Would Canelo Alverez dominate a prime Jack Dempsey from round 1 (Boxing Evolution Theory)

1) You are underestimating the localized nature of these factors, it might have been more popular at local levels with more activity, but it doesn't supersede the overall accessibility and opportunity for exposure/connectivity across the globe that we have today. A sport can be "popular" in a hobbyist or cultural sense but not necessarily have the infrastructure to produce or fund high quality fighters.

2) High schools and colleges were for the privileged, the main stock of fighters would come from working class, poor families where they'd have no choice but to take up boxing as one of the avenues after the army or literally from the streets. If you want to be successful today, chances are you have to start early and train for years.

3) The reason Jewish/Italian and Irish fighters don't exist anymore is because of shifting class dynamics.

4) They fought more times simply because of economics, boxers today could have 100s of fights (and do, in the amateurs) if they want to. There's also more science on health, regulations, setting up events that make it more challenging.

 

BTW here in UK, boxing gyms are very popular and there's many around with kids boxing. So even if I'll give that US declined, the rise of boxing from all around the world still massively skews the numbers, on top of literally more people being in the world today.

 

It most certainly has not evolved to look like two completely different sports… the hook, straights and uppercuts have existed forever and by? Dempseys time, In? or just after…? it was the most popular sport in the world. Equipment changes are the biggest difference… lack of fights is the biggest AFFLICTION of modern fighters and even things like cherry picking sparring partners now is common…

 

No argument on the scorecards dodgy stuff there. It's true that in Dempsey era that many black fighters were steered clear of though these era's were far from perfect as implied here. I mean both points can be true.

 

"hands down"

**Dempsey moves head**

"flat footed"

**Tracks down and beats high-quality smaller boxers like Miske, Gibbons, and Levinsky**

"clubbing punches"

This content is protected

"probably KOs him in the first 2-3 rounds"

**Sees that the only guys Alvarez has done that to anywhere near the world level are Yildrim and Kirkland**

 

This content is protected

 

Prior to 2023 I would say by and large Canelo took on the biggest challenges available

Bivol, Smith, Golovkin, Lara, Kovalev were seen as big tests for him that many predicted he would lose.

Many of these guys were unbeaten going into their fights with Alvarez which seems like a strange way to go about cherry picking given its harder to know the ceiling/limitations of someone whose never lost.
A lot of these wins seem to be downgraded in hindsight when at the time they were seen as risky fights

 

This content is protected

There is Andre De Grasse trying to beat Jesse Owens time in the same shoes, track, conditions he had. He loses, even though he has run much faster times.

Dempsey was a thoroughbred champion. If he doesn't get to have the advantages Canelo gets like steroids, nutrition etc then it's only fair he gets to keep his old advantages like thin lever bag gloves, dirty fighting, getting to stand over then and punch them as soon as they stand etc

These are both true champions but Dempsey takes it.

 

It's laughable to me that people think this dude would stand a chance, he wouldn't even rank in the top 50 heavyweights today, and I'm being generous at that.

Tennis players from 100 years ago wouldn't beat tennis players today, football teams were way worse technically back then, damn near every sport accepts this apart from boxing fans. They fawn over fighters who their grandparents never even saw fight.

People keep saying about the steroids, but that's the whole point of the question, fighters today are way more advanced and PEDs are just one reason why!

 

That's why he is ducking Benavidez and any other dangerous opponent after going on a run of tomato cans. He's popular but not near the beat.

 

We have an example of a top heavyweight from the 70s George Foreman coming back in the 90s and doing very well to the extent that he won the title off of a very capable fighter in Michael Moorer. And giving an ATG like Holyfield a rough night. If Ali's words on Marciano are true for that computer superfight then Ali claimed that he was very hard to hit with the Jab and that Marciano had the ability to hurt Ali to the body if the toupee story is true. We know that a near shot Joe Louis wasn't instantly humiliated against Marciano and in fact gave him a decent fight. If that was Louis in his prime Marciano probably loses. Jack dempsey Kills Canelo...

 

A boxing match in the 1990s is far closer to today fights in the 1920s and before. By the 1990s things like PED's have advanced further too in my opinion.

 

I'd argue the talent pool of boxers were far greater in 1920 than it is today, boxing drew crowds of 100,000 . Todays youngsters have video games, soccer , football ,basketball. Back in early 1920's and forward fighting was part of growing up,' still was into the 70"s cause neighborhood kids put the gloves on constantly after watching boxing on TV and parents thought that was okay, I oughta know. Back then boxing and horse racing were #1.. Heck in my lifetime I used to be able to attend boxing cards virtually anytime I wanted within a 50 mile radius. That has virtually vanished and even the amateur programs are a pale shadow of what they once were .Locally I watched amateurs Clint Jackson, Bernard Taylor ,John Tate, Aaron Pryor , Jerome Coffey, Frankie Randall and so many others,, now? It's a wasteland.. In my opinion as an overall sport, the talent pool is at it lowest point in a 100 years

 

In my opinion, the worldwide pool of active pro boxers is bigger today, than at any other time since WW2

 

I seriously doubt 100k+ crowds or even 50k+ crowds were for anything less than megafights and were in any shape or form a regular occurrence. That was also before TV and PPVs etc, so the only way you'd get to see a fight is by physically being there. Not to mention, Joshua and Froch even with that in mind drew 90k crowds recently.

Also, I'm not talking about 60s or 70s, I'm talking about the 1920s, heck that was before air travel. Like let's say I am some super talented French kid in some random town, how am I going to get the exposure needed to fight Jack Dempsey? What's my path? Fight 100s of fights travelling around France (which was expensive at the time), somehow get picked up by international newspapers then jump on a boat? It isn't happening.

It was probably challenging enough in US unless you happen to be in some boxing hub area or big city like IDK NY or something, especially given how brutal society was back then as far as making ends meet, you don't have any time to just let things "figure themselves out", you're fighting brutal fights for pennies for Mafia like promoters just to survive.