I think fighters like Toney, Jones, Byrd (at their best) could very well compete against the majority of today's heavyweights by staying at 190 pounds and do it successfully. With the cruiserweight division around and the ability to make weight more comfortably without the same day weigh-ins, fighters tend to stay at 175 and 200. The ones that choose to take a risk and fight at heavyweight (Jones, although a calculated risk), or simply can't keep their weight under control (Toney), have done fairly well for themselves. Now it does seem that the number 1 ranking belongs to the "super heavyweight", atleast it has for the past 10 or so years with Lewis, Bowe and the Klitschko brothers reigning as the true champions. There's still room for smaller heavyweights however due to the lack of talented heavyweights outside of Wladimir and Vitali. Most of them, recently Adamek, previously Jirov and many more, try to put on extra weight which usually only slows them down. Eddie Chambers said it best, if you're a small heavyweight there's no use trying to get bigger and try to match their strength, just take advantage of being faster and more skilled than the big heavyweights and stay at your natural weight. Chambers still doesn't look to be in the best possible shape at 208 but it's without a doubt a more comfortable weight for him at which he performs better than above 220 lbs.
If it's about 'modern boxing style' then Willie Pep, Ray Robinson or M. Ali were 'modern' as well. Boxing before those characters was limited to slugfests and chin-checking. The add of defensive boxing moves made boxing 'modern'. And the evolution of 'modern boxing' doesn't stop as we can see in Floyd Mayweather, Oscar DelaHoya, Roy Jones Jr. etc.
http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings:_Pound_For_Pound--1990s Correct me if it's wrong.
Lewis was the dominant HW of his era, far more so than Holyfield. To say that Lewis struggled with Holyfield after the obscene robbery in their first fight is revising history quite a bit. The Klitschkos ARE dominant. Yeah, Vitali got injured against a former middleweight, could have happened againsz a former flyweight, so what? Wlad has won 12 out of 14 title fights, Vitali has the highest KO percentage in history.
They cut weight because of early weigh ins. So, for example, Roy Jones would obviously beat all the great old middleweights who would be welterweights today. Also, with the big gloves and no fighting in the clinch, and the way the rules are interpreted now to allow fighters to 'jab and grab' and generally avoid fighting, you get a new breed of fighter, the super evolved pinnacle of modern boxing; John Ruiz and Wladimir Klitschko.
Whenever fans compare modern fighters to older fighters they seem to totally ignore the changes in weigh in rules, and the addition of new divisions. For example, prior to 1984 there was no SMW division. In the era of same day weigh-ins the last 3 middleweight champions would have all fought as light heavyweights. On the other side of the coin, Haglar, for example, always came in around 157-158 on the same day as the fight. If he were fighting today, he would be on the small side of average at 154. In many cases the size difference is enormous, and ignoring it creates some rather silly opnions in head to head fantasy match-ups.
If, at heavyweight, the debate is whether the 190-pound undisputed champion is a thing of the past, then, naturally, by and large the answer is yes. A good big man (210+) will beat a good small man. However, norms have their exceptions. Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis are still considered favorites over the Klitschkos and Valuev, on both record and skill sets head-to-head. The recent marathon thread would seem to concur. A great smaller man can certainly bring down a pretty good big man. What do we mean by "modern fighters"? I take it to refer to the present-day breed of steroid-powered men over 6'3", 220 pounds. In spite of their enhancement advantage, these "modern" boxers cannot comfortably be proclaimed superior to their predecessors, which speaks for itself. And give Jack Dempsey the same evolutionary "preparation" Holyfield underwent from Douglas to Tyson II, and Dempsey, faster and stronger than his actual self, looks and acts the part of a modern juggernaut. Modern fighters are not better simply because greatness if attained by practice. Up to the '80s, there was one champion, who stayed busy. The bywords today are cosmetics, avoidance, posturing and a fractured title. Hardly the environment for breeding quality to eclipse 100 years of the school of hard knocks.
By "modern", I mean fighters from the last 15 years or so, after the advent of increased globalization and sophisticated sports science techniques.
MArciano-Klitschko would be the same size differential as Wlad-Haye. You saw how the usually aggressive Haye was reduced to pot shotting, running and outspeeding his opponent, Marciano would need a similar strategy.
And weight wise, plus Marciano's power isn't proven against 200lb++ HWs, discounting an old faded Louis, plus Tyson would at least have the speed advantage, Marciano is slower than Wlad
I thought the same thing when I saw that list and saw Floyd at #2 but I forgot that Floyd was the 1998 Fighter Of The Year so it is conceivable for him to be at #2.
Its important to distinguiish between a natural big man like Lewis, and a 'made' big man like Wlad. Lewis, 6'5, 84" reach, a comfortable 250 in his 30's was a natural big guy; his dimensions had nothing to do with modernity. Wlad is different; he's a tall man rather than a big man really; 6'6, 80" reach, a lot of muscle from the weight room at 240. Wlad IS a 'modern' big man in that way, Lewis isn't.