fighters are NOT faster or stronger than previous generations. BIGGER I'll give you. Perhaps more powerful. But CERTAINLY not faster or stronger or better conditioned.


The reason is that in sports where performances are measured you can see definitive improvements over time. A guy runs the 100ms in 12 seconds, the next guy can quantifiably measure his results against that and improve on it. He can shave tenths of a second off the time and develop his speed against it.

If there were no stopwatches, and he had no clue what the previous guy had ran 100ms in, I guarantee he'd never improve on it. That's how records get broken in sports like this, and the perception is that athletes are faster, stronger etc...and that's true, but only BECAUSE the performances are measured.


In boxing, however, the performances are not measured. A punch speed isn't timed. A fighter's strength isn't measured. Therefore the boxers aren't training to shave split seconds off their speed, and therefore the overall speed and strength of the fighter's HASN'T improved.

In fact, I'd venture to say that due to the generally easier lifestyle of today's western population, the majority of fighter's natural strength attributes has DECREASED a little, which is why Eastern countries where they still live a hard slog have began to take over. The scientific training may have added to their explosive power, but strength is more than that.



Just my two cents, as I keep hearing about faster, stronger athletes, but when I see old 70's vids I see guys just as fast as today's fighters. In fact, with the benefit of today's high quality, HD video, Ali et al would probably look even faster!!!



Black


I think sports that have embraced strength and conditioning have seen an improvement in athletes performance, especially the NFL. Boxing hasn't really embraced it though so I think it's hard to say the athletes just naturally became bigger, stronger, and faster despite not doing anything to become bigger, stronger, and faster.

QUOTE (ViperSniper @ Jan 26 2011, 04:10 AM) *
Seems he may not be quite ready for that level yet..but then again who ever will at this rate?

I think there is a good chance we have already seen all the defeats the Klitschkos have faced as they really are that far ahead of the rest. Over the years both have seemed to have improved and grown as fighters as they are smart as they don't give much away to their opponents at all. With the size, conditioning & skills they aren't in any great threat to the rest of the division that lack a lot of what the Klits have. Sure they could get old (Vitali is borderline there already) and then loose but with their style of fighting it doesn't require the traits youth may have over age & with the landscape most importantly it looks pretty smooth for them.


That's how I see it, the division just wont produce a quality fighter. If there are some good prospects[Deontay Wilder] it'd probably be smarter for them to wait before stepping it up, then one or both of the brothers might be gone. I think most promoters would wait because they know it'll be a better chance of having a champion in the lucrative HW division.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JLUVBABY
post Jan 26 2011, 03:30 PM
Post #40


Light Heavyweight


Group: Members
Posts: 4,778
Joined: 12-February 06
From: Beaumont, Texas
Member No.: 4,447



QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 26 2011, 01:47 PM) *
I don't know, I just see Ali after the exile having some trouble with Vitali. I think he could beat Wlad though. Pre-exile I think Ali would just seriously fuck with both of them. He'd dance in the first round and really frustrate them then be in and out before they could really land much, Ali had some slick reflexes too so I think he could track their punches pretty easily and only get hit if he left himself open to it. Plus even if he got hit he'd a serious chin and could take punishment.


ali up until the time of foreman devastates vitali... after that he is done... if byrd could hang with vitali ali devastates him... ali had more speed than byrd, better defense and a much much harder punch... and i'm talking the post exile ali... what byrd did ali did 10 times better with power (under rated punching power in my opinion) and was uncanny about making adjustments as needed and unlike most other heavies would find a way to win.... vitali would be in the ring with a creation he has never seen before... ali does what he wants with vitali...

On a side note imagine if ali never gets exiled... heavyweight history as we know it is changed... the guy would have surely reigned supreme till the late 70's if not into the 80's... guys like foreman and frazier would have never worn the crown back then and maybe even holmes cuzz his decline from his prime would have been different (slower).. those 3 and a half years wreaked havok on alis prime... just a thought...

This post has been edited by JLUVBABY: Jan 26 2011, 03:31 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd April 2014 - 02:15 PM