Just pretend that we have got the time machine working..................

Personally, and I know I'm going to be flamed but it's just my opinion, but I think all ATG's from 1940 onwards beat those that precede them. I.e fights like sam Langford vs Ali/Tyson/Holyfield/Lewis etc etc etc Dempsey vs Tyson/Maricano etc etc Jackson Johnson vs those guys, Stanley Ketchel vs Hagler/Monzon etc etc

 

Fair enough comment, and without seeing footage of the likes of Greb (and to an even further extent Fitzsimmons, Corbett and Jeffries) I'm more tempted to judge by what I have read of their styles and say the likes of Hagler (against Greb and Ketchel at MW) and Lewis, Tyson, Foreman etc etc would beat them due to what dangers I have attributed from the reports/accounts I have read of those guys and knowing how primitive their technique may have been.

Of course they might've been totally modern, but I'm just more tempted to go with what I know rather than what I presume. I have seen modern fighters and know what their skills are....I have no idea whether Fitsimmons would just stand still in a 'Gangs Of New York'-style pose and 'engage in fisticuffs', causing him to get absolutely sparked by even the likes of Chris Byrd, Michael Grant or Andrew Golota in a matter of 2nds (just picking a few lower-2nd tier fighters from the last decade for instance)

I've focused primarily on either MW's or HW's here, I don't know how awkward the lower-weight fighters might've been (and the bigger guys for that matter)

In a way, their 'primitive' (not I word I like using by the way) styles might even make them a bigger headache for more 'modern' boxers.

 

There was a mixed martial arts experiment conducted once where contemporary boxers were made to fight MMA guys trained to fight under the early 1800s bareknuckle stance.

The contemporary boxers all said that it was an awkward style and hard to deal with.






I'm sure it would be. For some reason I've always assumed the punching would be more rigid back then; the awkward styles might make one of the more modern guys walk onto a heavy shot from Fitzsimmons at a weird angle they may not have experienced before.

as I say, without knowing any of this for sure, I'd have to say something along the lines of Grant K.O 1 Fitzsimmons/Corbett/Jeffries/Barbadoes Joe etc etc

I've chosen Grant due to how medicore he is. Although I'm sure for their dy these guys were truly exceptional (and I've covered the late 1800's to the 20's there really)

 

1. Worried is not the term; I'm as excited as I'd be for Games 7 Finals Jordan-Kobe, Series White Sox vs. Cubs, and Sinatra-Streisand-Elvis-Karen Carpenter in Vegas, combined!

2. Time machines do not lie. In any matchup, the skilled, but often not spirit-moved underdog may rise to the occasion and score an upset, but surprises here IMHO should not become overrated. The time tunnel ought to give us enough light via sufficient rounds to separate the wheat from the chaff. The best fighters must prevail. On a given night, Bowe could upset Ali, Graziano might kayo the Sugar Man, but the ranks would not change down the road.

3. I believe the old-timers will be vindicated. I think they were tougher, hungrier and, most importantly, simply fought more often. Survival was very much on many minds back when, not gilded luxury cars and mansions. This could very well eventually tell in a sport so uncompromising.

It is an established fact that greatness can be attained sticking with something over about a 10-year period. A primed 70-1 no-nonsense throwback looks better to me than any 27-0 media darling, no matter how sensational his name. Practice makes perfect.

I think we will be surprised at how well the old hands actually grasped the sport -as they become real, live, color(!) characters- from proper punching to adaptation in the ring.

In a word, the human gene pool does not play favorites and is generous with every generation. But the greater volume of blood, sweat and tears invested in times prior should weigh in decisively. Thus, Holmes defeated Mercer on cunning; a patient Foreman crushed a complacent young lion.

We will see more of this as we travel in time, and posters such as Janitor will by and large be elevated to even greater heights.

 

There is a massive difference between 10-20 years and 80-100 years though.

 

Not as much difference as you seem to think...in my opinion, of course. :good

 

No doubt. My main point is you can't beat experience. Time was when fighting often was a byword, when the sport was a way of life for life. And this is anchored to well beyond 20 years ago.

Today you must stay marketable. A pesky loss is too great a downer, so many fighters must lie low.

From a strictly athletic point of view, comebacking Foreman did the right thing in fighting often, really regardless of who, till he got his chance to make history.

Holmes, likewise, learned the lesson, got his butt busy, and shocked Mercer.

Modern greats Roberto Duran, world champion Ali and young Mike Tyson were throwbacks to Sam Langford, Joe Gans, Willie Pep, who fought often, and excelled.

 

Yes, and also far more skilled and with the advantage of better training methods.

These are the bet guys who would be representing the modern era in a time machine situation. I don't include Willie Pep, as I would probably have him representing this era in the FW division.

But having seen Gene Tunney on film, I'd have no problem whatsoever in picking a Qawi, Conteh or Galindez to beat him handily, let alone a Bob Foster or Michael Spinks.

 

You obviously think fighters 80 years ago were relatively inferior.

Please expound on the woeful shortcomings you see in Tunney on film and how exactly the likes of John Conteh will handily dust him.

 

Not woeful shortcomings by any means. To add to his sheer toughness, I feel Tunney is one of the forebearers of 'modern boxing'. I just feel it has been done better, with more precision, speed and tecnique. That is all :good

 

Though I do think Tunney is a great figher, and he rates in my top 10 at 175lb, I have listed his shortcomings on film before. I feel he is slightly overrated h2h. He is unproven IMO vs a number of styles and sizes and he drew the color line.