Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by Bria » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 08:51:35


Comparing athletes from completely different eras is done so often here it is
becoming totally absurd.  The strength, size, speed, and athleticism of today's
athletes is so much greater than those of even 10 of 15 years ago that
comparisons over 40, 50, or 60 years is unfair to players from both eras.    I
mean Jesse Owens times would be beaten by a good college sprinter today, but
does that mean that he wasn't one of the greatest athletes of all time?  Of
course not.  Eric Heiden's times from all his gold medal races in the 1980s
wouldn't even qualify him for the Olympic team now, but that doenst mean he
isn't one of the greatest speed skaters in history.  Wilt Chamberlain scored 100
points when the majority of the league was filled with guys who couldn't even
dunk and there were almost no players close to his height.   That doesn't mean
that his record isn't incredible and he didn't have a great career.

There are a number of posters to this newsgroup who continually bring in a
fighter from the past into a discussion of a fighter now.  They always say the
same thing -- how some fighter from the past would have wiped the floor with a
modern fighter.  You also get the opposite, guys saying a great fighter from
today would crush an all-time great from the past.  Both are unfair.

 
 
 

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by i cheehuahu » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:48:36

I have to agree with Brian.  I am sick of these cross era Comparisons.  If things were better yesterday...than
obviously the teachers are smarter today.  Think about it...everything evolves. Because of yesterday's greatness,
teachers are better equipped with what they've learned.

I think nutrition and health far exceeds yesterday.  We've gotten better in every angle.  Training is miles ahead
of yesterday.  Today's athlete has more oppurtunities to excel than yesterdays.  Tommorows athletes will be even
better.  Human's evolve...and believe me, we have evolved more than ever before in the last 20 years.  And that is
everything...everything has evolved.

i cheehuahua
--
Doghouse Boxing. Updated 24/7 Boxing News & Boxing Humor.
http://pages.zdnet.com/icheehuahua/doghouseboxing2/

 
 
 

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by Observer » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 10:36:44

     I agree with the first two posts in this thread.  People and especially
athletes are getting bigger, faster and stronger every generation.

    For example, if you're going to match up Jack Dempsey vs. Lennox Lewis,
you have to make adjustments.   During the 1920's, Dempsey was 6'1, 185
pounds, which was a fairly large size for a man back then.  If Dempsey were
boxing today, he'd be about 6'4, 225 pounds....a fair match for Lewis.

 
 
 

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by Bob Shee » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 10:32:52

My homeboy, the great John L. Sullivan, would have beaten the ***out
of Lennox Lewis.
 
 
 

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by super cal » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 10:57:10

At last someone says something sensible!!!


Quote:
> Comparing athletes from completely different eras is done so often here it
is
> becoming totally absurd.  The strength, size, speed, and athleticism of
today's
> athletes is so much greater than those of even 10 of 15 years ago that
> comparisons over 40, 50, or 60 years is unfair to players from both eras.
I
> mean Jesse Owens times would be beaten by a good college sprinter today,
but
> does that mean that he wasn't one of the greatest athletes of all time?
Of
> course not.  Eric Heiden's times from all his gold medal races in the
1980s
> wouldn't even qualify him for the Olympic team now, but that doenst mean
he
> isn't one of the greatest speed skaters in history.  Wilt Chamberlain
scored 100
> points when the majority of the league was filled with guys who couldn't
even
> dunk and there were almost no players close to his height.   That doesn't
mean
> that his record isn't incredible and he didn't have a great career.

> There are a number of posters to this newsgroup who continually bring in a
> fighter from the past into a discussion of a fighter now.  They always say
the
> same thing -- how some fighter from the past would have wiped the floor
with a
> modern fighter.  You also get the opposite, guys saying a great fighter
from
> today would crush an all-time great from the past.  Both are unfair.

