Does A Prime Marciano Beat The Joshua Of Today?

How can it be a higher SHW echelon? Carnera is the only one unbeaten at SHW. He's the benchmark trendsetter for this mode of fighting.

I agree some were easier on the eye, but that does not make them any less effective. Valuev has wins good enough, Primo has wins good enough.

In fact Bowe has a shallow resume when all is said and done. His best opponent was Holyfield who he also lost to. His next best opponent is who? Golota? Donald? Hide?

I'm not picking on Bowe, I'm just using him as an example. Looks aren't everything.

Why can't Carnera Willard and Valuev beat Golota, Donald and Hide?

Where's this echelon?

 

Comparable in what way? Are you saying that there's absolutely zero variance among them in the areas of skill, speed, power, athleticism, durability, stamina, heart, etc ?

 

Just to be clear, I do think that Lewis and Wlad were better that Willard and Carnera.

Their results alone justify that.

I do not think that they were better because of any revolution in superheavyweight technique however.

I think that the techniques employed by bigger heavyweight have always been pretty much the same.

 

Willard was the trend setter.

They're a higher echelon because they have better resumes.

They would win those fights but would they beat Holyfield?

 

Exactly

 

Sorry but I see a definite difference in technique between SHW's of the last 30 years and what I'm watching with Jess Willard.. I mean literally nobody fights like this anymore.

This content is protected

 

How so? You really don't see any clear differences between how Willard fights and how men like Lewis and Wlad fight? This is extremely difficult to believe.

 

I find Willard to be dissimilar to Lewis and Wlad, but very similar to Vitally Klitschko.

It is an eccentric big heavyweight style, but one that has obviously been used successfully in both eras.

Now somebody like Fred Fulton probably was quite similar to Lewis.

 

Comparable in level. Good enough to fight competitively among each other. They were each justifiably good enough to be championship level. Effective.

 

This is just dogma.

 

Oh yes.

 

There is a difference of technique but is one more effective than the other? Is one mode of fighting less effective or just "unfashionable" you can't say one style works any better than the other. Good Fighters adapt to suit the rules and training of the day.

Fighters were more sparing with their blows because they didn't want to smash their hands to pieces. So they developed ways to create openings, fainted and fenced more in a economical method suited to that time. It required a greater control of pace and inch perfect use of distance to set up an exchange. It still applies now.

Bernard Hopkins reverted to it in order to compete as an old man.

 

Jess Willard wouldn't last a round with Anothony Joshua, Bowe, Lewis or either Klit. Carnera might withstand a beating for a few rounds but doesn't make it to the cards.

 

Dude can you read?

 

I've seen teenage amateurs who have more sound technique than Willard had. And comparing Willard to B-Hop? Seriously?