Your Top 5 Heavyweights Ever?

You would think with all the advances in sports science they would be able to alter the occurences of over-training.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Sorry but whatever you say about the NFL will come in 1 ear and out the other.

No clue huh?

Let me make it even simpler then. STAYING in shape takes far less work than GETTING in shape. Long training camps with long breaks of inactivity is NOT the optimal way for ANY athlete to train. It happens because men fall out of shape due to inactivity. STAYING in shape takes far, far less work.

If you thought the reverse was true then you'd have to explain why (for example) athletes don't simply go inactive between the Olympics and then go into long training camps and not compete except at the Olympics.

Aussies don't care about the NFL that's why. Athletes don't go inactive between the olympics because they wouldn't make money not for any other reason.

[rolling eyes]

Athletes don't go inactive because it is nearly impossible to stay in top competition shape and to get better without actually competing.

If your theory were correct? Then football, baseball and hockey and basketball teams would be at there very best coming out of training camp instead of at mid-season. But that is simply not the way things work.

If your theory were correct then boxing is the one human endeavor in which doing it LESS makes one more proficient.

You really want to make that argument?

Do yourself a favor. Go read Ray Robinson's autobiography.

I'm not arguing the point that athletes are better after being inactive for a long time but in boxing you're getting hit in the head and your body shouldn't be put through that punishment 20 times a year. It's easy for fans who don't have to deal with the pain to accuse today's boxers of being soft but I totally understand why they would only want to fight 3 or 4 times a year. If Sugar Ray Robinson was earning todays equal of 20 million a fight he wouldn't have fought 20 times a year either.

WinstonSmith wrote:

You would think with all the advances in sports science they would be able to alter the occurences of over-training.

The type of work the NFL does now both in camp and week to week is far less intense than it was 30 years ago. It has to be with smaller rosters and it can be because guys stay in shape year round. But you played football. You know that the only way to adapt to giving and receiving those kinds of blows is to actually give and receive them.

Those guys are so big and so fast and so nasty that the soft connective tissues just can't keep up.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

Good points Marble.The reason there is such a plethora of injuries lately in camp is due to the fact these guys are constantly in work-out mode and are not allowing their bodies to heal properly.

Well if your fighting 20 fights a year how can your body heal properly?

Easy, be good enough defensively not to get hit a lot.

Which would happen if guys for more often. I firmly believe we would see less injuries in a sport like boxing if fighters fought more often. Im not saying seek a super fight everytime out but fight your mandatories as much as possible. One guy in recent times that I think my theory would have served is Kelly Pavlik. He just stopped fighting after the second Jermaine Taylor fight. An ideal prime fight IMO should have roughly six fights a year and one or two of those being a huge fight.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

You would think with all the advances in sports science they would be able to alter the occurences of over-training.

The type of work the NFL does now both in camp and week to week is far less intense than it was 30 years ago. It has to be with smaller rosters and it can be because guys stay in shape year round. But you played football. You know that the only way to adapt to giving and receiving those kinds of blows is to actually give and receive them.

Those guys are so big and so fast and so nasty that the soft connective tissues just can't keep up.

T o think the owners and fans are clamoring for an eighteen game season.That will be a recipe for disaster.The players are dead against it,and for good reason.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Sorry but whatever you say about the NFL will come in 1 ear and out the other.

No clue huh?

Let me make it even simpler then. STAYING in shape takes far less work than GETTING in shape. Long training camps with long breaks of inactivity is NOT the optimal way for ANY athlete to train. It happens because men fall out of shape due to inactivity. STAYING in shape takes far, far less work.

If you thought the reverse was true then you'd have to explain why (for example) athletes don't simply go inactive between the Olympics and then go into long training camps and not compete except at the Olympics.

Aussies don't care about the NFL that's why. Athletes don't go inactive between the olympics because they wouldn't make money not for any other reason.

[rolling eyes]

Athletes don't go inactive because it is nearly impossible to stay in top competition shape and to get better without actually competing.

