Prime Tyson v Prime Joe Louis - who wins ?

cowzerp · 11-01-2012 10:03PM

walshb wrote: »

Well, Paul, that to me is not all that healthy. I am speaking about pro boxers, and I have not heard of pro fighters even gaining that much, at least not LW-LWW fighters and they usually gain 6-10 lbs. What are you doing, eating etc. That is colossal, Paul. 19 freaking lbs in what, 24 hrs?

Cutting weight is not healthy, but cutting half that in half the time is the same thing, I'd actually say worse as there is a good chance you will get in the ring dehydrated, I literally would just be getting in the ring fresh, well fed, hydrated and rested over night too-no rest after a same day weigh in!

Cutting is a mix of losing fluids, not eating and burning off any carbs in your body and the opposite is true of the weight been put back on, done gradually and you have to put the good stuff back in, mainly electrolytes and carbs along with fluids, add rest and bingo.

tryingmybestt · 11-01-2012 10:08PM

cowzerp wrote: »

Cutting weight is not healthy, but cutting half that in half the time is the same thing, I'd actually say worse as there is a good chance you will get in the ring dehydrated, I literally would just be getting in the ring fresh, well fed, hydrated and rested over night too-no rest after a same day weigh in!

Cutting is a mix of losing fluids, not eating and burning off any carbs in your body and the opposite is true of the weight been put back on, done gradually and you have to put the good stuff back in, mainly electrolytes and carbs along with fluids, add rest and bingo.

exactly....gaining 5-7lbs in 12 hours is similar to gaining 15 lbs in 36 hrs.....i don't get walsh's point ......

how can walsh say that in general today's fighters don't have an advantage against fighters from similar wiehgts during 50's???....there is an obvious weight advantage and in boxing even 2 pounds is significant at lightweight so 10 lbs is a colossal advantage ......of course you can pick the best fighters from the 50's and say who from modern times would beat them....but in general there is a huge difference!!!

cowzerp · 11-01-2012 10:08PM

walshb wrote: »

And, anyway, I still do not see this 12 hr difference as a reason to say that today's fighters would beat pre 1983 fighters in said weight ....

so basically what your saying is that the lightweight who would get in the ring at maybe 63kg would be a match for today's who would probably get in at 66kg, these lads are naturally 3kg heavier and are cutting the extra because they can, just like the old lads would of if they had 12 hours extra to hydrate and eat.

Overall I'd disagree but fact is some feathers would beat some lightweights so of course this would also work in this scenario too.

walshb · 11-01-2012 10:10PM

cowzerp wrote: »

Cutting weight is not healthy, but cutting half that in half the time is the same thing, I'd actually say worse as there is a good chance you will get in the ring dehydrated, I literally would just be getting in the ring fresh, well fed, hydrated and rested over night too-no rest after a same day weigh in!

Cutting is a mix of losing fluids, not eating and burning off any carbs in your body and the opposite is true of the weight been put back on, done gradually and you have to put the good stuff back in, mainly electrolytes and carbs along with fluids, add rest and bingo.

19 lbs is till 19 lbs. If one lays that out on a table consisting of food and liquid, it is a massive lot, and take into account that it is more than 19 lbs, because when asleep and not eating, you are losing weight, So, it is 21 lbs more like.

For a 60 kg fighter that is massive. LP and Khan are pro boxers, bigger than you, yes? Naturally bigger, and one gained 15 and the other 8. You gained 19 lbs.

It is always interesting to debate. To reiterate, I am well aware these big weight gains are possible; all I am saying is that the plus ten lbs gains for the lighter weight fighters would be more the exception than the rule, AND, also, would be possibly just as detrimental as advantageous.

Finally, the difference between post and pre 1983 is 12 hrs, or thereabouts. I would say the weight difference here between the two come fight night for the lower weight men is 5-6 lbs.

tryingmybestt · 11-01-2012 10:12PM

walshb wrote: »

tryingmybestt wrote: »

Didn't Castillo fail weigh IN to begin with?

