yes he is an all time great, allowing for his era and the time he fought in, i dont think the klits will be top 5 atg. But you still havent answered, do you think a 5'6" 185lb sam langford would beat a 6'7" 240lb wladimir?
To answer your question if Pac can beat men almost twice the size as when he started . . . I do not think its a strecht to think that Langford could do the same.
But Pac has increased in size to be nearly the same size as the guys he is beating and doesn't give away more than 3 or 4 inches in height. Langford was 185lb when he was boxing at heavyweight and stood 5'6" tall. Langford would not beat a klitschko. If you can't tell what jack johnson was like from those videos what are you basing your opinion on? Jack Johnson is considered one of the great defensive fighters of all time because his technique was so much better than his opponents terrible technique. Jesse owen is considered one of the best athletes of all time but his best 100m was 10.2 He was brilliant for his time. Sam Langford and Johnson are great for their time but boxing like athletics has moved on.
let them compete back in that day under those rules . . . 100+ round fights under the swaltering heat. I am sure the crowds would love big russians . . .like they loved black folk back then. lol, I would say that it would be easy work for either JJ or sam to beat the modern heavy. lol, 10.2 on what was basically mud with no cleets was not a bad time . . . I would suggest that Usuan Bolt would have trouble running the same time. if you want to compare eras lets look at basketball in th 80s I would put the lakers and celtic against any team today and I would pick Bird or magic before any 2 players today/ in hockey there will only be one great one and one mr hockey . . . modern players are not even close. why is it so hard to believe that while the modern athelete may be bigger, stranger, and faster but it does not make them better?
You are not beig fair with Jack Johnson.The boxing technique was still evolving (he was an inovator and a technician at his time) aswell as the physical aconditionament methods.
We are not talking about the 80s though are we, do you think a 1920s basketball team would beat a current team. and your last post appears to suggest you think jesse owen can run faster than usain bolt. being bigger stronger faster isnt everything but it goes a hell of a long in making a boxer better
I wonder if any pictures exist of Pac standing next to either of the Klitschkos. Manny and Langford were actually the same height.
NBA Players are a lot bigger, stronger and faster than back then (80s) but that does not make it better. My point is that all those natural traits does not make you better. I suggest the 80s which is an earlier era is still better. every sport has a dip in quality (today heavyweight boxers). the name of this thread: What has changed? I put forth that the skill level is a lot less than earlier eras and Manny threw JJ era in as a red herring. when you are talking a difference in almost 100 years in sport you are talking apples and oranges. I would suggest none of the current boxers (especially if you would be conceived as a "red" would not be brave enough to compete). 100+ round fights, fought under hot sun, with a hostile crowd ready to lynch you is not the most fun you can have on a Saturday. A misconceived theme that has run throughout this thread is that what has change is that Eastern Europeans have ascended to their natural spot at the top. However, there is very little evidence to prove that prior to the decline of boxing in the US that they could stake claim to being the best at heavyweight. American Boxers (save the great Cuban duo) have dominated amateur boxing at the heavy weight classes until the mid-late 80s and for whatever reason they stop being competitive (almost at all weight classes really). This supports my hypothesis that sport has actually regress over the last 20 -25 years. To further my point, the USSR always had extremely huge men that competed at an international level and their style and technique is very similar to the bros et al. as for bolt vs owen . . . how would bolt run under the same condition? a track that is not designed to increase speed, shoes that where not as good as they are today once again its like apples and oranges . . . you really cannot compare
America has never dominated the amateur heavyweight division, they were more successful before the mid 80s, america's only gold in the super heavyweight division in the olympics was the year that cuba russia, poland and others didnt enter. America does not do well in the heavyweight division or the super heavyweight amateur division, because of the size of the boxers now. Up until the 80s there were boxers in the top 10 weighing under 200lbs, even haye and adamek are bigger than these guys. When america has been successful in the heavyweight division its been when the size of the boxers was that much smaller. In 1970 they'e about 200lbs, in 1980 about 215lbs and in the 90s we started to see boxers about 6'4" or 6'5" and 240lbs start to dominate, like lennox lewis and riddick bowe, the usa is no longer dominating because they have never produced boxers like this except for bowe. The USA is still producing some good boxers like they were in previous eras, but the best just aren't big enough to truly dominate, Johnathan banks steve cunningham eddie chambers chad dawson would all look like great heavyweights in different eras. And when you are looking at the skill of previous eras boxers you are only considering the best, and comparing that to boxers in the top ten today. Just out of interest what year do you think was really strong? Be specific dont say 80s say a specific year. I think most people agree the 90s was the strongest, but outside of the 90s which year would you pick as being strong?
If you take a "snap shot" of any era, even the great 70s, after the first few names it dies out completely...
between 52 and 88 the US won 6 gold medals, cuba 3 and italy 1 if that is not dominance I do not know what is. the only half way decent fighter on you list is Dawson and he is only OK and will never be considered great . . . would be a second to third tier fighter in earlier years Do you really think that there are no talented super heavyweights that could have went into boxing in the USA if the sport wasn't dying? In every other sport men in the US are a lot bigger than those a generation ago! lol, you cannot only look at the top ten . . .lol because there are more than 10 fighters fighting in boxing. in every other era you had greats fighting there last fights and passing the torch to the next generation. On the other side you have the hot prospects and new contenders coming up . . . there are no greats today (2 very goods who are currently on top) a half way decent top 5 and no real hot prospects coming up. the Byrd ruiz era was probably the only one that is worse than today. My assessment of the 80s is posted on an earlier post. as for a year dec 12 1982 @ 12:47 am . . . what a stupid way of assess things nobody ever talks about year they talk about era. that could be decade or by champ. God I really could believe the names you tried to pass off as "greats"
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJYd7jKgO9s[/ame] Here two top 5 heavyweights fight weighing 196 and 210 respectively. Would these two be top 5 today? Absolutely not. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7jB1sAON68&feature=related[/ame] This is footage of two similarly sized boxers fighting today. I think it is clear which two look the better boxers. I think these two would be ranked higher than quarry and foster. You're right in 70 you have ali foreman and frazier, which is an excellent top 3, only top 3s consisting of various permutations of bowe holyfield lewis and tyson compete with that. But other than those 3 its very weak. In no way would any of the others in 1970 be top 10 today