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

sp, this falls under #4 of the below "common responses", read below why it fails. It also falls under "nonsensical" responses, which this would also qualify for. Regardless, thanks for letting me post this again and continue helping educate non brain dead boxing fans.

Thank you to both the imbecilic posters (here's looking at you, sp) and the rationale ones. Its important that this thread remain in discussion and rational boxing fans become more educated on the topic. This thread is meant for people who have been convinced by biased commentators, trainers protecting their own glory and financial interest etc that modern HW's can't compare head to head with past heavyweights (nothing wrong with having that belief initially, I did too), BUT have the intelligence and self control to understand rational arguments and change their mind. Even if you have a HW "hero" you just can't accept would lose today, if you can evolve your opinion on the topic overall, then the thread is doing its job. When someone posts something new, I'll post a similar post, responding to any new arguments and tweaking my below statement to better explain. So below are the relevant facts and features:


Old ATG's should be respected as great for many reasons, I have Ali and Louis #'s 1 and 2 respectively on my all time great list for these reasons. However, it is for pfp and in era accomplishments, and import to boxing and history they deserve those designations. Its wrong to say they could contend with modern HW's H2H for the below reasons.

1. Progress. It happens. When you look at all sports with a quantifiable result, today's athletes are blowing past the old ones. In sports as diverse as swimming, sprinting, and javelin throwing, among many others, the old records are being shattered. In all the innumerable sports out there, I'm not aware of a single record that wasn't set mid 80's or later, and usually in the 2000's. Even in nonquantifiable sports with quantifiable aspects (i.e. tennis's serving speed), the quantifiable aspects have increased. Those sports all have about as much relation to each other as they do to boxing, so it would defy all reason for boxing not to progress as all other sports have
2.Size and relation to progress. Per #1, it's likely (although not certain, per size limitations mentioned here), that even middleweights of today would easily defeat middleweights of 40 years ago. However, HW is even more pronounced, because the is no size limitation in HW boxing, as opposed to other classes. HW's have been getting dramatically larger, both taller and heavier, just like the athletes in the sports where quantifiable results are better. So, again, it makes no sense that the same process is happening in boxing as with sports where quantifiable results are getting better, but somehow the result isn't better as well
3. Statistical analysis of size on performance. Other websites document this. Old time greats fought much smaller boxers, generally, but when they did fight larger boxers they had less success. Ali's ko ratio against fighters who would be designated cruiserweight today was a very good rate, in the 70's. Against 200 and up it was 40ish percent, against 215 and up it was a featherfisted 33%. Frazier and even the renowned ko artist Shavers had similar numbers. Shavers ko ratio against 215 and up fighters was about the level of Chris Byrd. Shavers was a power only fighter, Byrd was power last fighter, to show how much performance has gotten better. Meanwhile, LL and the K's ko percentage again 215 boxers is 75% and higher. There is no reason to think Ali could have coped with the size and power of todays fighters and every reason to think he couldn't have.

