1954 heavyweights v. 2004 heavyweights

I think 2004 wins the vast majority of these matchups.. At first glance I picked Charles to win a decision over Rahman. But by 1954 he was going down hill, and Rahman could hit hard. Layne would probably beate Fres Oquendo.

 

2004 wins at least 8 imo.

 

A wash other than Jackson and Charles.
And Toney could lose to anyone if fat enough.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I see a lot of pick em matches here.

 

Certainly.

The 2004 guys are fresh in people’s memories, while the 1950s guys are largely forgotten men.

Valdez vs Byrd is an interesting fight, because they are both men who held the #1 ranking for a while, but could never close on the title. They both beat the better people in the division, but also slipped up from time to time.

****ell vs Ruiz is interesting, because they were both spoilers, and they might have the styles to spoil each other.

Baker vs Toney is a fight between two men who should have been top players, but somehow fell short. Why not let them face off against each other?

Walls and Barret are two men who were always on the cusp of a breakthrough.

Charles would be too much for Ramhan, and Layne would be too much for Oquendo.

 

Your entire train of thought seems to rest on the (incorrect) assumption that every era is inherently equal in terms of depth and talent.

 

He operates rigidly on the premise that all eras of heavyweights are equal. Thus, Tommy Burns is the equal of Lennox Lewis, even in mythical H2H matchups.

 

Charles is the only one I say would win. Unless Marciano could stop Vitali on cuts I see him losing a UD.

 

1954 is in for a beating, imho. Wladimir isn't even in the equation I see.

 

2004 cleans up. Yet there are posters here like Klompton who keep telling us modern heavyweights are terrible.