Heavyweights. Old timers vs modern.

andrewa1,

I said: "any knowledgeable fan"

I'm not a nostalgia nut.

I can appreciate that some modern fighters would definitely have beaten some guys of the past. And of course boxing has progressed from it's roots. My only arguments are:

1. Although boxing has progressed, it doesn't progress in the same way that other sports do.

We've discussed this before. Records in swimming and sprinting improve with each decade. So you can say that today's sprinters were faster than the guys of the 90's, and in turn, those guys were faster than the guys of the 80's. And the same applies to swimming. But nobody can say that today's best fighters were better than the best guys of the 00's, and that they were better than the guys of the 90's etc. To be honest with you, I don't know how anyone can refute that. Because otherwise, you'd be claiming that today's best fighters are head and shoulders above the best guys of the 80's and 90's, from 25-30 years ago. That would also mean that you think today's best fighters are the greatest fighters of all time, across all weight classes. Again, boxing has progressed, but it doesn't keep progressing every decade like other sports do.

2. I don't agree that these modern SHW's would definitely have beaten any fighter of the past, just based on size and sports science etc.

I have no issue with anyone giving a logical opinion of how they think a guy like Lennox could/would have beaten guys like Louis and Ali. I just don't like it how certain people think it's a given due to Lennox being bigger and modern.

Regarding your other thread, I'll take a look.

 

When does the modern era start?

 

Based on that, it doesn't sound were all that far off in some ways. I never said it was a linear progression (although it's not necessarily linear in other sports either). Just that the farther back you go the tougher it gets. Plenty of aught and 90s contenders could beat plenty of today's contenders. Fewer from the 80s, fewer still from the 70s etc. Just a broader trend that makes it more and more difficult over time.
But fair enough, it makes sense to explain the specifics on how individual fights would go, but I'll always consider it relevant when one is from an era seperately by 20 or more years.

Also, I'm less confident about h2h progress in lower weight classes. They can't really change their body dynamics as hw's can. The sports that have seen demonstrable progress don't have limitations placed on their body size as do lower weight classes. For me, that makes progress probably much more limited in lower weight boxing.

 

What do you think of George Foreman being used as a yard stick of how heavyweights progressed?

One argument could be look at how a old George Foreman was competitive in the 80s and 90s and became the number one guy again. For a very short period anyway.

The flip side of this argument is of course look how Foreman dominated the world champion Joe Frazier, and number one contender Ken Norton in only a couple of easy rounds. Foreman could not dominate Holyfield, Morrison, Micheal Moorer or Shannon Briggs that way. Of course all of them I have just named were also found to be taking steroids and PED's in all fairness to Foreman.

 

Its almost as if you don't know there's an enormous difference between Foreman in the 70's and Foreman in the 90's. Does Foreman being an old man in his mid 40's have anything to do with it?
Did you create an account just post that nugget of horse dump? Whose alt are you

 

I was asking peoples opinion on the subject. I guess I got yours. There was no need to be insulting though. There are people out there who think although Foreman was older and slower, that he was also more skilled, experience, could pace himself better, and that the added weight helped his natural slugger style.

 

No , you made a statement that implied the 70's was a weaker era because Foreman wasn't able to dominate in the 90's like he did in the 70's.

And im one of those guys who think comeback Foreman was better in a lot of ways. I'd comfortably pick him to annihilate any HW in the post Lewis era up to 2014 , including Wladimir. Only guy i'd pick over him would be Vitali.

 

I thought from your first response you would of agreed with the first statement. Do you think the 90s was the best era then?

 

Which parts of foreman do you think we're better in the 70, and what do you think was better about him in the 90s, and which Foreman do you think is better as a complete package.

 

I see you don't care about having a intelligent discussion, you just want to senselessly troll, and be very bad at it might I add.

 

I wonder. Do you think if Oleksander Usyk became a dominant heavyweight champion people would start to believe maybe Ali and Holmes could be champion in this era?

 

Good post. It would make it facially much more believable. Alot of the same principles of "progress" still apply, but you at least don't have the obvious dynamic of size staring you in the face.

But then, with his lack of size and power, I think it's highly unlikely he could be a dominant champ, it would be virtually unprecedented historically. Holyfield would be his closest analog, and while he was a great champ, you can't even really say Holyfield was a "dominant" champ, as he could never string more than I think 3 successful defenses together.

 

Wow, two days and 40 votes later, and it's the exact opposite of my prediction. Still kinda suspect that if it gets another 20 or 30 votes the oldies will take the lead. But looks like more people are acknowledging hw progress than I thought.

 

Anyone one of these modern HWs try to go Toe 2 Toe with a Prime Liston will suffer an extended beating .

 

I'd say when the 15 round championship bouts ended.

If those 15 round fighters knew they had 12 rounds, they'd be much more prepared against these modern fighters who gas after round 8.