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.
No dumbo, it's because of the highly offensive racist comment you wrote on your alt that I posted here.
Resume counts if you believe that, in this case the heavyweight division, was roughly equivalent between 1919 and 1988. I sure as hell don't.
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 ****.
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.
Willard was also a farmboy recruited late in life to boxing because in that era size alone could earn you money in the division. Holmes, an old, fat Holmes, a 45 year old Holmes, would force a stoppage in half a dozen rounds on the damage he would inflict.