If heavyweight ATGs learned to box today, how much worse would they be?

I don`t feel Dundee was any better than Ruiz`s trainers, I feel Ali just had a natural great boxing IQ and would have been the same, he may even have benefitted from a modern healthy training diet some boxers subscribe to during the 70`s when he lost some speed due to putting on weight, though he certainly wouldn`t be helped using Ruiz`s diet tips. Usyk is trained by the people that train Loma and thre`s no better training than that, Ali would have been even beter training with Loma`s father.

 

Would Ali be Ali without Dundee?
Would Tyson be Tyson without Cus?

No.
But, People like Foreman, Marciano or Dempsey haven't got better technique than Fury, Joshua or Ruiz. Someone like Frazier is on par with those guys. But guys like Joe Louis and Mike Tyson do.

Some like Deontay Wilder hasn't got an ounce of boxing technique, he can throw straight 1-2s, that's it. I've seen guys who've never boxed and just watched it throw better combos than he does.

 

I don't think D'Amato did much hands on with Tyson, that was more Atlas.Ali would have been just as great with any number of trainers.
There are some fine trainers around today Roach,McGirt,Beristain,Lomachenko,Hunter.

 

Now that is a very good question.

Some great fighters would have been great if they were trained by Coco the clown, and some were only great because they hooked up with the right trainer, and perhaps also due to their career circumstances.

I am going to select Marciano and Frazier, as two men who were very lucky to end up with the right trainer.

I am not saying that there is not somebody today who could have done well with them, but the wrong trainer would have ruined them.

I would be very confident of Ali having achieved most of his potential, with any credible trainer, and I can't see many going too far wrong with Foreman.

Dempsey probably sits somewhere between.

I also think that many great fighters of the past, would have had very different styles today.

For example Jersey Jack Johnson and Joe Walcott, would probably have had a much more offensively orientated style.

 

Who are you giving the credit for Frazier's training?Dempsey's?

 

Age dictated Walcott's style he was more fleet of foot in the late 40's,and early 50's.

 

From my limited knowledge Yank molded Joe and Futch made some small adjustments. One of Dempseys brothers constructed a cage of some type like a chicken coup that was only 4 ft high and he showed Jack the rudimentary of how to fight which Jack turned into that low bob n weave crouch style. That along with hindreds of fights from the time he left home at 14. Jimmy DeForrest was his main teacher once they hooked up. This is the best to my knowledge.

 

So let's say that this young fighter walks into your gym.

He is a black American born fighter, with excellent power, hand speed and reflexes, and he seems to take a punch pretty well.

He is obviously going to sit comfortably in the cruiserweigth division when you have developed him, but he has the frame to fill out to heavyweight if you think it appropriate further down the line.

Are you really going to develop that fighter as a defensive specialist, perhaps a harder hitting Chris Byrd?

I suspect that you might take him down a very different path to the one that he ended up on.

 

In addition to what Robert has said, Kearns clearly had a significant role in developing Dempsey.

 

I think Walcott's engine seemed to be his biggest limitation.

I think a flat footed counter punching style, something like like he had, probably makes the most sense.

I think 12 round would have suited him.

 

At heavyweight, I'd say Whyte is pretty close to that.

 

I also wonder how different they would look physically, and whether extra muscle would suit them?
I think Louis could carry an extra 10lb, because sometimes he looks a little underweight in his fights. Walcott, Charles would be interesting too.
Agree on Frazier.