How would Ernie Terrell do today?

As you said he was succesful at fighting a Wlad kind of fight. Today he wouldn't have that size advantage and therefore wouldn't be as succesful. But I have a hard time seeing what Ruiz had that Terrell didn't, so it's not like he couldn't nab a belt at some point.

 

About as well as Duhaupas?

I don't remember him as being terribly impressive.

 

In this era, Terrell would do great. What we don't know is did he have the championship fortitude, focus and desire to dominate.

Today, Terrell would build more mass in a way that is more athleticley functional than it would have been in his day.

The reason why Terrell did not put so much extra weight on back then was because the method had not been invented yet that could allow him to be stronger and not lose so much athleticism. And besides, you needed to be a 15 round fighter then. But if Ernie could have successfully put the right kind of weight on he would have because like you say once he perfected his grab and jab game it took a speedier fighter like Ali to expose him and the division is done with producing that kind of fighter today.

 

being a super heavy presumably he would unify.

although he had trouble doing that in ali time.

 

Terrell had one thing (2 things) that the heavies today do not possess. He could jab and box. Today they all seem to be going for the payoff punch, but Terrell never had a payoff punch to begin with. So regardless of the era he came up in that wasn't going to change. I think he'd do alright.

 

Not well. He wouldn't have the advantage of height and reach over today's heavys as he did in his own time. Didn't have much physical strength when contrasted to them or power. He was non aggressive and some of his better wins were gift decisions.

 

Perhaps, but don't you think modern changes of the game might improve the weaker parts of his repartee?

 

Assuming that he actually benefits from them. I don't like arguments which suggest " well if this guy fought in 1990 instead of 1950, he'd have an extra 20 lbs of muscle." We simply don't know that this would be the case. That same fighter might have just as easily been a cruiserweight, or might not have benefited from modern training, or might have been slower and more inhibited, or better yet he might not have even gone into boxing if born to a different set of parents or at a different time. That's why I generally stick to fighters as they generally were in their true form and it also puts a definitive barrier on head to head fantasy matchups. If someone says that Bob Fitszimmons would have beaten Mike Tyson and someone counters with the response that he'd be too small, then the other person can't come back with the tired old notion " well he'd be a monster if given the same training." No point in changing the universe. It's complicated enough as it is.

 

The fact is he wasn't big enough.. And we simply don't know that he'd be any bigger if born decades later. Sometimes your genetic disposition places you where you are. But I also happen to think that his limitations would go further than just size. But that's just me.

 

He only weighed 227 ONCE in his career and that was in the last fight of his life when he was 34 years old and on the comeback trail.. He also lost that fight in one round. For most of his mainstream career he weighed anywhere ranging from as little as 185 to as much as 212. He was basically a beanpole with no power, no speed, no aggression and relied on iffy judging to win some of his bigger fights.

 

You could compare Ernie Terrell to Tony Thompson. Both were tall guys without a lot of power who used their jab, defense and sometimes spoiler tactics to win matches.


Thompson bigger and hit a little harder, Terrell perhaps a bit more skilled.


I think Terell, as long as he put on 10-15 pounds, which for his frame would not be a problem would be a top 7-15 type of ranked guy today in his prime years. I doubt he'd win a belt, though.