 
 
 

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by Bobby Bearde » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 12:47:27


Quote:
> I have to agree with Brian.  I am sick of these cross era Comparisons.  If

things were better yesterday...than
Quote:
> obviously the teachers are smarter today.  Think about it...everything

evolves. Because of yesterday's greatness,
Quote:
> teachers are better equipped with what they've learned.

> I think nutrition and health far exceeds yesterday.  We've gotten better

in every angle.  Training is miles ahead
Quote:
> of yesterday.  Today's athlete has more oppurtunities to excel than

yesterdays.  Tommorows athletes will be even
Quote:
> better.  Human's evolve...and believe me, we have evolved more than ever

before in the last 20 years.  And that is

Quote:
> everything...everything has evolved.

> i cheehuahua

That's steroids and other ***. Nothing evolves that fast. Look at the
difference between a pro wrestler of the 1950s-60s and the wrestlers of
today. And we all know steroid use is widespread in wrestling. Now look at
the size of boxers between the same periods.
What a surprise. They've matched the wrestlers in "evolution".
If the wrestlers are using dangerous steroids, but the boxers have
discovered some revolutionary way to lift iron off the floor so as to
acheive the same result, why don't the wrestler's take the safe course, too?

Bobby Bearden

 
 
 

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by Mike Haugh » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 01:00:54

On Thu, 04 Jul 2002 00:48:36 GMT, "i cheehuahua"

Quote:

>I have to agree with Brian.  I am sick of these cross era Comparisons.  If things were better yesterday...than
>obviously the teachers are smarter today.  Think about it...everything evolves. Because of yesterday's greatness,
>teachers are better equipped with what they've learned.

Teachers are smarter today?  Please name five trainers today that in
some way compare to trainers active in the 1940s through 1970s.  I can
think of one who is in their league today and that is Manny Steward.

Today there are less pro boxers, less trainers, less gyms, less local
fight cards, less televised fights and more "champions."  I fail to
see how those numbers add up to a better product.  

Sure fighters are bulkier today.  Thanks to nutrition, creatine and
'roids.  Better skilled?  I keep hearing a few folks say it, but never
is evidence supplied for the argument.  Heck, we had a tape of a fight
last Tuesday night on ESPN2 that showed better HW fighting than has
been seen in several years.  And that wasn't considered as much of a
classic fight when it happened.

        -mwh

 
 
 

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by i cheehuahu » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 15:09:04

Quote:

> That's steroids and other ***.

I do not buy that at all.  I think guys like Holyfield pay top notch for a nutritionist for a reason.  I think a
chemist of the body knows what formulas to pump the body using nothing but natural foods and natural
vitamins/minerals.  There truly is no need for Steriods these days.  Top Nutristionists of Today know more than
ever...they can get the body to do what they need without ever using chemicals.

i cheehuahua
--
Doghouse Boxing. Updated 24/7 Boxing News & Boxing Humor.
http://SportToday.org/

 
 
 

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by Freethought11 » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 21:05:01


Quote:




Quote:

> > That's steroids and other ***.

> I do not buy that at all.  I think guys like Holyfield pay top notch for a

nutritionist for a reason.  I think a
Quote:
> chemist of the body knows what formulas to pump the body using nothing but

natural foods and natural
Quote:
> vitamins/minerals.  There truly is no need for Steriods these days.  Top

Nutristionists of Today know more than
Quote:
> ever..._____they can get the body to do what they need without ever using

chemicals._____

If this were to be the increasing trend of the future, it would be the best
thing that ever happened to sports - period - let alone boxing.

--
Freethought110

 
 
 

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by Bobby Bearde » Sat, 06 Jul 2002 00:52:40


Quote:




Quote:

> > That's steroids and other ***.

> I do not buy that at all.  I think guys like Holyfield pay top notch for a

nutritionist for a reason.  I think a
Quote:
> chemist of the body knows what formulas to pump the body using nothing but

natural foods and natural
Quote:
> vitamins/minerals.  There truly is no need for Steriods these days.  Top

Nutristionists of Today know more than

Quote:
> ever...they can get the body to do what they need without ever using
chemicals.