If your theory were correct? Then football, baseball and hockey and basketball teams would be at there very best coming out of training camp instead of at mid-season. But that is simply not the way things work.

If your theory were correct then boxing is the one human endeavor in which doing it LESS makes one more proficient.

You really want to make that argument?

Do yourself a favor. Go read Ray Robinson's autobiography.

I'm not arguing the point that athletes are better after being inactive for a long time but in boxing you're getting hit in the head and your body shouldn't be put through that punishment 20 times a year. It's easy for fans who don't have to deal with the pain to accuse today's boxers of being soft but I totally understand why they would only want to fight 3 or 4 times a year. If Sugar Ray Robinson was earning todays equal of 20 million a fight he wouldn't have fought 20 times a year either.

Let's stay on point. You argued that fewer fights and long training camps are athletically preferable, that they create better fighters. Financial issues were not what the issue was. Do you now concede you were incorrect?

If so we can move on to other issues.

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

Good points Marble.The reason there is such a plethora of injuries lately in camp is due to the fact these guys are constantly in work-out mode and are not allowing their bodies to heal properly.

Well if your fighting 20 fights a year how can your body heal properly?

Easy, be good enough defensively not to get hit a lot.

Which would happen if guys for more often. I firmly believe we would see less injuries in a sport like boxing if fighters fought more often. Im not saying seek a super fight everytime out but fight your mandatories as much as possible. One guy in recent times that I think my theory would have served is Kelly Pavlik. He just stopped fighting after the second Jermaine Taylor fight. An ideal prime fight IMO should have roughly six fights a year and one or two of those being a huge fight.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WinstonSmith wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

You would think with all the advances in sports science they would be able to alter the occurences of over-training.

The type of work the NFL does now both in camp and week to week is far less intense than it was 30 years ago. It has to be with smaller rosters and it can be because guys stay in shape year round. But you played football. You know that the only way to adapt to giving and receiving those kinds of blows is to actually give and receive them.

Those guys are so big and so fast and so nasty that the soft connective tissues just can't keep up.

T o think the owners and fans are clamoring for an eighteen game season.That will be a recipe for disaster.The players are dead against it,and for good reason.

Not this fan. I think a four game pre season is too much to be honest.

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

You would think with all the advances in sports science they would be able to alter the occurences of over-training.

The type of work the NFL does now both in camp and week to week is far less intense than it was 30 years ago. It has to be with smaller rosters and it can be because guys stay in shape year round. But you played football. You know that the only way to adapt to giving and receiving those kinds of blows is to actually give and receive them.

Those guys are so big and so fast and so nasty that the soft connective tissues just can't keep up.

T o think the owners and fans are clamoring for an eighteen game season.That will be a recipe for disaster.The players are dead against it,and for good reason.

Not this fan. I think a four game pre season is too much to be honest.

So do I,but an eighteen game regular season is a bad idea.

WinstonSmith wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

You would think with all the advances in sports science they would be able to alter the occurences of over-training.

The type of work the NFL does now both in camp and week to week is far less intense than it was 30 years ago. It has to be with smaller rosters and it can be because guys stay in shape year round. But you played football. You know that the only way to adapt to giving and receiving those kinds of blows is to actually give and receive them.

Those guys are so big and so fast and so nasty that the soft connective tissues just can't keep up.

T o think the owners and fans are clamoring for an eighteen game season.That will be a recipe for disaster.The players are dead against it,and for good reason.

I'm not clamoring for an 18 game season. I don't know what the magic number is either. The ONLY reason for training camps to exceed two weeks is to teach the rookies and free agents. Two weeks just isn't enough for that. But if you're a defensive tackle on a good team you'd now play the equivalent of maybe a game in preseason, 18 regular season games and a couple of playoff games?

That sounds like an unsustainable load to me.

I agree.Training camp is as useless as tits on a bull for many of the veterans.

WinstonSmith wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

You would think with all the advances in sports science they would be able to alter the occurences of over-training.

