1949 heavyweights v. 1999 heavyweights

as a contender didn't vitali lose to Bryd?:deal

 

lol

 

No Corrie Sanders for the class of 1999? I am disappointed :-(

 

1999 could run the table. I'd bet they would be 9-0 or 8-1.

 

Mrkoolkevin stopped at nine. If he wanted a 10th, why not Sanders vs. Omelio Agramonte? Agramonte was ranked in the top ten in 1949, losing often via KO/TKO vs the best he fought. His final career record was 50-21, essentially a journeyman type who achieved a top ten ranking based on a shallow pool of talent.

Okay Dino, all yours...you can give 1949 a hand now.

 

This. size matters. Funny how people claim it doesnt matter and favor a fighter from the stone age over a modern one who has 30 pounds of muscle on him but then complain or dont give credit when canelo beats khan and cotto. Or they give hagler no chance at LHW.
LOL size matters. They have weightclasses for a reason. Ever been in the ring with a similarly skilled man outweighing you by 30 pounds? He will bully you around the ring and laugh at your shots while hurting you with every punch.

 

why is the 40s/50s squad got a weakened side but the 90s one is full strength?

 

My theory is size certainly matters. The smaller and lighter boxer, however, can even the odds, but he needs to be a big puncher and have a top chin, which many on the 1949 list lack.

 

I think speed is a factor is well, but I do subscribe to a similar theory. I hope I am not a weight/era snob, but it is hard for me to see most older era heavyweights as being able to defeat more modern day fighters who are not devoid of natural gifts.

It's a shame we cant see it play out...I don't mind being wrong about it.

 

In the 1930s when the gloves were smaller, giant 6'6" heavyweights of 240lb routinely got knocked out by what would be classed as lightheavyweights today.

 

Anthony Joshua didn't put on boxing gloves until he was almost 19years old. He was already very big and had been in the gym lifting weights, and for that reason someone suggested he try boxing.

He's about to defend his IBF title against a man who didn't start boxing until he was about 24 !
A big guy who used to play quarterback position.

 

They haven't been weakened, they're just weak full stop. Op just cut n pasted the '49 and '99 top 10 ring mag rankings.

 

"Athletic" , "just a big person", "being big is secondary". These are vague statements.

Why wasn't Carnera athletic then ?
Carnera started boxing amateur at 17. He was also a wrestler, weightlifter and strongman at the time, until he moved into professional boxing age 21.
If he was "just big person" he wouldn't have been doing anything like that.

 

But if someone did that in 1932 you'd be saying it was proof of a weak era.