Mayweather vs Zivic....in the 50s

Yes for sure I imagine it depended on the ref. Probably they were more lenient in general but it depended on a lot of other external facts of course. There is no reason to assume a modern fighter would not be able to adapt!

 

I mentioned before in some other posts that I think there is a difference between a fantasy match where you imagine both fighters battling in the same era or you transplant one to the others era. I think if you plonked Floyd in a time machine into a fight with Zivic today he would struggle with the fouling, however that does not suggest he could not adapt. As I have also mentioned before Floyd is always amazingly conditioned and could weather an early storm to take control. If we plonked Zivic from the 40s into a match with Floyd today then he would last about 3 rounds before being disqualified!

I think Floyd, like Whitaker and Jones, suffers bit on here because in their prime they tended to make dangerous opponents look like easy fights. Because we haven't really seen Floyd in a life or death struggle I think it is difficult to know how he would deal with that type of fight. Not to say he hasn't had to dig deep but he has not had an equivalent of his Thrilla in Manilla so I think older fans probably find it difficult to imagine him having to go to war.

 

Man you always pistol whip this dude, talk about killing with kindness! It's like Whitaker Chavez

 

Yes for sure, I would like to get more info from others if this is indeed fact or not. I mainly speak from personal experience and research. I definitely think in the last 20 years or so refs have been quicker to jump into fights, at least in high profile major televised bouts. Also reading stories of the brutal battles that went on in the past, I simply can't imagine a modern ref allowing them to carry on, or not disqualify a fighter. I think in particular with fouling but also with cuts modern refs are more on the ball. For example I simply can't imagine a modern ref would have allow Davey Moore to carry on as long as he did against Duran, or Tex Cobb against Holmes.

I will add that perhaps we have two discussions here, refs being lenient to fouls and refs who are happy for fighters to fight on despite significant damage? I think the progress made in ring welfare and education, for both refs, doctors and fighters have simply made everyone more informed about the damage that can occur if a fight goes on too long so I feel we have proof for the second theory but as far as fouls I don't have any proof other than eyewitness reports from fights and also the testimony of fighters from that era that implied refs turned a blind eye to a lot of dirty tricks.

I am unsure if it was the same ref each time but for example we know that the 4 Saddler vs Pep battles were foul filled, so that is 4 major title bouts where the ref in each case was happy to let them get on with it.

 

The only one crying is you because you are a lil' baby