Look let's be realistic here. Wlad/Vitali/Lewis would dominate any era of HW boxing

Wow, nothing personal, but the level of irrationality the two of you have displayed in your posts breathtaking. So, you just chose to ignore that EVERY QUANTIFIABLE SPORT has seen night and day IMPROVEMENT in performance, and that the SAME observable physical traits that went along with the changes in those athletes have ALSO happened with boxing, but you just ignore that, and say its different with absolute no credible argument. Sure, well, I guess just because 1 plus 1 equals 2 doesn't prove that 2 plus 2 equals four. Seriously, you might as well the world is round, or maybe more appropriately evolution (come to think of it, I bet you probably do).

 

So see my last post as to why you are wrong in general, but a couple things are so wrong here they deserve note. "Boxing isn't about who's biggest, its an art". Then why are their weightclasses. Of course its about who's biggest, in part. Valuev is an excellent example of that. He had adequate at best boxing skills and little power. But he was frickin enormous and consequently beat a bunch of top fighters and was never decisively defeated in his entire career. His size was able to obscure his lack of skills that much. Meanwhile, WK is 6'6, but has the athletic ability of Ali. You've got it backwards, there is nothing to suggest Ali could cope with WK. Why don't you track Ali's success rate against opponents based on size. About half of his fights were against opponents that would be considered cruiserweights today. His ko percentage was decent with them. The heavier his opponents got, the lower his ko percentage went. And it was a substantial gulf. You see the same disparity in many of the boxers of that age, Shavers, who you probably worship, was a true HW featherfist, his ko ratio against 215 lb and up HW's was in the Chris Byrd range. Look, you can lie to yourselves all you want, but you only make yourselves look stupid and fail to appreciate the real things about old ATG's that make them great, while worshipping falsehoods like their immunity to progress.

 

Holyfiled competed well against bigger guys even when old. Primo Canera and Max Baer were big, so were guys like Abe Simon, Joe Louis ko'd all of them. There is not amount of fighters that were around pre-1970 to compete agisnt bigger guys, and ones who do now, rely too much on weight lifting to add size rather than toughness and skill.

 

No, they wouldn't! I mean Lewis was really good... but he wouldn't! While the Klitschkos would have been third tier. Wladimir maybe fourth. You have no shame comparing the Brothers to Lennox Lewis! Even Vitali in his prime was knocked out by the British-Canadian.

 

Lewis would, the brothers by themselves is an interesting notion. I don't Lewis would get by the color line. :conf

 

Irrationality?

We're not ignoring anything.

It's you who's been irrational comparing runners etc to fighters.

Athletes ARE continuously breaking records.

But we're talking about a fighters skillset.

Footwork
timing
jabs
hooks
uppercuts
defence (rolling etc)
slipping
feinting
combination punching
countering etc.

Boxing is known as the sweet science. It's an art. It's very scientific.

There's lots of different aspects to boxing.

I wouldn't even class boxing as a sport.

Yes, today's fighters have better diets, and have better equipment, train in more comfortable footwear etc.

But the above skills have been passed on through time, and a lot of those skills have been lost.

Give me a technical breakdown and give me some examples on how boxing has improved?

Name the top 5 fighters of all time from any weight class you want.

 

andrewa1,

Of course there's weight classes, but the HW limit is 200 and above.

If you get a fighter that has SIMILAR skills to his opponent, but who has SIGNIFICANT advantages in weight, strength, height, reach and power etc, then he'd be more than likely to come out on top.

But slight (and sometimes significant) disadvantages in height, power, strength and reach etc, can be overcome by skills, speed and ring smarts etc.

Guys like you are claiming that Wlad would have beaten Ali, based on a 3 inch height advantage, and advantages in strength and power.

But Ali was a HW, who was 6'3, and fought at around 15 stone, who had superior footwork and all-around skills.

Wlad has been knocked out by Brewster, Sanders, Puritty (in his mid 20's), he's been life and death with Sam Peter, and he struggled with Haye's movement.

Yet despite all of that, you're telling me that a peak version of Ali, who was more skilled etc, wouldn't have been able to beat Wlad, based on the fact that Wlad is bigger?

All physical attributes can be overcome by speed and skills.

