Heavyweights. Old timers vs modern.

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by SmackDaBum, Jan 3, 2017.



Golden era vs modern super hws...

  1. Golden era

    45.7%
  2. Modern era

    54.3%
  1. dinovelvet

    dinovelvet Antifanboi Full Member

    57,005
    17,354
    Jul 21, 2012
    Jack Johnson fought fights that were scheduled for 45 rounds.

    Modern boxers struggle with 12 rounds at a good pace.
     
  2. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    Absolutely,

    There is no fantasy.

    I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm not comparing the landscape of the divisions, I'm looking at a time machine fight.

    If you had a time machine and you dropped Dempsey and Louis into today's HW division, they would beat SOME of today's guys, exactly as they were, as we can see on film.

    If you added more mass to them, they wouldn't have been as fast.

    Jack was fast, and he could bob and weave to get inside.

    Andre needed to do that TODAY. But he didn't have their attributes. Again, I'm not talking about today. Today is very different from the 30's and 40's. Everyone's circumstances are different.

    It's not just about size. Cunningham hasn't got the speed and the power that Dempsey had.

    He hasn't got the skills that Joe had.

    How effective would they be? I'm not sure. But I would have backed them to beat the majority of today's top 20 guys.

    The right blend of style and attributes trumps size.

    I think a focused version of Mike Tyson would wreak havoc today. I truly believe he'd have got inside Wilder and taken him out. And not because I'm a nostalgia nut. But because Wilder has a limited skill set, and I think his huge size would actually be a disadvantage against a guy like Mike. And I think Dempsey would also have similar success.

    I appreciate the above. My initial response was aimed at guys who believe that all of today's guys are superior athletes due to the advancements of sports science etc. When the truth is, not all of them take advantage of today's era. It's the ignorant generalisations that I don't like.

    Madballster makes ignorant generalisations, such as boxing is like other sports and the athletes get better each decade. Now if that was really true, then today's guys would be head and shoulders above the guys of the 80's, as nearly 40 years has past. But clearly that's not the case.

    It's very simple:

    The guys of today would beat some guys from the past.

    The guys of the past would beat some guys from today.


    Anybody who thinks that today's guys would beat everyone from the past is a fool.

    Anybody who seriously thinks that today's fighters are the best fighters of all time is a fool.

    Common sense tells you that if you had access to a time machine, you'd have a huge list of mixed results.

    Boxing is a unique sport.

    It isn't 2 guys sprinting around a track against the clock.

    Sprinting is based more on power and the facilities to hand.

    Boxing is 2 men, using the same set of skills that's been in existence for decades.

    No new skills have been invented.

    The era's come and go, and the divisions ebb and flow. Sometimes they become stronger than before, sometimes they are weaker. They do not get stronger every single decade. Today's MW division is nowhere near as strong as the early 90's division. Neither is the HW division. Which just urinates over the ridiculous theory that boxing becomes stronger every ten years. It doesn't.

    Boxing will never change.
     
    Absolutely! and dinovelvet like this.
  3. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    I'm tagging you in.

    I can't be bothered with this level of ignorance and stupidity.
     
  4. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    You can analyse Joe's skills. Especially his footwork. Shifting etc. Very subtle skills.

    Do a comparison with Joe and Deontay Wilder.
     
  5. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

    12,193
    8,037
    Sep 21, 2017
    Mercer is one modern HW though that I feel is very beatable by so-called old time HW's. Sonny Liston, for instance IMO would out box and beat Mercer. And even if it came down to a brawl, Liston would probably still come out on top.
     
  6. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    He says Mercer wasn't small, because there was only a difference of 9 pounds.

    Yeah, what about the disparity in height and reach?

    Mercer is just another example of how that right blend of skills and attributes can overcome size.

    People today seem to be obsessed by size and weight.

    They don't realise that if a guy like Wilder fought Mike Tyson, his size would actually be a disadvantage for him.

    Regarding Liston, how do think he'd fare if he was dropped into today's HW division, exactly as he was in his prime?
     
  7. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

    12,193
    8,037
    Sep 21, 2017
    It all depends. Roy Jones showed that some of todays modern HW's could indeed have been taken by an old time HW. Jones was 193 pounds when he beat Ruiz. Henry Cooper at 189 pounds and towards the end of his rope nearly beat a prime Joe Bugner who was a more modern sized HW.

    Now the cream of the crop modern day heavies, a different story. Could say Eddie Machen beat a modern day 200+ pounder like John Ruiz? Absolutely. Could Floyd Patterson out box a Trevor Berbick? Yep.

    But would Eddie Machen beat a young Mike Tyson? Probably not. Could Floyd Patterson out box a prime Lennox Lewis? No.
     
    Loudon likes this.
  8. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

    12,193
    8,037
    Sep 21, 2017
    I think he'd fare very well. I can't say he'd just dominate but I think he'd beat most. Now if he'd get past AJ, I'm not sure.

    Plus, I'd group Tyson more so with "modern day SHW" even though he wasn't a SHW, he seems to belong more in that class than with old time HW's.
     
