An interesting question I'd like to ask the board on ATG's

Suppose Joe Louis, Bob Foster, and Harry Greb were active today with exactly the same skills they showed when they were active decades ago.

Louis fights Wlad's competition.

Foster fights Kovalev's competition.

Gerb fights GGG's competition.

Would any of the three be considered great, if so why.

 

This is where I disagree. They would all be great exactly as they were decades ago regardless of competition level. Greatness is best seen on film, not on paper where dominance and skills can be seen.

Many old timers fought each other often, so they win some and lose some, but the best should lose very few.

Simply having a round robin of contenders doesn't make them better than another timeline that had fewer matches, it only makes them more active. The very best should seldom lose in their near-prime, prime, or slightly past their primes.

By the way, Ring Magazine, who is very North American based said Louis time was the worst talent of heavies ever...even worse than Today.

Bob Foster didn't clear out a deep light heavyweight division either.
Once time passes this era of light heavies might be viewed more favorably than Foster's.

If competition to you defines greatness in your opinion, Foster and Louis by virtue of who they faced are not so great.

 

Main point:

Neither Louis nor Foster's competition was good. Yet Louis today by most is almost always seen as a top 5 heavyweight or higher.

Foster's competition, aside from **** Tiger ( who was 38 years old ) is rather thin, yet he's viewed as a top 6 all time great at light heavyweight.

Why? The film and their skills of course, not their competition level.

So...why can't the same apply to GGG, Kovalev, or Wlad? Their skills and power are great in the ring too, and their ring records as also excellent.

Bottom line: Those who say the boxers aren't great today and site lack of competition as their main reason, should evolve their opinion somewhat because many past time greats didn't face competition either.

Of the three, I'm not sure who takes the biggest hit if he was around today.

Louis likely does not have his consecutive title streak.

Foster likely has a KO loss as a light heavy.

Greb would have some size issues ( Greb would be a very short middle today ) , and face more punchers. I tend to think 12 rounds instead of 15 would hurt Greb a bit as he had stamina that others did not. The rules might dock Greb a point a bit faster these days as well.

 

Here we go...yes this thread has potential as people who rely on the competition level for their primary benchmark of greatness may re-think things a bit.

Foster was KO'd by Doug Jones, not know for power. I'm not sure of Doug Jones weight when they fought, but I would guess is similar to where Kovalev and the rest of the division are on fight night. There's my quick answer. It could have been any one of Kovalev's opponents.

It's not who Kovalev has fought, it's the field that includes him, Pascal, Stevenson, Beterbiev, etc. There are some good up and comers at light heavy. Is Foster good enough to beat them all? I would say no, he losing at least once.

When you have a suspect chin, lesser competition can take you out. See Lennox Lewis or Wlad.

Question for you, do you think the competition level at light heavyweight was good when Foster was king?

 

Lufcrazy,

On the quality of opposition faced, Kovalev has the easier path to achieving greatness.

However in terms of longevity and title defenses, GGG has 15 under his belt already, and could very well break the middleweight record held by Hopkins at 21 title defenses.

Let's think about that for the moment! Hopkins best win during his title run could have been Felix Trinidad, who was a welterweight moving up. You could say GGG's wins at middleweight are close to Hopkins already. Unlike Hopkins who had some close matches, GGG's blowing his competition away. It's too bad Canelo and Cotto may duck GGG.