Let's give them a relatively fair playing field. Weigh-in maximum 24hrs before fight time. Gloves, rules, refs, halfway between eras of their relative primes. Pac vs McLarnin Pac vs Ryan Pac vs McFarland What think ye?
I'd pick him to beat all of them, but McLarnin and McFarland could beat him. And I don't want to comment on Ryan coz I don't really know much about him other than that he was really good, and was always fun to watch. McLarnin reminds me of a smaller George Foreman, but if he swapped the power for stamina and workrate. I think that style is candy for welterweight Pacquiao, who'd dart in and out at angles and light Jimmy up with combos. Villa looks pretty poor in comparison to Manny IMO. McFarland could beat him. He seemed able to change his style to what he needed, but I don't think the classical upright style or the squat aggressive swarmer style works against Pacquiao. Although maybe McFarland could mix the two? Use a style which involves both heavy movement and an inside game? If he can do what Marquez did, he should win, as he was better than JMM. I do think both McFarland and McLarnin are greater, P4P, but I think this is there fight to lose. I'll pass on Ryan, like I said.
I like how people say that boxers are getting worse, but on every thread like this the modern guys are heavily favored
This has got nothing to do with my question : how do you know the average fighter was better 100 years ago than today? For the 1920s, BoxRec has more than 330,000 fights in their database. How many of these are available to us on YouTube? I don't know - but I would guess less than 1%. More than 99% of the fights back then, we have never seen. How many down-the-bill fights between two journeymen from that time can we study today? It seems to me, that the fights from back then we have footage of, always involve the absolute top boxers - mostly either world champs or future HOFers. Maybe the top 1% (at most) - so how do you know how good (or bad) the remaining 99% (the average fighters) were?
You're just repeating what you have already said - which has nothing to do with the vast majority (average fighters), who never gets close to a title fight. So I'll ask you again - what makes you "think", that the 99% of the 1920s boxers, we have never seen were better, on average, than the non-top boxers today?
I have no problem reading or understanding what you are saying - so don't pretend that I do. You said, that you think the average boxers are getting worse. That's an interesting opinion - so what is wrong with me wanting to discuss this? And the "average" boxers are not those who win a title after 10-15 fights... it's the vast majority of fighters who never come close to a title shot. Needless to say, you have no idea how good, or bad, the "average" boxers were back in the good old days - as you have never seen them!