Responses to these facts. Nostagliaists typically respond in one of 5 ways. I note the ways, and why they are irrelevant as counters to the above facts, below.
1 "Single examples", whether of a fight a modern fighter lost, or something a modern fighter did that (they say) Ali didn't do. Immature posters like sp and loudon love this, which is usually completely irrelevant. Any single example you can give, I can apply to Ali (look at the past thread posts here with sp and loudon). If you find one that I can't apply to Ali, good for you, then I'll give you a single example of dominance for WK (etc) that doesn't apply to Ali (Ali had to rely on biased judges to get him his many of his best wins, WK never did, etc). A couple in particular. sp went on about modern HW's not being "true" champs because they didn't defend their mandatories. The k's never failed to do that, and LL never ducked a mandatory (he chose Grant over Ruiz when Grant was uniformly regarded as the better fighter and VK over CB, when VK was regarded as LL's biggest threat in the division). I could point out that Ali was stripped of his WBA belt as well after the first Liston fight because he didn't fight who the WBA wanted him to, but either way its irrelevant because 1. Ali, LL and the K's have indisputably (to rational persons) been dominant champs for a long time beating the best and moreover 2. It really has nothing to do with the broad premise of why prior HW's could contend with modern HW's outlined above. Same thing with pointing out single defeats. All boxers (save Marciano, who I hope no one will say is the best h2h of all time) have defeats, but it is to opponents in their own era. So, pointing out their defeats is meaningless to the broader era argument. Ultimately, "single example's" are meaningless, and do nothing to contradict the broad picture painted by the logic and stats above. It is the context of the era that matters.
2. Prime. Ali was never beaten in his prime". This is circular logic, I can do the same thing with LL or the K's when I want. Primes occur at different times for different fighters, in part because "prime" is really just a sliding scale of different important attributes, some of which peak sooner and some later. For taller and heavier, harder hitting HW's the prime is usually mid thirties, because chin prime occurs later, hard punching lasts a long time, and properly utilizing your height uses a lot of experience and technique. That's why Foreman was able to be effective into his mid 40's, and LL and the K's were at their best mid to late 30's. Conversely, shorter, high octane fighters like Tyson broke down quickly.
3. "What's good for one sport isn't good for another". Basically the argument that boxing is a special flower that, alone of all sports, is immune to progress. Well, I'm open to learn why not. Just give me some statistical evidence or logical, comparative arguments. But I have yet to hear a real argument. NOTE: "Ali has way better footwork, and is just faster and better than ll and the k's that's a fact" is not evidence, it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Posters like sp love to say that is evidence, but its only repeating an item of faith. You can believe that Ali would be the K's and LL as an item of faith, there's nothing wrong with that. Just accept that all factual evidence and logic points to the contrary.
4. Smilies. When all else fails, nostagiaists love using smilies, (or insults, I include "na na you're stupid" in this category). This may make you feel better but it does nothing to contradict the facts above.
5. Denial. In this case the last stage of grief over ingrained opinions. Just stating "Ali would easily beat LL and the K's" with no other statements. This also includes things like blind statements of belief like "modern fighters haven't beat anyone" etc. LL and the K's have beaten the top contenders numerous times. The records of the current era top contenders are generally better than the records of the past era top contenders. There is no reason to logically state the earlier contenders are better than current contenders, per main arguments #1-3 above. Again it may make you feel better, but it does nothing to change the above facts.
6. "Modern HW's are crap because (someone) says so". Thanks dblfl for reminding me of this. Hitler said monogamous marriage was good, and smoking and drinking was bad, does that mean we should cheat on our wives and smoke and drink? Using someone else's belief is not proof for or against any argument. Many boxing analysts recognize the top HW's of today would beat the top HW's of yesteryear, although many of them still rank old timers higher, just as I do, for non H2H reasons. Manny Stewart is a great example, who left modern HW's off his toplist, but noted that it didn't mean he though those old timers could have beaten the modern boxers. Other analysts/trainers do state old HW's would beat modern HW's. They do that to glorify their own past accomplishments, improve sales of things they market when US was more dominant, or otherwise out of delusion. Citing another's opinion is not an argument, you need to actually use facts and logic for that.

So, if these facts outrage you, please comment. I will repeat and or tweak the facts above and respond to any new arguments. By responding, you are helping keep this great topic at the forefront of the posts, and thus helping educate boxing fans. By keeping this thread at the top, you are helping detoxify fans of the self serving blather given by old trainers and commentators used to demean current boxers and laud old timers for all the wrong reasons.

 

ye and again that is

convenience; if you're willing to make assumptions of this kind then your evidence is only anecdotal

You'd be laughed out of a debate.

 

sp, this falls under #4 of the below "common responses", read below why it fails. It also falls under "nonsensical" responses, which this would also qualify for. Regardless, thanks for letting me post this again and continue helping educate non brain dead boxing fans.

Thank you to both the imbecilic posters (here's looking at you, sp) and the rationale ones. Its important that this thread remain in discussion and rational boxing fans become more educated on the topic. This thread is meant for people who have been convinced by biased commentators, trainers protecting their own glory and financial interest etc that modern HW's can't compare head to head with past heavyweights (nothing wrong with having that belief initially, I did too), BUT have the intelligence and self control to understand rational arguments and change their mind. Even if you have a HW "hero" you just can't accept would lose today, if you can evolve your opinion on the topic overall, then the thread is doing its job. When someone posts something new, I'll post a similar post, responding to any new arguments and tweaking my below statement to better explain. So below are the relevant facts and features:


Old ATG's should be respected as great for many reasons, I have Ali and Louis #'s 1 and 2 respectively on my all time great list for these reasons. However, it is for pfp and in era accomplishments, and import to boxing and history they deserve those designations. Its wrong to say they could contend with modern HW's H2H for the below reasons.