Also, Corrales got battered, maybe that extra weight slowed him badly;)

Point is we do not have official weight gains really for pre 1983, so how can you say that the diff come fight night will be 10 lbs or thereabouts?

I would rather use the 12 hrs difference. Now, in 12 hrs I would say you could healthily gain 5-7 lbs. So, realistically the weight difference between the two rules is most likely closer to 5-7 lbs as opposed to 10 plus lbs

And, anyway, I still do not see this 12 hr difference as a reason to say that today's fighters would beat pre 1983 fighters in said weight divisions.

btw, Hatton's lifestyle was notoriously bad. He ballooned up, juts like pre 1983 Duran....

i was talking about corrales v mayweather and castillo v mayweather if you read back

corrales gave mayweather his toughest fight !! goes against your point i'm afraid

weigh ins happen at about 4pm on friday....fight at about 10pm on sat....thats 30 hrs...less 12 hrs and its 18 hrs extra....huge difference

walshb · 11-01-2012 10:15PM

cowzerp wrote: »

so basically what your saying is that the lightweight who would get in the ring at maybe 63kg would be a match for today's who would probably get in at 66kg, these lads are naturally 3kg heavier and are cutting the extra because they can, just like the old lads would of if they had 12 hours extra to hydrate and eat.

Overall I'd disagree but fact is some feathers would beat some lightweights so of course this would also work in this scenario too.

Well, put it to the test.

Who wins?

Duran in 1972/1973 at LW vs. the current champ from today at LW?

Ike Williams at LW from the 50s vs any champ at LW today?

Monzon/Hagler from the 70s vs. Sergio/Sturm/Nunn/Benn/Eubank/Toney/Jones today/recent?
I would give the latter names a good chance, no doubt. But, not because of previous day weigh in, because they were talented.

etc etc etc

This is like with like, not like I am comparing a champ from pre 1983 vs a non champ from today. I am comparing champ vs. champ.

Wanna' compare non cahmp vs. non champ, go ahead.

walshb · 11-01-2012 10:16PM

tryingmybestt wrote: »

walshb wrote: »

i was talking about corrales v mayweather and castillo v mayweather if you read back

corrales gave mayweather his toughest fight !! goes against your point i'm afraid

weigh ins happen at about 4pm on friday....fight at about 10pm on sat....thats 30 hrs...less 12 hrs and its 18 hrs extra....huge difference

Corralles gave PBF his toughest fight? Did you see that fight

Again, whatever the difference, do you think post 1983 beats pre 1983? Even with your rule, I fail to see any clear
examples of today's fighters beating pre 1983 fighters.

tryingmybestt · 11-01-2012 10:17PM

walshb wrote: »

tryingmybestt wrote: »

Corralles gave PBF his toughest fight? Did you see that fight

mistake i meant castillo !!

lol

tryingmybestt · 11-01-2012 10:20PM

walshb wrote: »

Well, put it to the test.

Who wins?

Duran in 1972/1973 at LW vs. he current champ from today at LW?

Ike Williams at LW from the 50s vs any champ at LW today?

Monzon from the 70s vs. Sergio today?

etc etc etc

This is like with like, not like I am comparing a champ from pre 1983 vs a non champ from today. I am comparing champ vs. champ.

this is a silly tactic your using for proving your point !!

we can all pick exceptions to the rule......i could probably pick some bantamweights from 50's that could beat today's lightweights ....that doesnt mean the weight factor wasnt a big issue

in general terms todays LW is comparable to a FW from the 50's

we can all highlight exceptions to contradict this to make us look very clever but in general terms this is the reality....accept it!

tryingmybestt · 11-01-2012 10:24PM

walshb wrote: »

tryingmybestt wrote: »

Corralles gave PBF his toughest fight? Did you see that fight

Again, whatever the difference, do you think post 1983 beats pre 1983? Even with your rule, I fail to see any clear
examples of today's fighters beating pre 1983 fighters.

