LOL You realize Schmeling himself was asked how he would rate his chances vs. Wlad (the two met and were good friends). Schmeling said he would have had very little chance and would have been KO'd early. You realize Schmeling would compete at LHW/CW today. He would represent no danger to Wlad nor any other great SHW.
Of course they are because they grow up in a different environment with better training methods and tools. Do you think modern day brains are inherently superior? Then why are chess players today about 600 elo points stronger than 100 years ago? Human genetics haven't changed, brains are exactly the same as 3 generations ago.
Lets look at the best Klitschko. The Klitschko that blows Fury away no problem [YT]DlWORNyAKCw[/YT] Against a non moving, out of shape, 6 foot tall , non puncher with the reach of of a 175 pounder- 75' What do you see here? -Afraid of the counter -Reluctance to pull the trigger unless the jab is landing. -Excessive clinching -Refused to box in close -Turns his back in the clinch. What he did in this fight identical in the Fury fight. -Stalked from a safe distance -Tried to land jabs -Engaged in lock downs in the wheel house -Clinch and turned his back -All of the above What is in there to suggest he'd ever beat Fury? Unlike Chambers , who just stood there eating jabs , Fury could out jab Wlad from the out side and out muscle him in close to open space to land shots. That gives Wlad no safe zone. His outside and inside safe houses are gone. So what does he do? Quivers up into a clam shell. Wlad from the past isn't longer or bigger that Fury , or a better mover. The bubble has burst on the man who fed on under sized , walking statues for 10 years. And in many instances , wasn't even able you out box them cleanly and convincingly.
I recommend you watch Larry Holmes beat Roy Tiger Williams. Williams had a longer reach, a good jab and a huge weight advantage. Holmes out boxed him just like he would Wlad.
I think modern fighters in a modern setting with modern advances do better than they would if they were just as tall but developed back in the day. Back in the day Ernie Terrell was as good as a tall fighter got. I think modern giants are hard to beat, they rely on size, clinching, bad officiating, better conditioners and shorter championship distance. Without being superior boxers.
I'm not talking now about heavyweights. You have stressed, specifically, that "modern diet and training" represent inherent advantages for a modern fighter, as does "modern sports science", whatever you might mean by that. You seem to think these advantages are signficant enough that they make enough of a difference to Wladimir Klitschko that he wouldn't be able to beat any of the fighters listed in the OP. This sounds like you consider these advantages rather massive. So i'm not asking you about tall fighters, or heavyweights, just fighters.
Hmm. Then he does better than I first thought. The fighters who beat Wlad to the draw knock him out and yes that includes Dempsey. Larry knocks him spark out too. Marciano and Frazier could get smothered because both have to come close in, they kind of suffer a bit but I can't rule them out entirely. I favour both over Carnera and with more protection from the referee Wlad is not much harder to beat than Carnera. To beat Wlad you have to make him tired. Making Wlad tired is the hardest thing to do if he's allowed to hold people down for a rest. So having the physical strength to break free and work him over. So physically strong guys with better stamina beat Wlad. And the ones who can beat him to the draw. That's not many guy's . The whole ethos of the Superheavyweight is not about being good. It's about being hard to beat.
He has many advantages over Carnera. He's quicker He's harder hitting He has good head movement He has good feet. You do have to be quicker than Wlad to get past his jab. You have to be durable to take his jab. You have to which feet to be able to get inside. Obviously you have to have good power to make him pay once you get inside. Is Rocky quicker than Wlad? He ticks all the other boxes. Is Frazier quicker than Wlad? He ticks all the other boxes. Demosey is and does tick the boxes as well, so should be then be favoured? I'm not decided tbh. Gonna watch more of these guys. I have no issue favouring Holmes over Dempsey same with Liston. So om gonna watch some of them as well. Much prefer this than comparing resume anyways.
I think technical ability is one thing, Physical ability is another and instinct is another. Each person taking up boxing has a natural potential of all three and the best fighters, the most special talented ones score highest in all three. The technical ability can be nurtured and coached, instinct is just instinct. Physical ability is key because this area can potentially be reached to that of a level that only the most naturally gifted specimens with irregular heat beats could. It is feasible that all fighters could achieve 100% physical ability and level off, then it falls down to technical ability and instinct but the point is the physical ability goes further than it did. Physically a standard talent goes further than he could without getting found out. Gaining weight to suit a game plan is a physical ability. In other weight classes the ability to rehydrate 18lb is a physical ability. These are crucial elements not possible back in the day. Rather massive in an age where a one inch reach advantage goes a long way.
So you consider modern boxers inherently superior as a general rule due to this factor? That is, two fighters with the same potential and character, one turning pro in 1947 and the other turning pro in 2003 would see the 2003 fighter achieve a higher peak?
No I don't see them as inherently superior I see them as inherently enhanced beyond natural capability. It dosnt make them better just harder to beat. I think only the specially talented fighters reached the ultimate level back in the day. Of course a specially talented fighter with all the advances will potentially plateau at an unachievable level. The point is, perhaps it's harder for the specially talented fighter to stand out from a standard talented fighter at the development stage? Match making will see for any talent. Any fighter is the result of his matchmaking regardless of an era in time.
:huh So a modern middleweight is "harder to beat" and "enhanced beyond his natural capability" but he ISN'T better than the same fighter boxing in 1940 without these advantages? That doesn't really make any sense, does it? So there are more fighters reaching "ultimate level" now? Is that right?
I don't buy into reach being a big factor at all. In fact it can be at times so minimalistic that it isn't even with looking at in most cases, especially if we are talking about a minor one like 3 or 4 inches. If you plant your feet correctly you can neutralise this so called 'advantage' in an instant. In regards to that reply I promised, IMO Mongoose hit the nail on the head with his picks with the exception of Frazier, based on the fact that his style is made for taller fighters, Wlad would likely do very little with his jab all night against such a small target that is constantly bobbing and weaving. You can make cases for a lot of fighters here, but for me evidence suggest Wlad beats 90% of them.
Physically yes. Technically less so. A great fighter is still a great fighter and all any fighter needs to be is what it takes to be successful in the time he fights. Some tall guys are reaching a level unobtainable to them in the past.