In most sports the current guys are better than previous eras, why would boxing be any different?

ok 30s then?

 

Fury and the klits would beat any American in history

Americans can't stand that but that's not my fault you guys need to make a new champion for the modern era

 

I’d fancy Joe Louis and Jack Dempsey over a few guys.

I’d do that based upon my knowledge of them and the attributes that they had.

Yet you would shut them down and wouldn’t even bother watching any footage of them, solely because they were from the 30’s.

 

No.

COULD.

You guys?

I’ve already told you that I’m English.

 

I was thinking the other day in my comment to you about James Figg the first bare knuckle boxing champion. He taught fencing, cane fighting, and boxing to upper class gentlemen. He was what earlier generations would have called a master at arms, teaching the nobility, the knightly class how to fight. Peasants wouldn't have had that kind of training. And in Figgs time, when Aristocrats weren't quite so martial, I think the point of their training with fists and canes was to defend themselves from common ruffians of the lower class who might try to prey upon and rob them.

Then there is the case of the ancient Olympians. These were not the peasants who competed and won gold. One had to have a degree of leisure to exercise and train properly. In our own time it is only the poor who fight and soil themselves for money or our amusement, but in the past it was a way for upper class men to win honor by feats of courage and strength, showing their natural superiority over the masses.

 

I'll quote a post by Jezzamundo on boxrec from 2016 that bears directly on this subject:
https://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=199245
Recent comments in threads got me thinking about the role of height in heavyweight boxing and how it has changed over the decades. I decided to do try to find out what the average height of a heavyweight boxer is today and how much that figure has changed over time. Unsatisfied with what I could find via an internet search, I've spent about 10 minutes per day for the last month sorting data from the BoxRec database. What I have compiled is the average height of a Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight for every year since 1924, when the ratings began. To get a more representative figure, I discounted the tallest and shortest boxer in the top 10 every year. Here are a few interesting facts:
* Top heavyweight boxers were on average taller in the 20s and 30s than they were in the 40s and 50s.
* From 1924 to 1971, there was no appreciable change in the average heavyweight height. Since then there has been a steady increase.
* Average heavyweight height has been over 6 foot 3 every year since 2003.
* 1935 was an abnormally tall year for heavyweights at 6 foot 2.6 - a record that stood until 1975.


1924-1929
Average height: 6 foot 0.9 inches
Tallest year: 1929 (6 foot 2.1)
Shortest year: 1926 (6 foot 0.3)

1930s
Average heigth: 6 foot 1.1 inches
Tallest year: 1935 (6 foot 2.6)
Shortest year: 1938 (6 foot 0.3)

1940s
Average height: 6 foot 0.3 inches
Tallest year: 1940 (6 foot 1.2)
Shortest year: 1949 (5 foot 11.2 - shortest year on record)

1950s
Average height: 6 foot 0.7 inches
Tallest year: 1955 (6 foot 1.3)
Shortest year: 1952 (5 foot 11.9)

1960s
Average height: 6 foot 1 inch
Tallest year: 1961 (6 foot 1.3)
Shortest year: 1967 (6 foot 0.4)

1970s
Average height: 6 foot 2.1 inches
Tallest year: 1976 (6 foot 2.9)
Shortest year: 1970 (6 foot 0.6)

1980s
Average height: 6 foot 2.7 inches
Tallest year: 1984 (6 foot 3.1)
Shortest year: 1981 (6 foot 2.3)

1990s
Average height: 6 foot 3.1 inches
Tallest year: 1994 (6 foot 3.7)
Shortest year: 1993 (6 foot 2.4)

2000s
Average height: 6 foot 3 inches
Tallest year: 2008 (6 foot 4.1 - tallest year on record)
Shortest year: 2003 (6 foot 2.2)

2010s so far
Average height: 6 foot 3.6 inches
Tallest year: 2015 (6 foot 3.8)
Shortest year: 2013 (6 foot 3.4)

Now, what I would like to know (me Ovidsexile. I'm speaking now.) is what was the height of each champion and what was the median height of the top 10, since median is different from average.

 

He's no better than George Godfrey. He could beat Stribling, Farr, Galento, Pastor, Buddy Baer, Savold, Nova, maybe Braddock or Carnera. Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, and Schaaf beat him. Joe Louis obliterates him. I'm not saying that he couldn't still get lucky and hold a title, but it wouldn't be off of Joe Louis.

Shannon Briggs was lucky to get a MD against 1997 George Foreman, and he didn't deserve it. Joe Louis would ice him in 5 just like Lennox Lewis. He's big and strong like Buddy Baer, Primo Carnera, or Abe Simon but the skill gap would be too much.

 

Well then you are one of those ones who worships American boxing, there's plenty of those, who prostate themselves at the alter of PBC

I'm sure you think coming from "the hood" makes you a better boxer

Lol

 

To be honest, it's debatable if Usain Bolt would've even been faster than the fastest sprinter from the 70's or 80's in an even playing-field. There are various different factors, such as the ground surface, wind conditions and etc. that determine the finishing time of sprinters. Had someone like Benjonson sprinted under the exact same conditions as Usain Bolt, it's not out of the realms of possibility that he would've finished 100 meters just as quick, if not quicker.

More developed ground surfaces give modern sprinters like Bolt an unfair advantage. And even then, Bolt isn't THAT MUCH FASTER than the fastest guy from the 80's or 70's.

Also, the high-jump record is still yet to be broken, which was set in the early 90's.

And if 'newer was always better', then Usain Bolt's record would've been broken by now by one of today's sprinters, since Usain Bolt is now retired.

There also many strength records still yet to be broke, set decades ago. This debunks the idea of 'newer athletes are always better'.

So even in other sports, the newer aren't always better. If we take football / soccer, I'm yet to see a player today who can run faster with the than the Brazilian Ronaldo in his prime.

There are many other examples that debunks this 'appeal to novelty' fallacy where people assume 'newer is always better'.

 

.... Did you just say Fury would brutally outclass Holyfield and Lewis? Lennox Lewis?

 

But he didn't punch everyone's head off in his own era.

In fact I think he only stopped one ranked fighter his whole career, and that was after coming very close to losing on points.

 

If you degrade the quality of any Mayweather fight, make it black and white, remove a few frames here and there adjust the frame rate etc, you'll see he doesn't look an awful lot different to footage of a prime Joe Gans.

 

Good points. The video is another handy example, to go with all the others.

 

This was prophetic. The same thing seems to happen on all threads that involve black and white fighters, an autistic frenzy of long winded posts. You picked it.