> i cheehuahua
> --
> Doghouse Boxing. Updated 24/7 Boxing News & Boxing Humor.
> http://SportToday.org/

Then if it's simply a matter of nutritionist, Joe Louis today would have
one, too, and it would then come down only to the skill and heart of the
fighter. And then the cross-era comparrisons are absolutely valid.

This "bigger people through evolution" is a modern myth. People are not
bigger today than 50 or 100 years ago. In fact, they may not be bigger than
even 1000 years ago. The population is greater, meaning you can have more
people of non-average size. For example, if you have 1000 people and 5 of
them are 6'5", then you later have 2000 and 10 of them are 6'5", it doesn't
mean people got bigger. It just means there were more chances to find
someone 6'5" tall.

Here's some facts on just how many people are normally the size of these
"super athletes":

Out of 1000 males, how many are over 6'?

USA                                   Europe
6'1"  90 out of 1000                72
6'2"  39                                30
6'3"  15                                11
6' 4"  7                                  5
6'5" 2                                    1
6'6"  1                                   1

So, Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos represent only 1 out of 1000 men.

The averages for men are:
USA-5'9" 1/8   Europe-5'8" ?

Now let's stroll back through history and check out the midgets.
American Civil War (1861-65) is the best source for the heights of males of
the 19th century because of the military records. Most of the records are
from the Union side, since they kept more detailed records.

The average height for an American Civil War solder: 5'8 1/4" tall.

That's only 7/8 of an inch shorter than today.Factor in that many of the men
serving in the Union army were Europeons who just arrived in the United
States, and that modern statistics show Europeon men to be 3/8 inches
shorter and you end up with about 1/2" difference between men in 1861 and
men in 2002.

 Examination of a recently recovered 16th-century warship showed an average
height of 5'8" inches among the drowned sailors. Now, these were Europeons,
and still only 3/4" shorter 500 years ago. And they were sailors, who's diet
had to be less nutritious than someone living on land with access to fresh
vegatables and fruits.

Most of the idea that people were much smaller is simply misinterpretation
of data. We look at the lower ceiling in 19th houses, lower doorways, and
assume people were shorter. But, a lower ceiling and door means less area to
heat in winter. Our average ceilings now are 8', their's were 7-71/2' but it
doesn't mean they were shorter. I once lived in a mill house that had 9'
ceilings. And it was built in the 1920's. Doesn't mean people were a foot
taller in the 1920s because of the 1 foot taller ceiling.

The truth is, all studies I've been able to find on human heights show
almost no change over the past 500 years. And height and weight go hand in
hand. The frame on a 6'5" man will, on average, be the same no matter which
century he was born into.
And, if human males are within 3/4" in height over a period of 500 years,
then why are we seeing such huge athletes in the past 40 years? What outside
factor has to be at work?

Better nutrition won't answer, because if that was the case, everyone would
be taller on average, and we're not. Only the atheletes are so much bigger
out of all proportion to the rest of the human race. Why?

Steroids. Body enhancing chemicals. Someone like Holyfield might do it with
nutrition and exercise, but he's not out of line with fighters of the past.
But what about all the others? Wrestlers cheat, but boxers play fair is
wishful thinkinkg.

Bobby Bearden

 
 
 

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by Bria » Sat, 06 Jul 2002 01:55:04

Quote:

>That's steroids and other ***.

You're going to tell me the gains of every professional athlete in every sport
today is the result of ***?  That is a serious load of bullshit.  What is it
with you guys wanting to believe everything was better back then.   The mob
completely controlled boxing, the boxers were so unscientific about training
most of them smoked for goodness sake.  I mean the guys were tough as nails back
then and they deserve to be remembered and never forgotten by boxing fans for
being the best of their eras.  The names Louis, Marciano, Dempsey are spoken
with reverence and pride by anyone who knows the sport of boxing.  Why do you
think it is good to take them out of their era and compare them to guys who live
in a different time?  Its not, its a silly thing that bored guys to when they
are talking shit about sports.  Its fun to bullshit about once in a while, but
around here its like half the discussions degenerate into some cross era
comparison that can never be settled.