you can't generalise and say do all fighters post 1983 beat all fighters pre 1983....thats ridicolous.........fighters from past generations were more skilled but comparing physicality in general terms todays LW compared to a FW from the 50's.....

comparing the one off great fighters from the 50's with todays fighters doesn't compare to the general fighters from the 50's and general modern day fighters

do you not get this???????

walshb · 11-01-2012 10:25PM

tryingmybestt wrote: »

this is a silly tactic your using for proving your point !!

we can all pick exceptions to the rule......i could probably pick some bantamweights from 50's that could beat today's lightweights ....that doesnt mean the weight factor wasnt a big issue

in general terms todays LW is comparable to a FW from the 50's

we can all highlight exceptions to contradict this to make us look very clever but in general terms this is the reality....accept it!

What???

Ok, you go and pick the matches. Jeez, I pick like with like, equally, and that is the response I get

So, you go and select appropriate and equal matches then. Go for it.

This is madness. I am trying to select matches, and they don't suit you, so, you pick any fair matches then.

Otherwise the claim is useless. "That todays fighters post 1983 are better than those pre 1983 because of same day weigh ins makes them bigger and stronger and better." All I am lloking for is examples, or matches that may well show this to be the case.

cowzerp · 11-01-2012 10:27PM

Serious answer, ask that question at the end of there careers when they have reached legendary status as comparing legends too fighters who are in there career and sometimes unknown is not fair, legends grow and so do there abilities sometimes, nostalgia an all that

walshb wrote: »

Well, put it to the test.

Who wins?

Duran in 1972/1973 at LW vs. the current champ from today at LW?

Ike Williams at LW from the 50s vs any champ at LW today?

Monzon/Hagler from the 70s vs. Sergio/Sturm/Nunn/Benn/Eubank/Toney/Jones today/recent?
I would give the latter names a good chance, no doubt. But, not because of previous day weigh in, because they were talented.

etc etc etc

This is like with like, not like I am comparing a champ from pre 1983 vs a non champ from today. I am comparing champ vs. champ.

Wanna' compare non cahmp vs. non champ, go ahead.

walshb · 11-01-2012 10:29PM

cowzerp wrote: »

Serious answer, ask that question at the end of there careers when they have reached legendary status as comparing legends too fighters who are in there career and sometimes unknown is not fair, legends grow and so do there abilities sometimes, nostalgia an all that

Ok, so you guys go and select matches that you think are fair.

I have tried.

tryingmybestt · 11-01-2012 10:30PM

walshb wrote: »

What???

Ok, you go and pick the matches. Jeez, I pick like with like, equally, and that is the response I get

So, you go and select appropriate and equal matches then. Go for it.

This is madness. I am trying to slect matches, and they don't suit you, so, you pick any fair matches then.

we're not talking about individual matches...its about physicality....a 10lb weight difference is a huge advantage...

some fighters from the pre 1983 era were so good that it didnt matter about the weight e.g. duran, leonard, hearns, gans, pep, armstrong etc. etc.

these fighters are exceptions....we're talking about everyday fighters, fighters you don't know or hear about.....its common sense....a significant weight difference is a huge advantage......thats why there is a new weight every few pounds in boxing at the lower weights: 118, 122, 126, 130, 135, 140 etc.

you've already agreed that htere is at least a 5-7lbs difference....this alone confrims THAT TODAYS LW IS EQUAL TO A FW FROM THE 50'S !!!

walshb · 11-01-2012 10:35PM

tryingmybestt wrote: »

we're not talking about individual matches...its about physicality....a 10lb weight difference is a huge advantage...

some fighters from the pre 1983 era were so good that it didnt matter about the weight e.g. duran, leonard, hearns, gans, pep, armstrong etc. etc.

these fighters are exceptions....we're talking about everyday fighters, fighters you don't know or hear about.....its common sense....a significant weight difference is a huge advantage......thats why there is a new weight every few pounds in boxing at the lower weights: 118, 122, 126, 130, 135, 140 etc.

you've already agreed that htere is at least a 5-7lbs difference....this alone confrims THAT TODAYS LW IS EQUAL TO A FW FROM THE 50'S !!!