1. Progress. It happens. When you look at all sports with a quantifiable result, today's athletes are blowing past the old ones. In sports as diverse as swimming, sprinting, and javelin throwing, among many others, the old records are being shattered. In all the innumerable sports out there, I'm not aware of a single record that wasn't set mid 80's or later, and usually in the 2000's. Even in nonquantifiable sports with quantifiable aspects (i.e. tennis's serving speed), the quantifiable aspects have increased. Those sports all have about as much relation to each other as they do to boxing, so it would defy all reason for boxing not to progress as all other sports have
2.Size and relation to progress. Per #1, it's likely (although not certain, per size limitations mentioned here), that even middleweights of today would easily defeat middleweights of 40 years ago. However, HW is even more pronounced, because the is no size limitation in HW boxing, as opposed to other classes. HW's have been getting dramatically larger, both taller and heavier, just like the athletes in the sports where quantifiable results are better. So, again, it makes no sense that the same process is happening in boxing as with sports where quantifiable results are getting better, but somehow the result isn't better as well
3. Statistical analysis of size on performance. Other websites document this. Old time greats fought much smaller boxers, generally, but when they did fight larger boxers they had less success. Ali's ko ratio against fighters who would be designated cruiserweight today was a very good rate, in the 70's. Against 200 and up it was 40ish percent, against 215 and up it was a featherfisted 33%. Frazier and even the renowned ko artist Shavers had similar numbers. Shavers ko ratio against 215 and up fighters was about the level of Chris Byrd. Shavers was a power only fighter, Byrd was power last fighter, to show how much performance has gotten better. Meanwhile, LL and the K's ko percentage again 215 boxers is 75% and higher. There is no reason to think Ali could have coped with the size and power of todays fighters and every reason to think he couldn't have.

Responses to these facts. Nostagliaists typically respond in one of 5 ways. I note the ways, and why they are irrelevant as counters to the above facts, below.
1 "Single examples", whether of a fight a modern fighter lost, or something a modern fighter did that (they say) Ali didn't do. Immature posters like sp and loudon love this, which is usually completely irrelevant. Any single example you can give, I can apply to Ali (look at the past thread posts here with sp and loudon). If you find one that I can't apply to Ali, good for you, then I'll give you a single example of dominance for WK (etc) that doesn't apply to Ali (Ali had to rely on biased judges to get him his many of his best wins, WK never did, etc). A couple in particular. sp went on about modern HW's not being "true" champs because they didn't defend their mandatories. The k's never failed to do that, and LL never ducked a mandatory (he chose Grant over Ruiz when Grant was uniformly regarded as the better fighter and VK over CB, when VK was regarded as LL's biggest threat in the division). I could point out that Ali was stripped of his WBA belt as well after the first Liston fight because he didn't fight who the WBA wanted him to, but either way its irrelevant because 1. Ali, LL and the K's have indisputably (to rational persons) been dominant champs for a long time beating the best and moreover 2. It really has nothing to do with the broad premise of why prior HW's could contend with modern HW's outlined above. Same thing with pointing out single defeats. All boxers (save Marciano, who I hope no one will say is the best h2h of all time) have defeats, but it is to opponents in their own era. So, pointing out their defeats is meaningless to the broader era argument. Ultimately, "single example's" are meaningless, and do nothing to contradict the broad picture painted by the logic and stats above. It is the context of the era that matters.
2. Prime. Ali was never beaten in his prime". This is circular logic, I can do the same thing with LL or the K's when I want. Primes occur at different times for different fighters, in part because "prime" is really just a sliding scale of different important attributes, some of which peak sooner and some later. For taller and heavier, harder hitting HW's the prime is usually mid thirties, because chin prime occurs later, hard punching lasts a long time, and properly utilizing your height uses a lot of experience and technique. That's why Foreman was able to be effective into his mid 40's, and LL and the K's were at their best mid to late 30's. Conversely, shorter, high octane fighters like Tyson broke down quickly.
3. "What's good for one sport isn't good for another". Basically the argument that boxing is a special flower that, alone of all sports, is immune to progress. Well, I'm open to learn why not. Just give me some statistical evidence or logical, comparative arguments. But I have yet to hear a real argument. NOTE: "Ali has way better footwork, and is just faster and better than ll and the k's that's a fact" is not evidence, it is an unsubstantiated opinion. Posters like sp love to say that is evidence, but its only repeating an item of faith. You can believe that Ali would be the K's and LL as an item of faith, there's nothing wrong with that. Just accept that all factual evidence and logic points to the contrary.
4. Smilies. When all else fails, nostagiaists love using smilies, (or insults, I include "na na you're stupid" in this category). This may make you feel better but it does nothing to contradict the facts above.
5. Denial. In this case the last stage of grief over ingrained opinions. Just stating "Ali would easily beat LL and the K's" with no other statements. This also includes things like blind statements of belief like "modern fighters haven't beat anyone" etc. LL and the K's have beaten the top contenders numerous times. The records of the current era top contenders are generally better than the records of the past era top contenders. There is no reason to logically state the earlier contenders are better than current contenders, per main arguments #1-3 above. Again it may make you feel better, but it does nothing to change the above facts.
6. "Modern HW's are crap because (someone) says so". Thanks dblfl for reminding me of this. Hitler said monogamous marriage was good, and smoking and drinking was bad, does that mean we should cheat on our wives and smoke and drink? Using someone else's belief is not proof for or against any argument. Many boxing analysts recognize the top HW's of today would beat the top HW's of yesteryear, although many of them still rank old timers higher, just as I do, for non H2H reasons. Manny Stewart is a great example, who left modern HW's off his toplist, but noted that it didn't mean he though those old timers could have beaten the modern boxers. Other analysts/trainers do state old HW's would beat modern HW's. They do that to glorify their own past accomplishments, improve sales of things they market when US was more dominant, or otherwise out of delusion. Citing another's opinion is not an argument, you need to actually use facts and logic for that.