The type of work the NFL does now both in camp and week to week is far less intense than it was 30 years ago. It has to be with smaller rosters and it can be because guys stay in shape year round. But you played football. You know that the only way to adapt to giving and receiving those kinds of blows is to actually give and receive them.

Those guys are so big and so fast and so nasty that the soft connective tissues just can't keep up.

T o think the owners and fans are clamoring for an eighteen game season.That will be a recipe for disaster.The players are dead against it,and for good reason.

Not this fan. I think a four game pre season is too much to be honest.

So do I,but an eighteen game regular season is a bad idea.

That's what i mean. These guys already play 20 games not including playoffs if they go that far. What the fuck do they need another two games for. When would the superbowl be April? I also hate a seven game opening round in basketball and the wildcard and interleague ideas in baseball. With those sports less is more IMO.

It's all about the owners lining their pockets.I don't think this folly will fly with the CBA.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Sorry but whatever you say about the NFL will come in 1 ear and out the other.

No clue huh?

Let me make it even simpler then. STAYING in shape takes far less work than GETTING in shape. Long training camps with long breaks of inactivity is NOT the optimal way for ANY athlete to train. It happens because men fall out of shape due to inactivity. STAYING in shape takes far, far less work.

If you thought the reverse was true then you'd have to explain why (for example) athletes don't simply go inactive between the Olympics and then go into long training camps and not compete except at the Olympics.

Aussies don't care about the NFL that's why. Athletes don't go inactive between the olympics because they wouldn't make money not for any other reason.

[rolling eyes]

Athletes don't go inactive because it is nearly impossible to stay in top competition shape and to get better without actually competing.

If your theory were correct? Then football, baseball and hockey and basketball teams would be at there very best coming out of training camp instead of at mid-season. But that is simply not the way things work.

If your theory were correct then boxing is the one human endeavor in which doing it LESS makes one more proficient.

You really want to make that argument?

Do yourself a favor. Go read Ray Robinson's autobiography.

I'm not arguing the point that athletes are better after being inactive for a long time but in boxing you're getting hit in the head and your body shouldn't be put through that punishment 20 times a year. It's easy for fans who don't have to deal with the pain to accuse today's boxers of being soft but I totally understand why they would only want to fight 3 or 4 times a year. If Sugar Ray Robinson was earning todays equal of 20 million a fight he wouldn't have fought 20 times a year either.

Let's stay on point. You argued that fewer fights and long training camps are athletically preferable, that they create better fighters. Financial issues were not what the issue was. Do you now concede you were incorrect?

If so we can move on to other issues.

I never said that fewer fights and long training camps are athletically preferable. You argued that training in days gone by was harder while I said they couldn't have been since they fought so much. Financial issues are an issue because if Ray Robinson and others fought today they wouldn't fight 20 times a year also. So don't try to argue they were tougher in those days or better because they fought so much.

How old are you by the way?

WinstonSmith wrote:

It's all about the owners lining their pockets.I don't think this folly will fly with the CBA.

LOL

WinstonSmith wrote:

I agree.Training camp is as useless as tits on a bull for many of the veterans.

The problem is you can't operate a football team and teach the kids without all the positions filled out. Not sure there is a good answer. I'd err on the side of shorter camps and just accepting that the free agents and rookies are going to take longer to develop. The league should take that into account in the new labor negotiations.

Dan Jenkins has a hysterical take on training camp in the sequel to Semi-Tough, Life Its Ownself. Billy Clyde Puckett and Dreamer Tatum are inventing pre-game injuries to avoid a pre-season game.

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

You would think with all the advances in sports science they would be able to alter the occurences of over-training.

The type of work the NFL does now both in camp and week to week is far less intense than it was 30 years ago. It has to be with smaller rosters and it can be because guys stay in shape year round. But you played football. You know that the only way to adapt to giving and receiving those kinds of blows is to actually give and receive them.

Those guys are so big and so fast and so nasty that the soft connective tissues just can't keep up.

