1954 heavyweights v. 2004 heavyweights

The sports with the most accurate measurables prove it to be the correct answer.

 

Jessie Owens would have killed Usain Bolt in a street fight.

 

Owens was a slight lil fellow.

 

Yes, but he was vicious!

 

Well then, when it comes down to personal interpretation of boxing techniques displayed it boils down to personal opinion rather than actual fact.

My knowledge and experience is based on a lifetime in boxing and is still only my opinion. Everybody is entitled to an opinion so yours is therefore equal (at best) or no more note worthy than mine.

I do however hope that in order to arrive at such a certain standpoint one has ****ysed the history as thoroughly on both sides rather than just the more readily available and more resent.

It strikes me as rather consistent that those who champion more resent eras are far more knowledgeable on that recent era than the earlier time. And also, that they are the ones quicker to put forward predictions rather than those with a more equal knowledge on both sides.

 

This is the truth.

The more dismissive somebody is about an earlier era, the more you have to teach them about it, just so that they can continue arguing with you!

 

And not a,single one of those "measurable sports" are full contact combat sports. Funny that isn't it?

 

Exactly!! It's only the kids saying David Izon would be camp in the 1950s. Why is that?

The more equally knowledgeable will only say "hang on, don't write them off.."

I come on here to defend fighters reputations.

You can't write somebody off without knowing everything about them. It is extremely clear that in the vast majority fighters are written off entirely without that full knowledge.

Under what qualification?

Clearly, a fighter can only be written off after a full examination of all film, literature and information has been thoroughly exhausted.

The "modern training" excuse is complete band wagon jumping and entirely lazy. Where is the history to back up this argument?

 

why do you feel the need to keep repeating this lie so often when faced with arguments you cant deal with?

 

I wasn't aware this was an 1890s thread?

You have not presented much knowledge on the 1950s contenders, which should be essential in debating any position on them having a suposed inferior ability to later descendents of heavyweight elite.

Please remind me of the 165lb heavyweights in the 1954 rankings?

You need to be able to know this much before you can go any further.

Any personal grasp on the technical aspects of boxers from separate times should include an equal research into the history and landscape of both eras. Rather just one of them.

That would be the first basis of reaching a rational opinion surely?

 

I agree. I watched footage of Willard and found him to be horrible :conf Frankly he'd be a punchbag in the modern era. But what do I know?

 

Depends on what era gloves were used, I still maintain that older generation fighters had the advantage in this

 

Was ****ell a spoiler? He always looked a good craftsman to me.