So, if these facts outrage you, please comment. I will repeat and or tweak the facts above and respond to any new arguments. By responding, you are helping keep this great topic at the forefront of the posts, and thus helping educate boxing fans. By keeping this thread at the top, you are helping detoxify fans of the self serving blather given by old trainers and commentators used to demean current boxers and laud old timers for all the wrong reasons.

 

ye and again that is

convenience; if you're willing to make assumptions of this kind then your evidence is only anecdotal

You'd be laughed out of a debate.

 

glover,

There is no evidence whatsoever that boxing has improved as a whole. Skills have been lost over the years.

You're over complicating things Glover.

I agree with your examples of Tommy and Brewster. I agree, and I'm absolutely certain that they'd beat certain guys of the 30's, 40's or ANY era.

Now anybody who can't accept what I'm about to say, is a complete fool.

1. There'll be lots of MODERN heavies that would beat HW's of the PAST.

Put someone like Wlad or Vitali in with say Henry Cooper, and you'd have to assume that they'd easily win. That's just one example, and there'll be hundreds.

2. Likewise, there'll be lots of heavies of the past, that could beat SOME of TODAY'S HW's.

That's all there is to it.

The only thing that I'm disagreeing with you on, is that you are making a GENERALISATION.

You simply cannot say that ALL HW'S of the past, could NOT beat ANY of today's guys.

Only an idiot would make such a stupid statement.

Now you're not going to tell me that Liston, Foreman and Frazier wouldn't have any luck against Fury, Povetkin, Adamek, Haye and Chisora etc.

You are saying that a peak version of Ali wouldn't even be COMPETITIVE!

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!

What progress? All you have given me, is that guys are now bigger and more powerful. What about footwork, slipping, timing, feinting, blocking, parrying, stamina, hooking, jabbing, combination punching??

I agree entirely. Everything else being EQUAL, then physical advantages are going to prevail. But if not, other things come into play. So why then are you saying that a guy like Ali wouldn't be able to compete today? He would be at physical disadvantages against today's big guys. But his footwork and his speed and all-around skills would give him a huge advantage over the majority of today's guys.

There you go. He was short at 5'10, but he dominated with speed and skill. So Mike Tyson could overcome huge height and reach disadvantages over guys, yet Ali couldn't?? Not all of Tyson's opponents were bums. We both know that as soon as he left Clayton and King came on the scene that it was the beginning of the end. So in short, ALL physical disadvantages can be overcome my ability.