Quote:
>Look at the
>difference between a pro wrestler of the 1950s-60s and the wrestlers of
>today.

LOL!  Now you're bringing up professional wrestlers into a discussion about
athletics....oh man.
 
 
 

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by Bobby Bearde » Sat, 06 Jul 2002 06:48:13


Quote:


> >That's steroids and other ***.

> You're going to tell me the gains of every professional athlete in every
sport
> today is the result of ***?  That is a serious load of bullshit.  What
is it
> with you guys wanting to believe everything was better back then.   The
mob
> completely controlled boxing, the boxers were so unscientific about
training
> most of them smoked for goodness sake.  I mean the guys were tough as
nails back
> then and they deserve to be remembered and never forgotten by boxing fans
for
> being the best of their eras.  The names Louis, Marciano, Dempsey are
spoken
> with reverence and pride by anyone who knows the sport of boxing.  Why do
you
> think it is good to take them out of their era and compare them to guys
who live
> in a different time?  Its not, its a silly thing that bored guys to when
they
> are talking shit about sports.  Its fun to bullshit about once in a while,
but
> around here its like half the discussions degenerate into some cross era
> comparison that can never be settled.

> >Look at the
> >difference between a pro wrestler of the 1950s-60s and the wrestlers of
> >today.

> LOL!  Now you're bringing up professional wrestlers into a discussion
about
> athletics....oh man.

The size gain between wrestlers and boxers from 1960 to today is the same.
Yet the size of the average male in the general population is the same. It
doesn't matter that wrestling is fake, the point is that the men are bigger
and heavier than their counterparts of just a few decades ago, just as are
the bigger men in boxing. Genetics doesn't work that fast. Evolutionary
changes take thousands of years.
I'm not talking about whether fighter X of the year 19XX beats fighter Y of
the year 200X. I'm talking about why fighter Y and his contemporaries are
increasing in size far beyond the rate of the rest of the human race. When
the white rats in cage #3 have grown to twice the size of the all other lab
rats in the world, you can bet a little extra something has been put into
their Kibbles.
You can be content with the downgrading of the sport due to artificial
enhancement of the fighters, just as I'm sure some like the smaller baseball
parks of today and the use of steroids in baseball to allow more men to hit
the ball out of these little league parks, but it has to reach a point where
it's no longer a sport. It becomes no better than pro wrestling somewhere
down the line.

Bobby Bearden

 
 
 

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by Bria » Sat, 06 Jul 2002 08:38:00

Quote:

>The size gain between wrestlers and boxers from 1960 to today is the same.

Maybe the superior size of athletes that are going into sports more now has
somethign to do with the size gain of boxers since the 1960s.   For the second
time I'm not interested in talking about professional wrestling.   I think its
totally ridiculous that you cannot stop using Pro wrestling in this discussion.
I don't understand how you could possibly think that bringing up professional
wrestling would help make your point.  

Quote:
>You can be content with the downgrading of the sport due to artificial
>enhancement of the fighters, just as I'm sure some like the smaller baseball
>parks of today and the use of steroids in baseball to allow more men to hit
>the ball out of these little league parks, but it has to reach a point where
>it's no longer a sport. It becomes no better than pro wrestling somewhere
>down the line.

Ok so you're saying guys like Lennox Lewis and Klitschko used "artificial
enhancement" to get real tall?  LOL.  For someone who's 6'6 or 6'5 its natural
to be over 200 lbs and with hard work and proper diet you can get yourself into
top shape at 245 lbs.  You sound like someone who has never trained or had
anything to do with competitive athletics if you dont believe this is possible
without "artificial enhancement."

Quote:
>It becomes no better than pro wrestling somewhere
>down the line.

