1931 v 1981 heavyweights - who wins?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mrkoolkevin, Feb 17, 2016.


Who wins the most fights?

  1. 1931

  2. 1981

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,555
    Jan 30, 2014
    True, but Gordon was naturally much bigger than Loughran though, and he had a much longer reach and more power.
     
  2. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,198
    26,478
    Feb 15, 2006
    That aside, was he any good at world level?
     
  3. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,555
    Jan 30, 2014
    Considered an all-time p4p puncher and one of the top cruiserweights of all time, if that counts. Not sure what/why you're asking exactly.
     
  4. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,198
    26,478
    Feb 15, 2006
    Where was he ranked at heavyweight?

    Loughran was ranked at #2, in a division where Primo Carnera was champion.
     
  5. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,555
    Jan 30, 2014
    What is it you would have us infer from that fact though?
     
  6. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    59,172
    42,099
    Feb 11, 2005
    I like Max Schmeling plenty but he was also a bumbling fool following around a completely amateurish Baer and getting pelted with glacial jabs and the most telegraphed right hands since Samuel Morse. Larry had a quick-twitch jab and a sneaky, versatile right hand that played well at long distance, a place Max wasn't particularly comfortable.
     
  7. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,198
    26,478
    Feb 15, 2006
    My point is that although Loughran was little more than a light heavyweight, he still had to fight opponents the size of modern superheavyweights.

    Being small yourself, doesn’t necessarily make your opposition small.
     
  8. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,553
    Nov 24, 2005
    It's a tough fight for both as far as I'm concerned.
    It's hard to find anyone on the list of Holmes's victims that were as good as Schmeling.
    Both were great fighters.
     
  9. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,553
    Nov 24, 2005
    He beat such opponents as Paolino Uzcudun, Jack Sharkey (2nd fight - robbed in the eyes of many), Young Stribling, Mickey Walker, Joe Louis, Steve Hamas .... that's a varied range of styles. Which makes him a versatile operator.
     
  10. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,555
    Jan 30, 2014
    As far as I can tell, Loughran never beat any one of note who weighed more than 202 lbs. He fought very few men who were Berbick's size and he wasn't particularly impressive those fights. I don't think he has the size, reach, or pop to beat Berbick. Berbick was a strong, physical, aggressive fighter with decent power. It's no coincidence that the only men who beat him were all much bigger than Loughran. Most were taller, had longer reaches, weighed more, and had better power.

    And by your logic, the fact that Berbick was a top-10 heavyweight for 7 years and Loughran for only 4 scattered years should be a huge reason to pick Berbick, no?
     
  11. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    59,172
    42,099
    Feb 11, 2005
    a bunch of midgets, a headcase and a lumberjack... a great range of "styles"...

    The Louis victory is obviously great.
     
  12. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,198
    26,478
    Feb 15, 2006
     
  13. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    127
    Aug 13, 2009

    Ray Impelletiere was rated top 10 by RING, which would make him of note.

    Schaf was 6'2" with 75" wingspan
    Baer was 6'3" with 81" wingspan, he filled in as high as 220 quite comfortably.

    Berbick began his career under 200 lbs until "modern nutrition" beefed him up a bit.
     
  14. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,555
    Jan 30, 2014
    Your first sentence really says all that needs to be said about the absolute weakness and lack of depth in the division at the time. The fact that such a mediocre fighter with such a pitiful record could stay in the top-10 rankings for multiple years is incredible. Dark times.

    Schaaf lost to a ton of small light-heavyweight types and had a low ko ratio. No comparison to Berbick whatsoever.

    Baer lost a bunch of fights to unimpressive heavyweights around 1930-31.

    Berbick had one fight below 200, jumped up to 213 his next fight, a couple months later, and never looked back. Spent his entire career as a much bigger heavyweight than the 185-200-lbers of yesteryear.
     
  15. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,198
    26,478
    Feb 15, 2006
    OK, so which era is stronger?

    The paper evidence suggests that while neither era was particularly strong, the 30s was the stronger era.

    In a strong era such as the 1970s at heavyweight, or the fab four era, you see a handful of fighters (outside of the dominant champion of the era)who distinguish themselves from the rest of the top ten ranked contenders.

    You do have such fighters in the 1930s, but none rally emerged in the 1980s.