Ah, so now it's the fighter nobody knows about that this applies too?

That is ludicrous. How can you say that? If nobody knows about them then how the hell can we ever even debate it. This was a pointlesss exercise.

How can we discuss a fighter that does not exist?

The claim was made, and now we have ZERO examples that could explain it or back it up, unless we use the non existent fighters that nobody knows?

I'm out....;)

tryingmybestt · 11-01-2012 10:36PM

walshb wrote: »

Ok, so you guys go and select matches that you think are fair.

I have tried.

ok Cesar Chavez against most other LW's

Edwin Rosarion against most other LW's

pernell whitake against most other LW's

Ray Mancini against most other LW's

Mayweather v

Pacquiao V

de la hoya v

mosley v

Marquez v

walshb · 11-01-2012 10:38PM

tryingmybestt wrote: »

ok Cesar Chavez against most other LW's

Edwin Rosarion against most other LW's

pernell whitake against most other LW's

Ray Mancini against most other LW's

NO.

If you use Chavez, a world beater, you have to comapre him with a world beater from pre 1983, surely you agree to this? C'mon..
The same way that if I use Duran, or a pre 1983 world beater, I will not match him with John Murray or Kevin Mitchell for example.

Have to have some fairness.

Chavez at LW vs. Duran? This is fair, no?

I will pick Duran every day.

Pea was a LW at the LA games. So, really, not an example of a man who ever benefiited from same day weigh in.

pea vs. Ike or Duran or Ross or Canzoneri? All great and close matches, and all to do with talent.

C'mon, please, give me more fair and accurate matches.

I have confirmed that post 1983 there is a weight diff. I am with you on that. We agree. Never said otherwiese, my issue is that this somehow means a result or a win for the post 1983 fighter.

I disagree. And, I ask, give me examples of post 1983 beating pre 1983 fighters that backs up this claim?

tryingmybestt · 11-01-2012 10:44PM

walshb wrote: »

NO.

If you use Chavez, a world beater, you have to comapre him with a world beater from pre 1983, surely you agree to this? C'mon..

Chavez at LW vs. Duran? This is fair, no?

I will pick Duran every day.

Pea was a LW at the LA games. So, really, not an example of a man who ever benefiited from same day weigh in.

pea vs. Ike or Duran or Ross or Canzoneri? All great and close matches, and all to do with talent.

C'mon, please, give me more fair and accurate matches.

I have confirmed that post 1983 there is a weight diff. Never said otherwiese, my issue is that this somehow means a result or a win for the post 1983 fighter.

I disagree. And, I ask, give me examples of post 1983 beating pre 1983 fighters that backs up this claim?

you think that picking a few tiny examples reflects the thousands of lightweights from the 50's and today??

one question....in general terms do you think the weight difference was an issue....not in very specific isolated cased involving great fighters but in general terms????????

cowzerp · 11-01-2012 10:46PM

walshb wrote: »

NO.

If you use Chavez, a world beater, you have to comapre him with a world beater from pre 1983, surely you agree tho this? C'mon..

Chavez at LW vs. Duran? This is fair, no?

I will pick Duran every day..

Chavez would beat Duran, I'd confidently claim that.

Mayweather At 134 v anyone pre 88, he'd have the skills to beat them plus 5-10 lbs extra weight to add to that.

walshb · 11-01-2012 10:46PM

tryingmybestt wrote: »

you think that picking a few tiny examples reflects the thousands of lightweights from the 50's and today??

one question....in general terms do you think the weight difference was an issue....not in very specific isolated cased involving great fighters but in general terms????????

