IPB  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Klitschko vs Adamek
JLUVBABY
post Jan 27 2011, 03:35 PM
Post #71


Light Heavyweight


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



QUOTE (gravytrain @ Jan 27 2011, 02:08 PM) *
the biggest difference i can think of is a fighter can hire people now to make him perform better than just what he's naturally capable of. he can hire a nutritionist to help manage weight and get him the right food to help him recover from workouts, Alex Ariza to inject steroids in his ass, and a S&C coach to give him workouts to make him quicker, have more stamina, and more explosive.


now we're talking... lol...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gravytrain
post Jan 27 2011, 03:36 PM
Post #72


Junior Middleweight


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



QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 27 2011, 12:49 PM) *
Well, when it comes down to era matchups...of course none of us can "prove" anything. We all realize that. BUT...you can base assumptions on recorded history...as in watching fights. AND...based on that...it's a FACT that the 80's lot were better! Just watch the fights...that's all it takes. So to answer your question about my secret? I use my eyes.


I agree about this right here, saying you can't determine if fighters in other eras were better than some current fighters means there's no such thing as a mythical match up. With that logic you couldn't say if Ray Robinson would slap the shit out of Kelly Pavlik, in your heart you know it wouldn't even be a contest though. I don't know about you guys but I think anyone that watches boxing for a little while can know enough to make a fair decision on who could win a fight, I see a lot of the old HWs wiping the floor with the current crop. All he needs to do is look at these rankings http://www.heavyweightaction.com/Decade%201980s.html compare the 1980-1989 rankings with what we have today. Would guys like Arreola really last with them?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ROLL DEEP
post Jan 27 2011, 03:51 PM
Post #73


Super Middleweight


Group: Members
Posts: 3,603
Joined: 9-December 04
Member No.: 1,301



You only have to watch a video of ol' Ray Robinson to see just how good he was. Anything the current guys can do, he could do better. You can SEE it on a video, forget modern athletic training. How does modern training improve the bomb Robinson landed on Fullmer? By making him decapitate the guy?

Look at the war Ali and Frazier had in Manila. Have you ever seen two better conditioned fighters? All the dietary supplements and modern weight training routines in the world haven't produced two more well conditioned fighters than those two on that night. Only a prime Holyfield comes close.


And I don't really see modern training routines having too much impact in boxing. A few heavyweights lift weights, and a few lighters guys manage their diets better, but is that really enough to have such a massive impact on the modern game?

The best way to be a champion is still to hit the pads, hit the heavy bag, run and spar. Same as it was in the 50's. And 60's. And 70's.



This post has been edited by ROLL DEEP: Jan 27 2011, 03:51 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gravytrain
post Jan 27 2011, 04:55 PM
Post #74


Junior Middleweight


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



QUOTE (ROLL DEEP @ Jan 27 2011, 03:51 PM) *
You only have to watch a video of ol' Ray Robinson to see just how good he was. Anything the current guys can do, he could do better. You can SEE it on a video, forget modern athletic training. How does modern training improve the bomb Robinson landed on Fullmer? By making him decapitate the guy?

Look at the war Ali and Frazier had in Manila. Have you ever seen two better conditioned fighters? All the dietary supplements and modern weight training routines in the world haven't produced two more well conditioned fighters than those two on that night. Only a prime Holyfield comes close.


And I don't really see modern training routines having too much impact in boxing. A few heavyweights lift weights, and a few lighters guys manage their diets better, but is that really enough to have such a massive impact on the modern game?

The best way to be a champion is still to hit the pads, hit the heavy bag, run and spar. Same as it was in the 50's. And 60's. And 70's.



The big problem in boxing is that a fighter is sitting on his ass then has 3 months to get into fighting shape/fighting weight, there's only so much you can do before you start fucking with their recovery and ability to train for the fight. That and you've other issues to worry about like the fighter getting burnt out on busting his ass in the gym for hours and then telling him he's go to do S&C work. I really doubt most pros would be thrilled about doing S&C work between fights either.