Why do you watch boxing if you think its like pro wrestling.  Have a happy 4th
july!
 
 
 

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by Bobby Bearde » Sat, 06 Jul 2002 09:39:16


Quote:


> >The size gain between wrestlers and boxers from 1960 to today is the
same.

> Maybe the superior size of athletes that are going into sports more now
has
> somethign to do with the size gain of boxers since the 1960s.   For the
second
> time I'm not interested in talking about professional wrestling.   I think
its
> totally ridiculous that you cannot stop using Pro wrestling in this
discussion.
> I don't understand how you could possibly think that bringing up
professional
> wrestling would help make your point.

Obviously lateral reasoning is not part of your thought process. My mistake.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> >You can be content with the downgrading of the sport due to artificial
> >enhancement of the fighters, just as I'm sure some like the smaller
baseball
> >parks of today and the use of steroids in baseball to allow more men to
hit
> >the ball out of these little league parks, but it has to reach a point
where
> >it's no longer a sport. It becomes no better than pro wrestling somewhere
> >down the line.

> Ok so you're saying guys like Lennox Lewis and Klitschko used "artificial
> enhancement" to get real tall?  LOL.  For someone who's 6'6 or 6'5 its
natural
> to be over 200 lbs and with hard work and proper diet you can get yourself
into
> top shape at 245 lbs.  You sound like someone who has never trained or had
> anything to do with competitive athletics if you dont believe this is
possible
> without "artificial enhancement."

Did I say Lewis and Klitschko got tall with steroids? Please copy and paste
my words to that effect (Unless you just made that up. You can copy and
paste my alleged statement where I said steroids made Lennox Lewis and
Vladmir Klitschko taller, can't you? Drag your curser over the sentences,
push ctrl-C, then use ctrl-V to paste.)

 In fact, I don't believe Lewis has used steroids at all.

You're right, I've never done any atheltic competitions, unless you count
baseball in high school and karate on the full contact level.
I didn't say it wasn't possible. It's possible to win a marathon without
cheating by taking a short cut, too, but guess what? Sometimes people cheat.
Steroids don't enhance the body in an impossible way, they accelerate the
process. That's why they're so popular; you get bigger and stronger in less
time and with less work.
Perhaps you should read up on anabolic streroids and the problem beginning
at the junior high school level, through high school and college and into
professional sports. Bob Costa recently talked about how wide spread it is
in baseball, and that's not even a contact sport. Wonder if guys in contact
sports where strength really matters would use them? Hmmm.

Quote:
> >It becomes no better than pro wrestling somewhere
> >down the line.

> Why do you watch boxing if you think its like pro wrestling.  Have a happy
4th
> july!

I don't watch pro wrestling, but used it as a comparrison in both time-line
and size increase in those involved in both fake sports and real sports. You
know, the way someone might compare temperature increases in different parts
of the world in a discussion of global warming. What you might call
comparative examples.
But again, that seems to require the application of a thought process you're
uncomfortable with, so I'll drop it.

And by the way, I used the word "becomes", not "its like" (sic "it's"). My
use was future tense, not present tense. You know, like I said "in the
future" and you said, "you mean right now?".

Bobby Bearden

 
 
 

Too many Cross Era Comparisons

Post by Larry Robert » Sat, 06 Jul 2002 12:13:36

Yo, Bobby! A hundred years ago the population demographics were much
different from today. There is a far greater number of Asians today, and
they tend to be shorter. I'm 5'9" and I loom over most Asians on the street,
but most European and African guys are taller by a couple of inches. I still
remember when I was a kid a man 6' tall was considered a big man. A guy 6'4"
was a giant.

Take a look at the size of the average heavyweight boxers of a hundred years
ago. Most were between 5'9" and 5'10" or so. At 6'1" Jack Johnson was
nicknamed the Galveston Giant. Jess Willard was a monster! As diet improved
and kids got more good food to eat, men got taller. Stands to reason. Same
thing is happening now with second and third generation Asian kids. (maybe
growth hormone in animal feed has something to do with it too.)