Well, it could be advantageos, but like I said, many have bviews that it can hinder. It is not a definite either way,

Seriously, how can we debate this if you will not give an examples to back it up.

And, then you use the whole "it applies to fighters we don't know?"

tryingmybestt · 11-01-2012 10:48PM

walshb wrote: »

Well, it could be advantageos, but like I said, many have bviews that it can hinder. It is not a definite either way,

Seriously, how can we debate this if you will not give an examples to back it up.

And, then you use the whole "it applies to fighters we don't know?"

IF IT HINDERS GAINING 14 LBS OVER 30 HRS THEN IT HINDERS GAINING 6 POUND OVER 12 HRS NO???????????????????

another point that doesnt make sense

i like your passion for boxing but its seriously misguided and lacks real understanding of prizefighting

walshb · 11-01-2012 10:50PM

cowzerp wrote: »

Chavez would beat Duran, I'd confidently claim that.

Mayweather At 134 v anyone pre 88, he'd have the skills to beat them plus 5-10 lbs extra weight to add to that.

Wow. I think Duran is all wrong for Chavez. Either way, this to me is a match that has little relevance to the weigh in rule.

PBF has the skills to beat anyone at 130 lbs. Weight diff or not. He never gained much anyway at any weight.

walshb · 11-01-2012 10:52PM

tryingmybestt wrote: »

IF IT HINDERS GAINING 14 LBS OVER 30 HRS THEN IT HINDERS GAINING 6 POUND OVER 12 HRS NO???????????????????

another point that doesnt make sense

i like your passion for boxing but its seriously misguided and lacks real understanding of prizefighting

So, you still have given any examples to back up the claim, and I know nothing?

Also, I agree with you on the point that weight can help, and that is your response?

tryingmybestt · 11-01-2012 10:53PM

walshb wrote: »

Wow. I think Duran is all wrong for Chavez. Either way, this to me is a match that has little relevance to the weigh in rule.

PBF has the skills to beat anyone at 130 lbs. Weight diff or not. He never gained much anyway at any weight.

when you pick the best fighters from pre 1983 as examples we could say the same thing you said about mayweather....THEY ARE SO GOOD THAT WEIGHT IS IRRELEVANT !!!

this small minority doesnt represent the mass of fighters

tryingmybestt · 11-01-2012 11:02PM

walshb wrote: »

So, you still have given any examples to back up the claim, and I know nothing?

Also, I agree with you on the point that weight can help, and that is your response?

to be fair you dint fully agree...you said it could benefit or hinder.....if it hinders a LW weighing 140 during 1950's it hinders a LW weighing 150 during modern times with extra day rule.....therefore the negative issue cancels itself out

therefore add in the advantage of the extra weight that only exists for one fighter, the heavier one from modern times.....overall there is a clear advantage

do you accept this point?

walshb · 11-01-2012 11:39PM

tryingmybestt wrote: »

to be fair you dint fully agree...you said it could benefit or hinder.....if it hinders a LW weighing 140 during 1950's it hinders a LW weighing 150 during modern times with extra day rule.....therefore the negative issue cancels itself out

therefore add in the advantage of the extra weight that only exists for one fighter, the heavier one from modern times.....overall there is a clear advantage

do you accept this point?

Ok, lets keep it polite. We have engaged in many many posts now and simply because we don't see eye to eye hera that means I have misgudied views? Many points on other threads you agree with me, and others have disagreed with you, yet I never made such claims.

In a nutshell: Ok: Pre vs post 1983.

I agree that extra weight gained from the 12-18 hrs extra hydration can help one man against another who is 12-18 hrs behind. I agree, it can help.

Now: What I want to discuss is that the difference in weigh in times translates to victory most times for post 1983. That I am looking at.

And, when one uses those pre 1983 vs. post 1983 across all non HW divisions, I simply do not see any clear examples. Now, you want to say that it applies to all the fighters we do not know of. If so, end of discussion.

