|10-06-2009, 10:59 AM||#1|
ESB Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: the netherlands
best heavyweight under the old rules ???
there are a lot of threads here going like : louis vs holyfield or baer vs klitscko and so on. and everyone has there own opinion on who wins. and ofcourse it is true that todays heavy's are bigger and (maybe) stronger better training and food. but lately i have been watching a lot of old fighters and what i think is they are way way way tougher then todays fighters. meaning not only that they could take a punch but also incredible stamina and durability. and i think if todays heavys fought those guys under them rules so not 12 rounds but like 20 or more (if it lasts that long ofcourse) the chances of the oldtimers improve greatly. for instances guys like Wills or Jeffries fighting under the old rules will probably beat guys like the klitschko's, bowe, holyfield in my opinion.
what do you people think ??
|10-06-2009, 06:47 PM||#2|
East Side Guru
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: March for Revenge
Re: best heavyweight under the old rules ???
Well, by nature a larger man will always find a distance fight tougher, so I think it goes without saying.
An Ali, a Frazier, Holyfield, Marciano...these guys could match up with anyone from any era as far as endurance goes. Some of the old-time fights (like pre-1920) weren't fought at any great pace; certainly not the pace of fighters from the 30's onwards.
What fascinates me is the conditions the old-timers fought in.
Going way back, the Sullivan v Kirain fight took place in the heat of the day and lasted three hours. At the end, Sullivan was badly burnt from the sun, and Kilrain was no doubt severely deydrated since he had been chugging down whiskey in between rounds.
That's some kind of tough.