1919 Jess Willard vs. 1988 Larry Holmes

I have two issues with what you are saying here.

Firstly resume should always count for more than footage, when assessing a fighter. Resume is the only certain variable, while footage only really tells you how elegant a fighter looked winning or losing. For example Greg Page looks a lot better on film than Rocky Marciano.

Secondly you are making a huge assumption about the superiority of one era over another, which if correct, would have very far reaching consequences. Such an assumption requires a pretty solid justification.

 

Yup, confirms that you are a racist.

 

because i think Vitali and Calzaghe are overrated

 

No dumbo, it's because of the highly offensive racist comment you wrote on your alt that I posted here.

 

fancy posting that thread you got my quote from?

or does that thread not exist.......

 

http://www.boxingforum24.com/showthread.php?p=12118729#post12118729

 

Nice thread, funny how you seem to have quoted a post which was not anywhere on that thread.

I searched all 5 pages

Keep trying harder you piece of ****.

 

post 63 & 64 5th page.

 

You got any proof that that's my alt?

 

It's funny how a guy who accuses everyone of having alts is actually sad enough to do it himself.

 

That is fine, but how would you go about proving which era was stronger, and by how much?

I do think that some eras are stronger than some others, but I am very cautious on the issue.

In every era from 1900 onwards you have a global talent pool, consisting of journeyman fighters, gatekeepers, fringe contenders, and contenders.

In every era from 1900 onwards, the requirements to break into each of these groups in terms of training regime and talent, has been pretty darn consistent.

I suggest that fighters who were in these categories in era A, would be in the same category in era B, with relatively few exceptions.

 

holmes

 

Willard was a Big strong guy, Larry could best him on points but Jess may be tough over 15