T o think the owners and fans are clamoring for an eighteen game season.That will be a recipe for disaster.The players are dead against it,and for good reason.

Not this fan. I think a four game pre season is too much to be honest.

So do I,but an eighteen game regular season is a bad idea.

That's what i mean. These guys already play 20 games not including playoffs if they go that far. What the fuck do they need another two games for. When would the superbowl be April? I also hate a seven game opening round in basketball and the wildcard and interleague ideas in baseball. With those sports less is more IMO.

If they only have a 16 game season then is a 4 game pre-season really needed?

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

It's all about the owners lining their pockets.I don't think this folly will fly with the CBA.

LOL

I dare anybody to find me a player who is stupid enough to agree to this.I'm already tiring of the over exposure that is the NFL.Since my Red Sox are out of contention,I guess Ill have to put up with it.Go Pats!

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Sorry but whatever you say about the NFL will come in 1 ear and out the other.

No clue huh?

Let me make it even simpler then. STAYING in shape takes far less work than GETTING in shape. Long training camps with long breaks of inactivity is NOT the optimal way for ANY athlete to train. It happens because men fall out of shape due to inactivity. STAYING in shape takes far, far less work.

If you thought the reverse was true then you'd have to explain why (for example) athletes don't simply go inactive between the Olympics and then go into long training camps and not compete except at the Olympics.

Aussies don't care about the NFL that's why. Athletes don't go inactive between the olympics because they wouldn't make money not for any other reason.

[rolling eyes]

Athletes don't go inactive because it is nearly impossible to stay in top competition shape and to get better without actually competing.

If your theory were correct? Then football, baseball and hockey and basketball teams would be at there very best coming out of training camp instead of at mid-season. But that is simply not the way things work.

If your theory were correct then boxing is the one human endeavor in which doing it LESS makes one more proficient.

You really want to make that argument?

Do yourself a favor. Go read Ray Robinson's autobiography.

I'm not arguing the point that athletes are better after being inactive for a long time but in boxing you're getting hit in the head and your body shouldn't be put through that punishment 20 times a year. It's easy for fans who don't have to deal with the pain to accuse today's boxers of being soft but I totally understand why they would only want to fight 3 or 4 times a year. If Sugar Ray Robinson was earning todays equal of 20 million a fight he wouldn't have fought 20 times a year either.

Let's stay on point. You argued that fewer fights and long training camps are athletically preferable, that they create better fighters. Financial issues were not what the issue was. Do you now concede you were incorrect?

If so we can move on to other issues.

I never said that fewer fights and long training camps are athletically preferable. You argued that training in days gone by was harder while I said they couldn't have been since they fought so much. Financial issues are an issue because if Ray Robinson and others fought today they wouldn't fight 20 times a year also. So don't try to argue they were tougher in those days or better because they fought so much.

How old are you by the way?

He's got like three years on dirt. But that's not the point. Why does Alex Rodriguez or Peyton Manning play a full season?? They both get paid more than they need. Why does boxing get that excuse. Also Robinson was quite wealthy so were many fighters from the post depression era.

In Australia our Rugby League players play 2 pre-season games, 24 regular season games, up to 4 finals games, 3 state of origin games (your all-stars game but with more intensity and passion than any other game) and end of season internationals. All that with no helmets or shoulder pads.

WinstonSmith wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

It's all about the owners lining their pockets.I don't think this folly will fly with the CBA.

LOL

I dare anybody to find me a player who is stupid enough to agree to this.I'm already tiring of the over exposure that is the NFL.Since my Red Sox are out of contention,I guess Ill have to put up with it.Go Pats!

I found my self cheering the sox to beat the rays tonight. It was a dark day in my household. A diehard yanks fan cheering on the sox .I chalked it up to a business decision. I do hope to see Pedroia back in action next year he's a scrapper that i love to hate.

Robinson was wealthy but not Manny and FMJ levels. Also, he had to fight almost 20 times a year to earn that.

