Was gonna say Calzaghe has no power, but then, you wouldnt need power, only to win. Calzaghe had endless stamina, and was one of the best fighters at ad******g to whatever came his way, so i reckon its a great shout
Foreman did this before. I believe he fought 5 guys in one night, one right after another. 100 though? That's stretching it a bit far.
As long as Saddler didn't bring the 1950's era referees, I think Pep would beat Saddler. Saddler was allowed to get away with stuff that would absolutely not be tollerated in this era.
Well, the Kyokushin guys do it for 100 2-minute rounds, and that's with a lot of punishment to the legs and body (albeit less to the head). About the equivalent of a 66 round fight. Foreman's Toronto exhibition had five guys at several 3 minute rounds apiece, so a guy with much better stamina than Foreman might pull it off.
Aside from the potential workrate/power issues, Calzaghe has two other problems. First, he's not one of the tallest guys in his weightclass (so he has to work harder). Second, he often fights down to the level of his opponents. Leonard is a good call. He doesn't have the height like Hearns or Monzon, but everything else fits. As long as he remembers to fight at a measured pace. Pep would need to keep his juking and dodging routine going for 100 2-minute rounds (equivalent of 66 3-minute rounds). Even if he's conserving energy, I'm not sure he could do that, especially since he doesn't have the power to keep somebody off him. Height and reach aside, Toney's a good choice. I haven't seen enough of Golovkin to judge either way. He seems to have the skill, power, and stamina though.
@ cross_trainer as far as Calzaghe goes... 1. so what if he's not as tall as his opponents? i dont know the height of Joe's opponents, but im sure there's been a fair few taller than him on his resume 2. again, so what? if he felt he was getting beaten he would step up his game
It's not a knock on Joe's considerable boxing ability -- it's more a limitation imposed by the peculiarities of fighting a hundred guys in a row. Very tall fighters who can control distance well can conserve energy. They don't need to figure out ways to get inside and stay there. Especially against the Golden Gloves amateurs here, who might not be good at getting inside, that's a major advantage. Look at how much energy Monzon could conserve just by being a massive middleweight. And that's against top opposition, not amateurs. He took punches unnecessarily when he fought down to the level of his opponents. A fully motivated Joe was a nightmare. Against lesser opposition, he did just enough to win -- and not necessarily in an energy-conserving way, either. Just something to consider.
I'm not sure. It would depend on the weightclass. If he goes down far enough that he has a reach advantage against most of his opponents, Mayweather would be a very good choice. He has the chin, stamina, and skill with a very patient style. Punching power is a bit of a concern, but I think he could still pull it off.
I think Mayweather would be perfect, even at welterweight. If he was up against 100 Henry Armstrong style fighters he would be in trouble or 100 Tommy Hearns styles fighters he would be in trouble. However, he is skilled enough to avoid taking any flush shots for a round against Tommy Hearns, and there was only one Tommy Hearns. Chances are there won't be anybody that can touch Mayweather. Considering he normally spars 20 minute rounds anyway, I think he would be the best choice for this. Low, economical punch output, high accuracy, no wasted movement, relaxed and highly skilled.
I'd say Tyson,Foreman etc Guys with power and early KOs PS Foreman did fight 5 guys in one night and TKO'd 4 of them if I'm not mistaken.