Cap


Quote:





> > > That's steroids and other ***.

> > I do not buy that at all.  I think guys like Holyfield pay top notch for
a
> nutritionist for a reason.  I think a
> > chemist of the body knows what formulas to pump the body using nothing
but
> natural foods and natural
> > vitamins/minerals.  There truly is no need for Steriods these days.  Top
> Nutristionists of Today know more than
> > ever...they can get the body to do what they need without ever using
> chemicals.

> > i cheehuahua
> > --
> > Doghouse Boxing. Updated 24/7 Boxing News & Boxing Humor.
> > http://SportToday.org/

> Then if it's simply a matter of nutritionist, Joe Louis today would have
> one, too, and it would then come down only to the skill and heart of the
> fighter. And then the cross-era comparrisons are absolutely valid.

> This "bigger people through evolution" is a modern myth. People are not
> bigger today than 50 or 100 years ago. In fact, they may not be bigger
than
> even 1000 years ago. The population is greater, meaning you can have more
> people of non-average size. For example, if you have 1000 people and 5 of
> them are 6'5", then you later have 2000 and 10 of them are 6'5", it
doesn't
> mean people got bigger. It just means there were more chances to find
> someone 6'5" tall.

> Here's some facts on just how many people are normally the size of these
> "super athletes":

> Out of 1000 males, how many are over 6'?

> USA                                   Europe
> 6'1"  90 out of 1000                72
> 6'2"  39                                30
> 6'3"  15                                11
> 6' 4"  7                                  5
> 6'5" 2                                    1
> 6'6"  1                                   1

> So, Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos represent only 1 out of 1000 men.

> The averages for men are:
> USA-5'9" 1/8   Europe-5'8" ?

> Now let's stroll back through history and check out the midgets.
> American Civil War (1861-65) is the best source for the heights of males
of
> the 19th century because of the military records. Most of the records are
> from the Union side, since they kept more detailed records.

> The average height for an American Civil War solder: 5'8 1/4" tall.

> That's only 7/8 of an inch shorter than today.Factor in that many of the
men
> serving in the Union army were Europeons who just arrived in the United
> States, and that modern statistics show Europeon men to be 3/8 inches
> shorter and you end up with about 1/2" difference between men in 1861 and
> men in 2002.

>  Examination of a recently recovered 16th-century warship showed an
average
> height of 5'8" inches among the drowned sailors. Now, these were
Europeons,
> and still only 3/4" shorter 500 years ago. And they were sailors, who's
diet
> had to be less nutritious than someone living on land with access to fresh
> vegatables and fruits.

> Most of the idea that people were much smaller is simply misinterpretation
> of data. We look at the lower ceiling in 19th houses, lower doorways, and
> assume people were shorter. But, a lower ceiling and door means less area
to
> heat in winter. Our average ceilings now are 8', their's were 7-71/2' but
it
> doesn't mean they were shorter. I once lived in a mill house that had 9'
> ceilings. And it was built in the 1920's. Doesn't mean people were a foot
> taller in the 1920s because of the 1 foot taller ceiling.

> The truth is, all studies I've been able to find on human heights show
> almost no change over the past 500 years. And height and weight go hand in
> hand. The frame on a 6'5" man will, on average, be the same no matter
which
> century he was born into.
> And, if human males are within 3/4" in height over a period of 500 years,
> then why are we seeing such huge athletes in the past 40 years? What
outside
> factor has to be at work?

> Better nutrition won't answer, because if that was the case, everyone
would
> be taller on average, and we're not. Only the atheletes are so much bigger
> out of all proportion to the rest of the human race. Why?

> Steroids. Body enhancing chemicals. Someone like Holyfield might do it
with
> nutrition and exercise, but he's not out of line with fighters of the
past.
> But what about all the others? Wrestlers cheat, but boxers play fair is
> wishful thinkinkg.

> Bobby Bearden