How would Henry Hank do today?

Just out of curiousity, here's your 1960 Ring's annual lightheavies headed by a 44 year old Archie Mooer. It really is a group of worldbeaters...

Archie Moore, Champion

1. Harold Johnson
2. Chic Calderwood
3. Erich Schoppner
4. Willie Pastrano
5. Giulio Rinaldi
6. Doug Jones
7. Mike Holt
8. Carl (Bobo) Olson
9. Johnny Halafihi
10. Germinal Ballarin

 

Yeah, when it came to a trivia contest, Hascup was an almost unbeatable opponent! Very difficult to come up with a question that would stump him...no matter how "impossible" it seemed to be.

Anyway, I had to stop with the questions several years ago, when they suddenly got deleted without explanation! Maybe they thought I was working in cahoots with Hascup, feeding him questions that he would already know, and got tired of that. I really have no idea... but that's the only explanation I can think of!

 

What? That's crazy unfair....

 

This is some weird ****. How come you didn't say anything earlier...?

 

Moore, Johnson and Pastrano were all better fighters than anyone on the 2017 list, though it's an interesting comparison. Kovalev and Stevenson would make a joint ten, so would Doug Jones. It's murky after that and hard to analyse imo. Bivol, Beterbiev and the like could make it, but it's more down to how good they look than what they've actually achieved, which isn't a criticism.

 

I can assure you, that in a thread where I contribute myself, I read every post very carefully... so yes, I'm aware of what you and others are saying, and the arguments you put forward. Anyway, the matter of those extra 3 rounds isn't really what my posts here have been about. I've been trying to take a broader look at the boxing scene then and now - and how an American may look at it with different eyes than a non-American.

Actually, I'm more interested in the history of boxing, than those endless discussions about one era being better than another... or who would win a fight between boxers, who were active many decades apart.

I mean, if you make it to the top in your division, you must have been a bit special - no matter if you fought 100 years ago or today. For example, some may argue, that Marciano was lucky to come along at just the right time, when the heavyweight division could be seen as being a bit weak, and that he would have no chance against today's much bigger men. Others will claim that, thanks to his heart, punching power and superb conditioning, he would prevail against even the best super heavyweights that came after him!

Of course we will never know - but is it really that important? Marciano ducked no one, and beat everyone they put in front of him. He was the best in his own time... and I don't see, what more we can ask of a fighter.

 

Then again, if you take the all the divisions historically from 1960, you've got the aforementioned three plus Jofre, Griffith, LMR, Tiger, Giardello, Ortiz, Elorde, Sugar Ramos, Davey Moore, Old Bones, Elorde, Loi, Perkins, Kingpetch, Perez, Halimi, Medel, Lane and Liston etc. It's an inherently unfair comparison with fighters who are still active with achievements (or losses) still to come, but I don't think anyone from the last couple of years other than Lomachenko, Gonzalez, Ward, Golovkin and possibly Kovalev or Crawford deserve mentioning among that company. Gonzales is the best in terms of combined hypothetical h2h ability and overall achievement and he isn't greater than Ortiz, Jofre, LMR, Griffith, Tiger or Elorde.

Like I say, not exactly a fair comparison though. Be interesting to see what's changed in a couple of years.

 

Oh, but I did - many times! When I asked for an explanation here in this forum, the posts were immediately deleted. When I asked under Suggestions & Requests, no one wanted to touch it.

Hascup, by the way, was just as frustrated as me! He even wrote the administrators of the site, demanding an explanation. When he was ignored, he swore he would no longer have anything to do with this site. This is actually the reason, why you never (or at least very rarely) see him post here anymore.

 

I actually think Hank vs Golovkin would've been an awesome fight. Both hittable pressure fighters with big power and granite chins, especially Hank in the latter department.

 

Bizzarre, sad and shitty all at once....

 

Are you really picking a 44 year old Moore, 200 fights into his career, who oddly didn't make 175 once during the year 1960 over today's Kovalev? Really?

Harold Johnson was practically inactive at this point, having fought ham and eggers for the past couple years.

Pastrano had done nothing but lose three times, then right his ship against a debuting fighter and a 6-4 guy.

Do you really want to pick these guys over a live prospect like Beterbiev or established performers like Kova and Stevenson?

How deep does this Classicist tendency run? Again, someone try to convince me that the 1960 lightheavies, a year I picked at random, are better than today's.

 

I was referring to Moore, Johnson and Pastrano over the course of their careers and their perceived peak ability. You know, which is why I said it wasn't exactly a fair comparison for the modern fighters for whom it's too early to judge with them. And yeah, if Andre Ward, not noted for his power, can rough up Kovalev, hurt him to the body and stop him, I'd give one of the greatest punchers of all time a pretty good shot even at age 44.

But what would I know, I'm just a biased Classicist.

 

I favour Moore generally speaking but at an advanced age I think he'd get steamrolled by Kovalev.

I kinda think Kovalev could be one of the greats at LHW but the losses to Ward raise questions.

Was he ever that great or is Ward just greater.

 

Yeah, that's a very good question!

Personally, I think Ward was a truly exceptional boxer. I rate Kovalev quite highly as well... and he may just be unlucky to have shared the same era with Ward. Time will tell, if Kova can rebound and dominate the division. It won't be easy though, with old amateur rival Beterbiev waiting in the wings... not to mention young Bivol, who could turn out to be the best of the lot!

 

If Kovalev was able to survive a gauntlet of Stevenson, Jack, Beterbiev and Bivol I think we would have to conclude he's a great.

Right now its a bit of a stretch claiming that but I have a hunch that he is an ATG talent.