Glad(I think) the Sox helped you out tonight.Thanks for not kicking a fan when he's down.Have a good one HCB.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

freakzilla316ftw wrote:

Sorry but whatever you say about the NFL will come in 1 ear and out the other.

No clue huh?

Let me make it even simpler then. STAYING in shape takes far less work than GETTING in shape. Long training camps with long breaks of inactivity is NOT the optimal way for ANY athlete to train. It happens because men fall out of shape due to inactivity. STAYING in shape takes far, far less work.

If you thought the reverse was true then you'd have to explain why (for example) athletes don't simply go inactive between the Olympics and then go into long training camps and not compete except at the Olympics.

Aussies don't care about the NFL that's why. Athletes don't go inactive between the olympics because they wouldn't make money not for any other reason.

[rolling eyes]

Athletes don't go inactive because it is nearly impossible to stay in top competition shape and to get better without actually competing.

If your theory were correct? Then football, baseball and hockey and basketball teams would be at there very best coming out of training camp instead of at mid-season. But that is simply not the way things work.

If your theory were correct then boxing is the one human endeavor in which doing it LESS makes one more proficient.

You really want to make that argument?

Do yourself a favor. Go read Ray Robinson's autobiography.

I'm not arguing the point that athletes are better after being inactive for a long time but in boxing you're getting hit in the head and your body shouldn't be put through that punishment 20 times a year. It's easy for fans who don't have to deal with the pain to accuse today's boxers of being soft but I totally understand why they would only want to fight 3 or 4 times a year. If Sugar Ray Robinson was earning todays equal of 20 million a fight he wouldn't have fought 20 times a year either.

Let's stay on point. You argued that fewer fights and long training camps are athletically preferable, that they create better fighters. Financial issues were not what the issue was. Do you now concede you were incorrect?

If so we can move on to other issues.

I never said that fewer fights and long training camps are athletically preferable. You argued that training in days gone by was harder while I said they couldn't have been since they fought so much. Financial issues are an issue because if Ray Robinson and others fought today they wouldn't fight 20 times a year also. So don't try to argue they were tougher in those days or better because they fought so much.

How old are you by the way?

I'm 47 and they were ABSOLUTELY BETTER. Again, unless you think doing something less makes one better at it. How could it be otherwise? I NEVER said training in the past was harder. I said it was more or less the same as it is today. Running, intervals, weights, plyometrics, massage, heavy bag, speed bag, jumping rope and sparring. YOU said fighters weren't as well prepared because they didn't have "proper training camps." I argued that constantly being in shape and fighting frequently made camps unecessary. Fighters who fought infrequently have always compensated with long camps. Again, it is a remedial measure, not an optimal one.

You SERIOUSLY need to read Robinson's biography. He Made HUGE money and STILL thought it vital to fight frequently. He believed he'd slip if he didn't. It was the first thing he and his trainer talked about after winning the welterweight title. Your assertion otherwise is based on nothing.

You keep saying fighting 20 times a year is too much and that one's body can't take it. Yet Stribling averaged 20 fights a year over 12 years and was still fighting at that pace when he was killed in a motorcycling accident at 28.

Now Stribling is unusual. But MANY great fighters averaged 10-12 fights a year for well over a decade. Benny Leonard, Joe Gans, Tony Canzoneri, Ray Robinson and Archie Moore for example. Can you explain that?

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

hardcoreBEE24 wrote:

WinstonSmith wrote:

It's all about the owners lining their pockets.I don't think this folly will fly with the CBA.

LOL

I dare anybody to find me a player who is stupid enough to agree to this.I'm already tiring of the over exposure that is the NFL.Since my Red Sox are out of contention,I guess Ill have to put up with it.Go Pats!

I found my self cheering the sox to beat the rays tonight. It was a dark day in my household. A diehard yanks fan cheering on the sox .I chalked it up to a business decision. I do hope to see Pedroia back in action next year he's a scrapper that i love to hate.

One thing I recognized today is that Derek Jeter is done being Derek Jeter. The inevitable slide has begun. Much as I hate the guy, I've loved watching him.