Comparing different eras in boxing... Impossible?

I kinda think any direct comparison is impossible.

The weightclass issue, quality of opposition (many of the guys fighting in the 20-30s had records who were 80% dockers and labourers (often literally fighting for their dinners)- comparatively even worse than the 'padders' we see today.

The trick is, I think, to compare their records to those of their contemporaries, to get a picture of their relative standing - then make a comparison on this basis.

But no, there really is no simple formula or transformation to be applied to attain a direct numerical comparison.

 

Comparing eras is just a matter of opinion. If I say the HW division now is the strongest era ever, there is no definite way to measure if this is true.

 

it is impossible although some people give it their best go. you can try to make comparisons if you lived through the eras you are trying to compare although it is impossible to say if accurate or not. there is many different training methods, nutrition and different things to take into account. I would say it is impossible.

 

I think it's possible to compare eras that are reasonably close in time and training methods. Anything from a bit before Louis to Holmes is fair game, as is the 1988-2013(ish) block. Cross-comparisons will get you into trouble, though.

Before 1920-something, you've got weird styles of boxing that we don't have experience evaluating. That problem mostly goes away when you get to Louis, but you've still got differences in film quality that make it hard to get as good a handle on fighters' abilities. And then there's the advent of modern weight training and sports medicine, which makes it tricky to measure relative power, etc.

With that being said, the Ali era did seem to have produced some pretty gifted fighters. Holmes and Foreman were both the same age, and trained during the 1970s. One of them won the lineal heavyweight championship in the 1990s. The other has an arguably better record against McCall and Mercer as an old man than Lennox Lewis did in his prime. So there's that.

 

Very true.

But watch out for Senya and Max Power, who'll tell you he was basically a nobody without skills.:yep


As for the rest of your post, CT, I agree.

I've always divided the sport in to pre and post Louis eras and tried to avoid making cross comparisons. I'm not saying it can't be done, but a lot of factors make it a riskier proposition than comparing say, Marciano and Frazier.

 

The more I think about these ATG lists and comparing fighters from different era`s the more I become convinced that there is indeed a need to create a list for fighters that fought in the late 19th century up until the day that one champion per one weight division stopped existing and the era of multiple belts began, and from that day forth a new list of ATG fighters should be begun to the present day and beyond.

My reasoning is that because the sport has evolved and changed so much since the days of one champion in each weight class to the era of multiple belts and increased weight divisions that to accurately place modern fighters on a list in which their peers of era`s past far eclipsed them in terms of longevity, number of bouts fought and in many instances quality of opposition is unfair to modern to a certain extent.

Not to mention the day before weigh-ins and other changes in boxing such as the ten point must scoring system over the rounds based or 5 point scoring system used in previous era`s. How can a fighter like Floyd Mayweather for example measure up against a fighter such as Henry Armstrong when taking into consideration the luxury he has of living in an era that does not require fighters at the elite level to fight every other week or month just to make a living?

And how do we compare past era`s in which the sport was replete with quality fighters all vying to become champion when there was only one undisputed title to be won in their weight class unlike today`s fighters going back to the 60`s when multiple belts began to make their appearance on the boxing landscape? Does anyone else agree that it is perhaps time to find a year from which to start separating the ATG list of fighters into two different categories one listing fighters of yesteryear with the cut-off being when the year of more than one belt per weight division began?

I think this would be a rather good idea and it would save a lot of needless arguing.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that fighter`s today and over the past 50 years have so many luxury`s available to them that were simply unheard of in the days of one champion per weight class when there was only 8 division`s to compete in that making accurate comparison`s between fighters of that era and of the modern era becomes very difficult.

Let`s take Pacquiao and Mayweather for example, both men are multiple weight class title holders and for many younger fans of the sport today this somehow implies that they are greater than fighters who did not have the luxury of fighting in an era where there was far more weight classes available to compete in and titles to fight for. But does anyone doubt that a fighter such as Henry Armstrong for example couldn`t have duplicated and achieved the same feats had the opportunity been present for him to do so?

Another yet another issue that bother`s me to no end is the undefeated record which is somehow held as the benchmark of greatness in today`s era of boxing, does anyone truly believe the likes of Floyd as talented a fighter as he is would have stayed undefeated if he would have had to fight every other week or month against a plethora of good to great fighters and walked away without a loss here and there?

Fighting that often was the norm for fighters of yesteryear and an occasional loss here and there even for elite fighters was not considered career ending for the simple fact that when you are that active against other quality opposition it is not unusual to have an off-night where you suffer a loss. But today elite fighters have the luxury of taking several months off between fights to recuperate, rest and study future opponents all the while staying active outside the ring and keep training thus giving them more time to prepare for their next opponent.

And the list of differences goes on and on with no end, which is why I cannot rank fighters such as Mayweather, Hopkins and Pacquiao on the same totem pole of great fighters because of the glaring differences between their respective era`s. The question will always remain in my mind as to wether the dominance they have displayed in their own time could have been duplicated under a completely different set of circumstances and rules in a sport that has evolved considerably over the last 50 years.

I would take the time to figure this all out if I wasn`t so busy, but maybe some day I will attempt to do so although if anyone else would like to give it a try they are welcome to do so.

 

On the other hand there are more world titles per division, so theoretically a "champ" could reign longer while avoiding fighters ranked by another sanctioning body.

I think it is very hard to compare eras and try not to fall into the trap of saying older or newer are better; I think some things were better in previous eras and some have improved with time. I don't think this era is overly strong, Max, but there are some class guys that could hang with any era's greats, for example Mayweather.

I know your views and fair play to you, but don't see the same strength in depth lately as even 30 years ago. I don't think a fighter like Calzaghe would have retired undefeated in the 70's or 80's, for example.

 

Every next generation, on average, gets a little bit bigger and stronger. If you were to take the dominating Pittsburgh Steelers of the 1970's and have them play the worst team in the NFL today, the Steelers would be wiped out on size, strength and speed. In the 1860's the average man was about 5' 6" (Abe Lincoln was an exception at 6' 3" and was considered very intimidating for his size) So physically you can not compare fighters from the past to today. You can compare talent and technique but matching up fantasy scenarios with fighters from different eras is impossible for my above stated reasons IMO

 

What's the average man today?

 

Interesting question, and I'd say that it's impossible. We can construct plausible arguments, for example:

* Comparing records in other sports
* Noting advances in nutrition
* Noting that there are fewer boxers and fewer fights today
* And they're fighting for more than 5 times as many titles.

But a plausible argument and empirical fact are not the same thing. It makes for an interesting argument, but that's all it is, ultimately.

The hard fact is that we struggle to compare fighters from the same era until they have actually fought one another, and sometimes we struggle even when they have (e.g. there are arguments on this site about Duran vs Leonard, Leonard vs Hagler, "prime" - whatever that actually means - Tyson against everyone that ever beat him etc) and people come up with plausible arguments on both sides.

In the end, in professional sport, could haves and should haves mean absolutely nothing. It might be fun for enthusiasts to try to look beyond the mere results, but in the end results are all there are.

 

this bit interests me, though its a great post overall too.

I consider someone from the past who could go from middle to hw, like bobfitz, would be potentially fully capable of winning SMW, LHW and CW titles too and perfectly possible to consider as a five weight probable champion.