A peak joe louis vs a peak lennox lewis

I never said that, it is proven however that as part of a controlled training program an athlete will be better off with rather than without, this is indisputable.

 

What did Sugar Ray Leonard ever do to you!

 

No, that doesn't make sense.
We all know that the W-L-D tally doesn't mean much at all, so there's no point in you using it to "prove" anything. It's bollocks.

Who's the better scalp on Tyson's record - McNeeley or Bonecrusher Smith ?
36-1 or 19-5 ...

I'm not sure "protein shakes" are the best grounds for starting your argument. Believe me, protein shakes don't mean much in the grand scheme of things.
I don't think the old-timers suffered from a lack of protein at all.

This content is protected

 

It depends entirely on how high their protein intake and needs are.

An extra protein shake will do zilch for someone who's already getting enough protein.

 

Spot on.

 

Yeah, I mean if there's one thing the old-timers did believe in when it comes to nutrition it was getting a shed load of protein down their necks !

 

Based on what?

Who argued that? I say the average fighter of the past is more skilled and more importantly more experienced than the average fighter of the last 30 years. Yes, thanks to science the average fighter today is more athletic - not necessarily better conditioned though, the people back then weren´t dumb they knew how to prepare themselves perfectly even without science - but does that neutralise the disadvantage on skill and experience? IMO only when we are talking of exceptional fighters in thsi regard like Jones Jr. or Pac but those guys existed in every era, see Jeffries, Robinson, Burley, Pep and so on.

Read the second sentence. I was sarcastic. Ali would make Wlad looking silly at times and win a wide UD, perhaps a even a late TKO.

You might say Bowe, Lewis and the Klitschkos are the exception to the rule of smaller titleholders even these days.

 

I can find peace with that list, but what does that prove?

The number of heavyweights before the 70's severely outweighs those after that period. Even at your own admission, the number of licensed boxers after WWII was larger than any point after*. Despite this fact, Joe Louis is the only WWII boxer to make your list, and Liston is also borderline "modern". This means that despite this larger amount boxers, 3 or 4 out of 5 in the top5 are modern.

Furthermore, a large part of how we judge them is based on film. We see them against their opponents, and in this trivial observation lies a further complication: how would Wlad look if he fought the likes of 185lbs Patterson, 190lbs Machen, 5'7 Westphal, Roy Harris, Marty Marshall, etc? What about Joe Louis' opponents? I love the guy and his consistency, but the opponents that the modern fighters of your list - Ali, Lewis and Holmes - had to deal with were made from a different cloth. That is not to say all their opponents (particularly Holmes') were all fantastic and great, of course.


*Note that I don't believe it, but I'd like to see numbers on this. You were talking about professional licenses. I think the further you go away from WWII, the more boxers tend to fight in the amateurs first and for a longer time, perhaps finding out that boxing is not their holy calling and never turning pro at all, diluting those numbers.

Again, I don't understand what you're trying to prove here. Nobody is saying that one decade of modern boxers should produce more greats than 10 decades of classic boxers.

In addition to that, I already conceded that the advancements are mostly in the heavyweight division and have been over the last 30 years.