He wasn't peak in 1974. He was a very OLD 32 years of age. He wasn't better at 32, than what he was at 25, when he could utilize his biggest asset, his footwork. Look, if he could beat Foreman and Frazier past his peak without his footwork and speed, then I'm sure he could have beaten them WITH it. How much tougher did he get in those 7 years? Did his chin suddenly improve etc? Why are you being ignorant and calling Clay a runner? His footwork was his biggest asset, and it wasn't used to RUN. If you think George would have knocked him out, that's your opinion. The first few rounds of "The Jungle" gave us an idea of what would have happened if they'd have met earlier in the late 60's. Ali has spoke about this himself. He said that when he was younger, he'd have constantly moved in front of George, and he would have been up on his toes all night, dancing in and out of range and making him miss etc. He said that in 1974, he simply could not employ those tactics, because he wouldn't have been able to sustain it, and he'd have ran out of gas. So in "The Jungle" he danced for a few rounds, and then prepared himself to get pounded on in order to tire George out. He took a tremendous hammering, and was urinating blood for weeks afterwards. It was an incredibly brave and stupid thing to do. But he had to adopt those tactics, because at that stage, there was simply no other way to fight George.

How many fighters who he faced were 5'10, with the same reach etc?

No, they weren't ALL bums.

But we both know they were circumstances involved, as you yourself have said, he COULD have been the greatest.

What are you talking about? It's you who's saying that a 6'3, 220 pound Ali couldn't compete with modern guys, yet a 5'10 Tyson could.

You're talking BOLLOCKS!

So a 67 version of Ali, couldn't have COMPETED with ANY of today's guys? Yeah!

I'll debate with you anytime, when I'm not busy, but quit the trolling it's becoming boring. You know that you don't believe Haye is a better fighter than a 25 year old Ali.

 

Yes you aren't, you're a straight-up ****.

 

glover,

He barely gets hit? Ha against who?

You keep banging on about Cooper etc. what about Brewster, Sanders, Puritty and Peter.

Did he systematically shut hem down?

Running?

You're seriously saying that you've boxed? But you have no concept of footwork?

Yeah you keep saying this. But how much as Wlad improved since his losses? He's made a few adjustments, but we don't know how far he's come because the majority of his opponents aren't that good.

Peter gave him in a world of trouble, and we know about the actual knockouts. Tyson at his best would have gone at him hard and fast and to the body. I think Mike fighting to his full capabilities would definitely have stopped him.

 

Are you brain dead?

Ross Puritty, Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster aren't "single examples", Genius. Ross Purrity, Corrie Sanders and Lamon Brewster represent a TREND where Wlad has been knocked SENSELESS by three different c-class fighters. What that means is, if WLAD can get KTFO'ed on three separate occasions in this era, what's to say the same doesn't happen in other eras? Considering the current HW era is one of the weakest in the division's history, I think Wlad's history suggests that he does NOT dominate other eras in the HW division where the talent pool is much deeper.

Sorry to wake you from your wet dream but there are LOTS of guys from yesteryear who mop the floor with Klitschko...

 

Genetic freak?

 

hmmm... good post.

 

Good luck with getting through to him mate, you'll certainly need it.

Don't expect an educated, adult response.

He'll just keep re posting his same text over and over.

By my count, he's now copied his original answer a staggering 16 times all within the last 4 days.

He's like a mardy little girl throwing a tantrum.

 

1. excellent post;
2. you're too smart for a sports board ;
3. I've been reading esb for near 10 yrs and as anyone can see joined about 6 yrs ago.
4. I only have about 700 posts b/c I often make longer then 1-2 sentence posts (but rarely as long as yours), and sometimes give esb a break;
5. not to discourage you, but you'll never change the views of bigoted or overly nostalgic clowns on esb - they're incapable of reasoned or logical analysis. But who am I to say this, I'm just a quant jock at DoD ;
6. I'm comically amused at golden oldie US HW slurpers b/c I know most of them are driven by nationalistic or racist insecurities.

I remember the hell they gave LL when he started ruling the HW div. (mocked his English accent, he's gay, etc. and he might be, what does that have to do w/his ability to beat these old time HWs). Then, while a bit older than MT, he easily stopped their "gangsta" hero Mike.
Then along came the K bros (they were "gay" too :-( ). Not only where they not from the US, why - horrors - they were white !

I've joked how some of these clowns undies will be twisted in knots if/when a big Chinese or some other Asian dude wins one of the main HW belts :yep

 

No doubt. Lets hope he's not completely brain dead and will listen to reason..

 

Wlad, who was knocked out by Sanders and Brewster?

Lennox, who was knocked out by McCall and Rahman?

Vitali, who was knocked out by Byrd and a shot Lennox?


These slow bums looked against big fat chumps like themselves - they would be journeymen/gatekeepers against smaller, faster men like Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey, or even 1985 Tyson.

 

Deal with it moron.