Also, there are those who think that the rule can hinder, that BOLING down and then adding a lot is NOT as effective as a man who is more naturally close to his weight. You must see this point, just like I see the reverse.

Also, you kind of mock my logic at times as regards the weight gain etc over 12-18 hrs, YET, you say with no proof or stats, that pre 1983 weight gain was 2-3 lbs? So, using your logic that one can gain 15 lbs in 12-18 hrs, why is it difficult to accept that in 12 hrs, pre 1983, that one could gain at least 50 percent of 15 lbs? That would be a lot more than 2-3 lbs, no?

And, I will say, you get two PHYSICALLY equal men today, and make one weigh in today and the other 12-18 hrs later and have them fight, yes, it is IMO unfair. So, see how far I have come.

But, analysing it further, I still do not see how pre 1983 fighters lose to those post 1983 using this weigh in difference. It's far more complex than that.

Have Duran pre 1983 RULE face Duran post 1983 RULE at LW, and yes, a good case can be made for post 1983. Needs real analysing this, and isn't that what makes debate and fantasy fights interesting. Problem with using Duran is that these extra 12-18 hrs could see him getting them damn cramps he supposedly got in 1980 from his gourging.;)

walshb · 11-01-2012 11:43PM

cowzerp wrote: »

Chavez would beat Duran, I'd confidently claim that.

Mayweather At 134 v anyone pre 88, he'd have the skills to beat them plus 5-10 lbs extra weight to add to that.

Paul, to be precise, are you selecting Chavez over Duran at LW mainly based on the fact that one weighed in 12-18 hrs before the other?

Anyway, I think most would pick Duran over JCC either way.

I think it probably is a bad example of what we are looking at.

Daroxtar · 11-01-2012 11:51PM

I feel like a gooseberry comin in here but I just have to break up the love in for a minute and ask why you dont point to the differences in training regimes between the joe louis era and the modern one... seriously lads. If you are comparing peak with peak then you have to take it as the peak each athlete achieved. Now I dont care what ye say about all things being equal, they are not. Sport science has evolved, training techiques, weights, speed work, diets, you name it.. it has all changed.

The modern boxer is a superior athlete to his predecessor. The guys from the past may have been the best in their day but take them as they were at their peak with no modernisation of their training and they would be blown away.

cowzerp · 11-01-2012 11:51PM

walshb wrote: »

Paul, to be precise, are you selecting Chavez over Duran at LW mainly based on the fact that one weighed in 12-18 hrs before the other?

Anyway, I think most would pick Duran over JCC either way.

I think it probably is a bad example of what we are looking at.

That's 1 reason, I also think he was harderbto beat.

I think the whole point in our argument is you might aswell say the top feathers now could handle the top lightweights, in some cases they would but overall they would not. The modern fighters would get in the ring at least 5lb more muscle than there old counterparts. Therefore your not comparing like with like

walshb · 11-01-2012 11:56PM

Daroxtar wrote: »

I feel like a gooseberry comin in here but I just have to break up the love in for a minute and ask why you dont point to the differences in training regimes between the joe louis era and the modern one... seriously lads. If you are comparing peak with peak then you have to take it as the peak each athlete achieved. Now I dont care what ye say about all things being equal, they are not. Sport science has evolved, training techiques, weights, speed work, diets, you name it.. it has all changed.

The modern boxer is a superior athlete to his predecessor. The guys from the past may have been the best in their day but take them as they were at their peak with no modernisation of their training and they would be blown away.

Ok, examples is all I AM LOOKING FOR.

Boxing to me is sport that one can pit man today against man from years gone by. That is what makes it so intriguing.

I agree with all you say about progress etc.

So, best vs. best, apart from massive weight differences, who from today or recent years blows away their equivalent opposition at the weight from years gone by?

Now, as you say, this is nothing to do with the whole ame day weigh. Just straight forward man from today and recent, vs. man from say 40s/50s/60s?

Prime Tyson v Prime Joe Louis - who wins ?

Comments