There are some things I think could definitely help a fighter such as strength training to build up their lower body and their ability to generate power with their hips, it wouldn't take off unless an elite fighter was doing it and that's going to be a hard one to sell.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Original MrF...
post Jan 27 2011, 08:42 PM
Post #75


Super Middleweight


Group: Members
Posts: 3,622
Joined: 9-December 04
From: Atlanta
Member No.: 1,309



QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 27 2011, 12:49 PM) *
YEAH...they were better...and there is no secret to it...simply watch all of their fights and compare them to the fighters today. How you can watch past fights of those I listed and then watch fights of the guys you listed and not HONESTLY see the difference in skills and abilitya nd determination is beyond me.


Well, to their credit in the 80's, they didnt look across the ring and see a monster. They saw a beatable guy at least until Tyson came along. Then they looked across the ring and saw a monster. When guys get in the ring with the Klits, they look across the ring and see a monster. The Klits are big and intimidating. All the guys that you listed that fought Tyson had those same issues when they saw Tyson across the ring pacing back and forth. Chris Byrd has skills(great), ability and determination. All that went out the window when he fought Wlad. He was in over his head. You telling me that Chris Byrd would not have been a very competitive heavyweight in the 80's?? Not saying he would have dominated, but I think he would have cracked the top 5 or 10 at some point.

So you are saying that Tim Witherspoon, Greg Page or Pinklon Thomas have better skills than say... Oleg Maskaev, Tony Thompson, Chris Byrd or Eddie Chambers. What are you basing that on?? You say you watched them fight. So did I. What skills are better? Their stances?? Their defense? Their Jabs? To say their skills are better is a wide open statement. It just sounds like you prefer the 80's guys because they were 80's or some type of nostalgia.

I went back and watched Greg Page vs Gerry Coetzee AND Tony Thompson vs Luan Krasniqi. For the life of me, comparing these 2 fights, I cant find a skill that the 80's guys had or did better than the modern guys. Can you? The 80's guys didnt do anything that made me jump out of my seat. It was a good fight, but so was the Thompson/Krasniqi fight. All 4 guys were well tooled and skilled heavyweights. I think the Klits beat all 4 of these guys. In fact Wlad already beat one.


QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 27 2011, 12:49 PM) *
And nice pick on the "prove to me" statement....you simply took the two fat men on the list and compared them to the two extreamly well conditioned guys fighting today. I can tell you that Dokes and Tubbs were in better shape than Arreola or Peter...but guys like Ribalta and Tucker were in great shape.


Hey, I took that liberty to prove a point. As if we dont have guys in great shape today. Byrd always came in shape. Chambers has made some serious strides to get himself in shape. The Klits are always in tip top. Every generation has had their fat heavyweight who had issues with weight. Arreola, Peter and to a degree, Toney are ours.


QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 27 2011, 12:49 PM) *
As for Peter's popularity on was not simply limiting it to this site....prior to his fight with Wlad and even after due to the showing he put on with Wlad, the majority of the boxing community embraced him as a commodity....NOBODY is using the word "embraced" here in comparison to Tyson...you assume too much. Tyson was a special situation that very few if any boxers live up to...maybe Ali...but that is a short list of HW's that ever reached that level of popularity. And Ike was NOTHING like Vitali...that makes me wonder if you actually ever watched the guy, Ike would slug it out in the trenches and use devestating combos..somthing I RARELY ever see Vitali do, the exception being his fight with LL. Vitali stands on the outside and jabs and rights for the most part.



