Comparing fighters through the ages

I agree that at a certain point it becomes kind of silly to compare fighters of different era. How would be even begin to guess who would win in a fight between Battling Nelson and Shane Mosley? Would it be a 40 round right or a 12 rounder? What size gloves do they wear? Will the referee quickly break every clinch or will the ref let them hold and hit and wrestle in that weird, awkward style from Nelson's era?

I know guys love to compare resumes or do matchups between guys seperated by 70 years, but personally I wish people would more rate guys by how dominant someone was in their own era.

 

There's plenty of footage of guys from the turn of the century who box in a perfectly modern style.

For example if I look at Joe Gans, I've no doubt he'd be the number 1 LW today.

If I look at the dearth of talent in the flyweight division today I have no reason to assume Jimmy Wilde couldn't ascend to the throne today.

As for who the better fighter was, it goes both ways, we can argue Marciano wouldn't be a HW today the exact same way we can argue Derek Chisora would not be a HW champion in the 50s.

I mean if you look at Kid Chocolate, he looks amazing on film, Fidel La Barba doesn't, yet La Barba was able to get the better in their series of fights.

Nothing wrong, imo, with cross ers comparisons. Boxing if a fight between two men. All the progression people pretend to see is just nonsense.

I'm sure if I went walking round victorian England and someone tried to mug me in the street, I wouldn't be able to say "sorry chap, nutrition has now advanced too much so you don't have any way to overpower me any more, now jog on"

 

This was a question asked by everyone in the build up to Hatton vs Mayweather

 

Haha, I remember!

 

I dont think boxing changed that much from the 1930's matter of fact I think the skill level has dropped since the 90's as well as the one punch power punchers.

 

Rather than just clicking "Like," I feel compelled to say I agree 100 per cent. I even wish I could click "Like" 10 times on this post. I try not to participate in weird speculations. I like discussions which are grounded in some semblance of reality. I admire fighters from any era for what they have accomplished. The sport has changed. I don't use words like "evolved" or "improved" because I think the sport has both gained and lost some things. I love watching competitive fights from all time periods. I love watching skill, toughness, power, and endurance from all eras. Fighters have advantages previous fighters didn't have due to better diet, "nutritional enhancers," and conditioning techniques. The idea now is pressure, pressure, pressure. In the past, I think a fight between contenders was more of a chess match, feinting, setting traps, countering, etc. I truly think a lot of these things have been lost. Or are at least are very rare today.

 

I think there’s a decent advantage to the fighter who’s era the bout’s ruleset is under.

I do believe that boxing, moreso than most other sports, is less susceptible to increased talent over time. And I believe that exceptional individual talent supersedes the increase in overall talent over time. I think the baseline has increased, but all the elites over time are in a very similar class.

 

As I've said numerous times here, I believe that by the late 30s, early 40s the sport had, skill-wise, developed into what we would today label "modern" boxing. Louis, Pep, Robinson were all brilliant - and I don't see any overall improvement from that over the last 80 years.

On the other hand, I don't think boxing has DEvolved over the past few decades. Sure, you won't find anyone today as good as Robinson - but he was a once-in-a-lifetime (or several lifetimes!) talent, so we can't really compare today's boxers with him, and conclude that, overall, boxing isn't what it used to be.

Your contention that there has been a drop off of one punch power punchers since the 90s, is interesting. If there's one boxing quality that shouldn't change with time, I would have thought it was hitting power!

 

I think that in most divisions, one can compare from the 30's on up... for a select few fighters from the teens to present. The (un)spoken color line and ame day weigh-ins are the biggest obstacle here. For heavyweights, it is more problematic. For many reasons, the median size and athleticism of the modern heavies (basically post-Ali but going back to Liston) has increased so much as to be unfair to the old-timers. That, and at heavyweight, the change from 15 rounds to 12 was more significant.

 

The only thing I'm willing to say is that aesthetically at least, boxing improved between the very early 1900s and the late 1900s. That doesn't mean that it improved continuously from 1900 to 1999 but watching fights from the very early 1900s and comparing them with classic fights from later eras, it's hard to imagine fights that were better to watch from that era than the ones we got 20 to 30 years later and onwards. A big part of that is the grappling/clinching that is heavily present in fights from the early years of film. This was an accepted part of fighting then that over time became less tolerated and decreased as a result. Now, there may be people who say it is a shame that this was reduced, but as a spectacle I'd be hardpressed to agree.

 

I wasnt even thinking about greats like Robinson Pep ect. I mean when was the last time multi divisions were rich with real talent. I dont even put the Spences and Garcias in the same class as DeLahoya and Trinidad as an example. I just think the skill level has dropped. Where are the huge bangers in the lower weight classes. Where are the great jabbers the Heavyweights that used to come in with tight abbs. Where the hell are the great Mexicans? Why do some many guys today get tired after 8-9 rounds? I can keep going

 

Right on the money Robert. I mean the sport has changed and Activity has gone way down. And when fighters are only brought a long to fight twice a year and handpick the fights.. That is pretty much your answer right there. You mention Spence. How many times has Spence Crawford and Thurman got in the ring with each other? Zero. Good analogy RU

 

Thanku my pal. Good to hear from you!!

 

Take two world champions, one from 1940 and one from 2020. Same height, same weight etc. Both are flesh and blood, both fight under the Queensbury rules, both know what a jab and a left hook are, both know how to block and slip punches. Why should one have any inherent advantage over the other?