Comparing Jeffries to them proves my point.
With no starting blocks and with 1890s shoes? Are you sure?
Even 11:54 for 100m is absolutely impressive for a 225 lbs boxer without modern conditions who never trained professionally for sprinting.
Walcott, probably by stoppage or clear decision. Joe could be sloppy though, so I wouldn't bet on it.
He's not the champion, but he already beat the best fighters in the world.
Now you know, this fight is incredible by all accounts.
I think Schmeling win over Louis should be at worst top 3 and to me, it's the greatest win in HW history.
I don't see the case for Smith. His horrible defense and very slow movement is a disaster against a puncher of Wilder's caliber. I would be very...
Harder? You can argue either way, but to me it's clear that Moore was a better puncher.
The problem with your definition is that it's just impossible to verify which fighter would be great in any era. It's your guess, not a fact that...
That's also not true.
That's not true actually.
He wasn't bad, although I think Uzcudun was a bit better at the world level. Not a huge gap, but noticeable.
Yes.
Not at all, I weigh eras similarily. I don't think one era is significantly stronger than the other one, because it's impossible to verify. Like...