    Loudon likes this.
  9. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    75,516
    15,572
    Sep 15, 2009
    Looked at my post from last year, only thing I disagree with is that I would pick Frazier over Old Foreman.

    Don't get me wrong, size matters but skills matters a whole lot more.

    I'm not going to say that a 180 pound fighters beats a 250 pound fighter, I'm not going down that road. What I'm saying is I would pick fighter A to beat fighter B.

    The way I see it, Crawford will move to WW, but just cos he is a former LW doesn't mean he should be forced to compete at 135 pounds and give up the best part of a stone in weight, of course he bulks up to the desired weight.

    The argument that fighter A is too small is nonsense for me, allow them to put weight on if that is your beef.

    Bellew moved up from LHW to face Haye, but he didn't come in to the fight weighing 175,he wasn't a guy known for being a defensive master or a slickster, but he had more desire and more skill than David so he beat him.

    Huck gave Povetkin absolute hell. Cunningham gave Fury absolute hell. Holy field have Lewis absolute hell.

    Pretty much the only great SHW fighters who haven't struggled with a smaller man are Wlad and Joshua.

    Wlad proved he could dominate much smaller men with the right ref, Joshua has yet to face someone like that.

    But Joshua is likely to face Usyk at some point and I bet he gives him absolute hell also.
     
    Loudon likes this.
  10. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    I also think Sonny would fare very well.

    It doesn't matter how long ago he fought, all that matters is how good he was.
     
  11. madballster

    madballster VIP Member Full Member

    37,210
    6,756
    Jul 21, 2009
    Today's athletes are better than they were 100 years ago. That's just something you can't get your head around but that's fine. Live in your little rose-colored glasses world in the classic forum.

    I have news for you. Bar a nuclear war or any other major catastrophe, boxers in 100 years will be much much better than boxers of today's era. It's just what progress does to sports and athletes.
     
  12. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,147
    8,345
    Mar 7, 2012
    I'm not talking about athletes in general over the last 100 years.

    I'm saying that boxers don't get better every decade.

    Other sports may progress each decade, but boxing does not.

    It ebbs and flows.

    You are saying that the guys of the past couldn't compete today, based on other sports.

    You're so ignorant.

    Why in 100 years will the boxers be better?

    Boxing has progressed from the M.O.Q. but where else can it go?

    What other skills can be learnt?

    There won't be any new skills or punches.

    If the rules stay the same, there'll be strong eras and weak ones.

    Why aren't today's best HW's clearly better than the best HW's of the 70's?

    That was 40 years ago.

    Why aren't Wilder and Joshua etc on another level to Ali and Holmes?

    Break it down for me.

    Are you going to be deluded enough to tell me that Wilder is better than Ali and Holmes?

    If not, why hasn't there been any progress for over 40 years?
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2018
  13. madballster

    madballster VIP Member Full Member

    37,210
    6,756
    Jul 21, 2009
    Have rules or skills changed in other sports? No they haven't. Yet athletes become better, faster, stronger. That's just how things go.
     
  14. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    75,516
    15,572
    Sep 15, 2009
    I'm not sure combat follows the same principles as athletics.

    Boxing is, at the end of the day, a fight between two men. You try and punch the man and not get punched in return.

    There's obviously going to be improvements in nutrition and training but how significant are those improvements when it comes to one man vs another man?

    I mean George Foreman came back 20 years after losing the HW championship to knock out an undefeated champion. All the advancements in the world didn't help the cause of MM much then. Hopkins was a champ in the early 90's yet was able to school Pascal in a LHW bout 20 or so years afterwards.

    I'm not sure if I went back the Roman era I'd be able to defeat their best gladiator in unarmed combat despite the millenia of improvements the human race has experienced since then.

    It's not like new punches can be invented, it's not like boxing is a fitness test neither. It's a fight. And the more skilled fighter usually wins.

    Do an experiment, if you ever have the time. Watch a reduced frame rate of any Mayweather fight. Then watch the remaining footage of Joe Gans and tell me there's been huge leaps and bounds.
     
    dinovelvet and Loudon like this.
  15. madballster

    madballster VIP Member Full Member

    37,210
    6,756
    Jul 21, 2009
    How big are the improvements in chess, tennis, greek wrestling? According to your theory there should be ZERO measurable improvement in those disciplines because

    1. It's man vs. man
    2. The rules have stayed the same for 100, 200 or 1,000 years
    3. Brains, muscle and stamina work the same way as 100 years ago. The only change is nutrition and training.

    So why is there gigantic improvements over the last 100 years? Heck even IQs in developed countries have gone up by 20-30 IQ points over the last 100 years. Even though brains and DNA are identical. How is that possible?

    Your entire theory is built on the romantic idea of "a battle of man vs. man where training and science don't help" and that's your fallacy. There's progress in every discipline and boxing is no exception. Boxers today are way faster, harder hitting, better conditioned, smarter, more durable, less injury prone than their peers of 100 years ago. Talent is completely overrated because it is overcompensated with superior training techniques and endless regimes of deliberate practice.
     
    JoffJoff and Absolutely! like this.