One thing I'll say is this. Back in the 80's MOST of the top 20 were Americans or they were guys who embraced America and fought exclusively in America. Today we dont see that as much. Today many top 20 heavyweights are Euros and other NON Americans. Many dont speak english and dont fight in the US. We as Americans dont think highly of the division because its not top heavy with American fighters. I agree with you in embracing the concept that knocking jokers out in the 1st or second round makes a huge impression on viewers and viewership. I cant really say that Europe has recently produced such a guy. I also say that there is a bigger embrace for a hometown guy that just wins versus a guy who fights on another continent who blasts through people. Holyfield didnt have the devastating KO's that Tyson had, but he's beloved, embraced and was one of the biggest PPV attractions EVER in the sport. If there was a Euro who was Ko'ing people the way Tyson did, but only fought in Europe, you know what we'd say?? We'd say he needs to come to America. Or he's just fighting Eurobums, or he needs to come here and fight the premier American heavyweight to be credible. Well, in the modern era, its the Americans who have to fight the Euros to be credible at this point.


QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 27 2011, 12:49 PM) *
And how do you explain that Ranch in Montana BS theory in relation to Tommy Morrison? Here was a guy that was white, KOing the hell out of people...he was even kin to John Wayne for God's sake and I think he actually was bron on a "Ranch in Montana"...YET he never garnered the level of respect that Tua or Lewis did....that's an BS argument. America has embraced guys like Manny and Kosta Tzyu as well as Azuma Nelson....it has to do with what you do in the ring! Americans will love anybody as long as they LOVE what you do in that ring.


Respect and attraction are not the same. Lewis is respected because of his conduct in and out of the ring. Tyson was an attraction who doesnt carry the respect of a gentleman, so to speak. Maybe we just disagree, but I thought Tommy Morrison was probably a bigger attraction in this country than Lennox Lewis or David Tua in the 1990's. I dont really think Morrison garners a lot of respect though. A white American heavyweight with a decent record will certainly put buts in the seats. Just ask Joe Mesi. Lennox Lewis didnt get his due until after Morrison was gone. Some argue that he's never gotten his due. And he's a guy who fought almost exclusively in the US. We still embraced guys like Tyson, Holy and even Bowe to some degree. I'd say because they were Americans. Morrison was an anomoly. He seemed like a great kid in his interviews after fights. He was respectable in the ring. However, I've heard that away from camera's, the guy was a complete asshole. Even with all that, he was very popular in this country, when he fought. Thats why we still talk about him today, instead of Ray Mercer who has a win over Morrison, and a better resume. Say what we want about Holy today, but Lewis was the last man standing when the 90's were done. I still dont think Lewis gets the proper respect.


QUOTE (BGv2.0 @ Jan 27 2011, 12:49 PM) *
Well, when it comes down to era matchups...of course none of us can "prove" anything. We all realize that. BUT...you can base assumptions on recorded history...as in watching fights. AND...based on that...it's a FACT that the 80's lot were better! Just watch the fights...that's all it takes. So to answer your question about my secret? I use my eyes.


Well, I can say that I've definitely watched a few fights in my life. A jab is a still a jab, weather its today or 60 years ago. Footwork, stamina, conditioning are all still just that. They didnt breed a race of supermen(that I know of) in the 30's, 60's, 70's, 80's or 90's. They were all still men. To say their skills were better is just throwing out a generality with no basis in fact. You and I both watched the fights. I think that the Klits would be dominant due to their size which is an intangible, and the skills I observe them use. I'm sorry, I dont see Tim Witherspoon coming in and throwing overhand right bombs on Vitaly the way he did to smaller guys from the 80's. I dont see Joe Frazier walking through a host of Wlad's rights to get to Wlad's body. Their skill set along with the intangible of size makes them difficult to beat. When all things are equal, you have 2 well skilled guys in there, skills cancel each other out. Its other intangibles, like size, power and speed that arent teachable that should be taken into consideration. You and I seem to disagree on how these intangibles play out during a mythical matchup. An old guy I used to train with years ago, told me that a good big man should almost always beat a good little man. The Klits are good big men.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8
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: 28th July 2014 - 11:34 AM