Roy Jones went from 175, up to HW, to face John Ruiz who was a top 5 guy, who'd recently knocked Holy down, and who outweighed him by over 20 pounds on the night.

What happened?

It wasn't even close.

Roy DOMINATED him!

Mike Tyson was a 5'10, 220 pound guy, who dominated bigger guys in his prime.

How was that possible?

Valuev has fought in a weak era.

How would he have done against:

Ali
Foreman
Frazier
Holmes
Holyfield (peak)
Tyson
Holmes
Lewis etc?

How was a 6'3, 217 pound Haye, able to beat Valuev who was 7'2, and weighed over 300 pounds?

Size and strength can have an impact.

But overall skills determine the outcome of a fight.

He hasn't got the athletic ability of a 67 Ali!

Have you even seen Ali's hand speed and footwork when he was at his peak?

Have you not seen his jab, his combinations, his feints, his reflexes and his timing etc?

Wlad is very athletic for his SIZE.

But not in comparison to Ali.

There's nothing to suggest Ali could have coped with Wlad?

Better footwork
Faster hand speed
A better chin
Better reflexes
Superior skills/shot selection

Ali beat Foreman, Frazier and Norton all past prime, and he even fought with a broken jaw against Ken.

Styles make fights, and Ali wasn't a fighter, he was a boxer. He only fought when he had too. He didn't try and get fighters out of there. So what if there was a gulf? What does that mean?

The only one who's looking stupid is you.

You've given no evidence whatsoever to try and back up your ridiculous claims.

All I'm hearing is "Wlad would beat Ali because of his physical advantages" while completely ignoring the fact, that Ali had superior all-round skills and speed.

How is it that a little 5'10, 220 pound Mike Tyson is considered one of the best heavies of all time?

 

Bingo!

If two fighters have similar skill sets, but one of them also has significant physical advantages, then that would obviously play a huge part.

But physical disadvantages can be overcome by speed and skills.

If not, Mike Tyson would have got a hammering in every fight.

Just about every guy he faced, was bigger than he was.

 

what quantifiable asset dictates success in boxing more than the quality of ability and matchup of style to style.

 

It's funny how people say that science and training has improved yet not too many HW's in this era are in better shape. So what is the point of bringing that up?

 

This is like talking to a brick wall. Yes, your irrationality is off the charts. You are actually calling me irrational for comparing this sport to every single quantifiable sport. Like I said, its like saying someone is irrational for comparing 1 plus 1 to 2 plus 2 (quess what, they both double the result!!) You ignore the fact that all quantifiable sports have progresses, even going so far as to say boxing isn't a sport(!!), and you make completely unverifiable assertions that "skills" have been lost. Skills are being used as often sometimes because progress has mooted them (i.e. inside fighting, to give you a technical example, now how about you give me a technical example of regression, and I'll laugh at you and tell you its actually progression). Athletes ALL have a skillset they use in their profession. Boxing is not unique in that at all. NFL punters have learned how to kick a ball in such a way to make touchbacks less likely, that is one component of their skillset that makes there current performance superior to today. (Ray Guy, who could never kick that way and who's stats are inferior to modern punters, is still the best punter of all time for his in era accomplishments, btw).

 

How is it that 5'7 Tommy Burns was dominant HW champ more than a century ago? He was unusual skilled for his smaller era and the world has marched on. You should too.

 

This is an example of the evolution of the sport. It became more clear that increased bulk offered an advantage (withstanding damage and dispensing damage, the most important part of boxing), and boxers gained weight as a result. Muscle weight or fat weight, when looking statistically at past performances, both provide an advantage.

 

Size per above. It's why there are weight classes in all combat sports.

 

Ha! You are trying to compare boxing with track and field.

You'll laugh at me?

Everyone is laughing at you!

Pick any weight class you want, and then name either the top 5 or top 10 fighters who's ever fought there.

Lets see how many modern guys make the list.

Sports science has improved.

Boxing as a whole has not.

Fighters from the past were more skilled as a whole.

Of course there'll be a few exceptions, but as a whole skills have not progressed.

You have no evidence whatsoever!

Just because Usain Bolt can run faster than Carl Lewis, that doesn't mean that today's fighters are better than the greats of yesteryear.