1947's Ring Champs v 1987's Ring Champs

I get that all the time in General. I really have no preference - honestly, I don't lend any weight. My position is the same as Muhammad Ali's. If you will allow me to quote the great fighter (and *******):

There never was a time when they were better. Boxing is boxing. Some was good, some wasn't, some today can beat those who fought then, some then could beat those who fight today

Honestly, that's how I see it. Fitzimmons would kill Hopkins under that ruleset and Hopkins would out-point Fitz under this one. Maybe there's somewhere they could meet in the middle, I like to think, and then you have something to talk about.

If I have an aparant bias it's because I beleive in this even spread of talent. Because there are more fighters in the past than the present who are great I might make more old school picks. But that's just as I say.

I want to do a series of these ring champs across the ages threads, so perhaps I'll get to prove it to you with an even spread of picks (assuming I can get the dates right).

 

Yeah, it wasn't intentional.