Early 1900's boxing style compared to modern?

I think the best of an Era would do well in any era. (Of his size obviously)

Greb's style (which is only written about) is basically pure aggression, iron chin, deceptive head movement and not much power. The fact he could throw so many punches against ATGs in his time tells us that he would be a ******* for anyone to beat south of CW.

Dempsey I think is overrated. But not due to his hands being by his sides or anything like that, because against Willard (before he started pummeling him) he showed some cagey skills and a decent defence. He also showed he can slip punches on the way in as well. I think his power and speed are overrated.

 

Styles differences are mostly caused by rules and different circumstances. Great fighters would be great in any era.

Jack Dempsey showed signs of good defensive skills and he had excellent head movement.

 

Compared to who? You said that Dempsey is one of the hardest punchers ever at his weight. Who do you think was faster than him at 180-200 lbs?

 

In comparison to ATG HW punches. Coz that's who people compare him to.

And Jones, Charles, Walcott, Spinks, Usyk, Jirov and Toney were all faster of the top of my head.
Not to mention I've seen him rated the 3rd best HW ever and top 15 pfp. I think we can both agree that that's a no no

 

Disagree with Walcott, Usyk and Toney but fair enough.

Yes, we agree. The original Jack Dempsey should be higher than him p4p.

 

Good, entertainment wise. I think he'd be boxed when they weren't brawling and would not out tough Hagler, and would get KOed around the tenth.

He'd put up a good fight for a few rounds and have moments that are clearly his but ultimately lose by late stoppage or a UD.

He'd do well for about a round imo. Then James figures him out and takes him to school.

Toney UD12

 

But Ketchel wasn't a boxing master even in his days. Pick someone like Joe Gans or Jack O'Brien and they would fare well against technical boxers from next eras.

 

Why do you think this?

And does it also follow that those who are average in one era would be average in any other? Or that those who are mediocre or poor in one era would be mediocre or poor in any other?

 

If you pluck fighters from yesterday, and place them in today's climte with no adjustment period, the aggressive fighters with physical attributes and intangibles do better than the scientific boxers.

Who is more likely to win today, John L Sullivan or Jim Corbett?

 

To clarify I don't mean they'd dominate every Era, just do well. Larry Holmes would be second only to Wlad in the 2000s, Ali would be second only to Lewis in the 90s.
Every top 10 HW imo would be a top 5 in another HW era'. (Barring guys like Rocky and Johnson who'd be CWs in the modern era)

No. For example an Average HW now, let's say Whyte, wouldn't be top 5 in the 70s, he is now. But it's arguable he wouldn't be top 10 in the 70s. Or David Tua, an average HW in the 90s. I'd back hom to beat Ruiz, Joshua, Wilder and Whyte. That's 4 of my top 5 HWs today.

Maybe, some examples could be made but not off the top of my head.

 

Hockey experts were once tasked with finding out if the talent of players had evolved over time.

What they found was that the average player got better, but the all time greats were more or less equally talented.

I think something very similar is true for boxing.

 

This.

The difference in talent between most ATGs is very small, it's styles and physical attributes that make up the difference in match ups