How would Ernie Terrell do today?

As you say in his time Terrell was basically a beanpole with no power, no speed, no aggression but you cannot entirely dismiss an improvement to his power, an improvement to his speed and an improvement to his aggression if he was put on the right training program.

There must be countless "sports doctors" out there all claiming to improve Power, size, speed and aggression with the right training and diets. If you showed them a film of Terrell they would all claim to be able to improve him on just the points you mention. It's what they trade on.

 

LOL, Choklab, you sure are singleminded in trying to produce "super" versions of the oldtimers But in this case you may have a point.

 

Lol, don't encourage him ffs or he will keep trotting out his latest phrase " The Spinks experiment" , whatever the hell that is!

 

"he wasnt big enough". god give me strength.........

 

Top 15 likely. But could he be as high as #7? Who's ranked 7th these days? I checked. Ring Magazine says Bermane Stiverene is #7. Terell at his best I think is even or better.

 

I've already addressed my issues with this argument.

 

Stiverne would beat Terrell

 

Maybe. He's Stiverene doesn't throw many punches, but could hit.

Terrell took a decent punch his day. Ali hated him and tried to stop Terrell, but Terrell lasted the distance of 15 rounds

Terrell has octopus arms to clinch and spoil. He either takes a UD or gets stopped vs Stiverne.

 

I think a lot of you are being too harsh on his handspeed. I mean yeah, he is no Ali in terms of quickness, but compared to 90% of today's heavyweights, he has some quick hands.

 

we do know he would have 20lb extra muscle. If a guy is 180 he needs to be over the CW limit of 200lb. It's not going to happen at HW under today's rules if he cannot get over 20lb. It's easy to do. Way back in 1985 Micheal Spinks "developed" over 20lb of muscle within a matter of 12 weeks or so didn't he?
"Putnam quoted Shilstone as saying: "He put on 25 pounds but he's actually 1½ pounds leaner overall in fat content. His body fat dropped from 9.1 percent to 7.2 percent. That extra weight is all muscle. And he's faster."

Are you telling me if Spinks put on 25pounds of solid muscle in 12 weeks an even bigger guy on the same program can't do it?

are you saying the fighter from the past turns up in the time zone to meet the guy from the future 12 weeks early and trains just like Mike spinks did in 1985 he won't also put on 25lb of solid muscle and reduce his body fat and be faster like Shilstone said Spinks did?

now why would he be slower when a program was developed as long ago as 1985 that claimed to make naturally smaller guys bigger and faster as documented by Sports illustrated? If this stuff never happened you might be able to argue a benefit of the doubt but surely the benefit is for the guy with the modern training program

in a fantasy fight both guys have to exist as boxers. They just have to meet in somebody's timezone. Nobody is saying they have to be born all over again to new parents and find their way into boxing.

but if you stick to "as they are" then they remain as they are in opposite time zones and cannot meet.

but don't you see, to fight in the future bob fitszimmons has to be in the future. with access to modern training he would be a different fighter. The only ridiculous thing would be to say a man given more nourishment would remain thin.

the universe changed itself. Change is as predictable as night following day. It's the most common thing in our universe. Your born, you die. Everything is change

 

I don't have a lot of time to break your post down as you've broken down mine and I also haven't quite figured out how to segment quotes on this new format yet. So keeping it short. Fantasy fights are meant to match up two men as they were in their actual form. If you want to make assumptions about what a given boxer would be like after totally recreated him then fine. But then you're no longer about THAT fighter but a figment of the imagination who never existed. With that in mind can we go back to the early 70s and make Cus D'Amato Holmes trainer? Maybe instead of a rangy boxer with a great left jab he'd be crouching puncher who threw super hard combos and did his best work in the early rounds.

 

Lol @ this maniacal attempt to create fantasy versions of the old timers in make-believe fights vs modern boxers!

What is wrong with being the best in your OWN time? Why can't that be enough? If boxers from 100 years ago can't beat their modern counterparts, so what? Doesn't mean they were bums! Those who reached the top back then, did so under the same conditions as their contemporaries - and under those conditions they became the best of the best. Why can't we just admire them for that?

 

The thread is called "how would Ernie Terrell do today". Why is it manical to assume he sticks around today and trains today in order to compete in the division?

 

It's not maniacal to picture him fighting today... but it's ridiculous to speculate, that he would be a completely different boxer. You like to think, he would add 25 lbs of pure muscle to his lanky frame, and enter the ring at a trim 240 lbs, with less body fat than in his own time... but fighting only 2-3 times a year, he might just as well develop into a fat, lazy SH, who would have trouble sustaining a fast pace over 12 rounds. We simply don't know.

You might as well argue, that if Rod laver had been born 50 years later, he would not be playing with a wooden racket, and would have learned the double backhand... and would therefore be able to "hang" with players such as Federer and Djokovic. There's no way, we can know that!