Excellent points. It reminds me of the evolution of other sports were specialization begins to dominate. For instance in basketball the positions were given names for the fans to follow what they were seeing. There is no rule in basketball per se that dictates that a point guard can't shoot more than he passes or that a shooting guard or a center etc,, must play a certain way. Depending on ones relation to the game they will interpret simulations as origins and thereby become confused by certain paradigmatic subscriptions. I observe that any athlete has to possess some "old school" element to solidify his success. He will at a minimum need to understand the relevance of his practice in light of the sports origins. When he does not then he or she will become preoccupied with the superfluous and fall into folly. There are a lot of great fighters that would never win titles but they can't be soundly beat by anyone, because they are concerned with what works, for real. They experiment and build on that experimentation. Somebody like the drunken master, can just flat out fight. People focus on his showboating.
Hey I also love your videos sayf carman Me and my friends were arguing over who will win between the fights on the may 9 card between Canelo Alvarez and kirkland Ricky burns and omar figueroa Tomoki Kameda vs Jamie McDonnell also Just wanted to know who you would pick
salams,brother I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS! you lay out FACTS! AND STICK TO THEM! i only disagree on your floyd opinion i think manny will win,i know you already did a video on this but before may 2 PLEASE!!!!!!!!! DO A REVAMPED VERSION ON THE SAME TOPIC!
LOL! Actually, Hill thinks Manny will win! Look for the reasons why in next post. PS. I have much in common with Manny as a person who always fought bigger opponents. I would pick him right after even Margarito, but now, it worries me :-)
True that old school boxers were in better 15 round shape, but today's fighters are in far better anaerobic shape, no point being great cardio shape if your opponent can blast you out in 1 round, the science of nutrition is the main thing that has changed boxing, with bigger more explosive boxers today it has evolved their styles, the old school weaker carb loaded energy bunnys of the pre Tyson era have become irrelevant in the sport, it's all about the taller leaner explosive fighters now. And it's not just boxing, most sports evolved in the early 90s due to the introduction of steroids. Because of this change I believe as far as Tyson vs Holyfield goes I'd say Tyson wins in the 80s whilst Holyfield wins any time in the 90s as early as the ruddock fights
+MMALesnar Totally wrong! You have drank the cool aid. Todays fighter does not go 15 rounds and are clearly as fatigued as ever after 12 rounds! The comment of the lean fighter is also bogus. Tommy Hearns was 6'1 and a welterweight! SRR was 5'11 in 1950! Power in both hands! SRL was 5'10 and light heavy weight power! The idea of some kind of evolution is baseless in boxing and obviously so! The idea that past generations should not be studied is the reasin boxing is virtually dead and more idol worship than knowledge of the game.
