All Time Great vs. 100 amateurs

Thomas Hearns
Sugar Ray Robinson
Joe Frazier
Salvador Sanchez

 

Yes, incredibly durable, hard to hit, very economic whilst swarm-****ing people and hardly ever loses a round

 

Pachilles, I distinctly remember having a bet with one of your aliases over the Maidana/Morales fight. Well...Morales lost...so do the right thing. Change that god damn signature!

 

True enough, bro. But what is it i should be changing it to?

ps. Due to the heroic showing by el Terrible i thought you might've donned the signature anyway, out of respect

 

It would be the honorable thing to do.

 

You're making sense. I'll let this one slide in tribute to Morales and his valiant effort.

This content is protected

 

Senya is right to go for the old-timers, who built their styles around avoiding punishment in order to have long careers in the age of low-tech equipment. Of all the heavyweights, I'd expect John L. Sullivan to do best. After all, he would be used to long hard tours against inferior opposition and he'd know what to do. The old bareknuckle boxers, especially those with experience of carnival boxing, would do even better.

Nicolino Locche would be my pick for more modern boxers. Pure elusiveness and stamina.

Another modern boxer who'd do well would be a prime James Toney. His supremely relaxed style, excellent defence and ability to reduce his opponent's punch output would serve him very well.

Basically, because of the differences between karate (a low contact sport) and boxing (a high contact sport) I think that the requirements here are different. Stamina is important, but I think that avoiding clean punches would be more important. Relaxation would also be important.

Powerful boxers are at a disadvantage, I think, because they'd tend to go for the kill when what is required is avoiding punishment and it's hard to finish off an opponent without taking punishment. So Tyson, Marciano, Frazier and Hearns are bad choices, because they wouldn't be able to resist getting into wars. Julian Jackson is a very bad choice, because even in his best peformances he took plenty of punches.

300 rounds is a long time to be boxing fresh men. Even if the fights go only 2 rounds on average, that's 10 hours. I don't think that bombers are going to be able to last that long. On the other hand, I can see a Locche or a Toney gently slipping their way through 15 hours of boxing, because they're resting half of the time in the ring anyway and they're not going to accumulate much punishment. For some of the old timers like Sullivan, who had to know how to survive marathon bouts, 15 hours would be tough but manageable.

 

bob fitzsimmons, wouldn't waste energy, and with his punch placement would ko a lot of the youngsters.

read up on his training, if anyone could fight for that many rounds it'd be him.

 

Maher used to do that kind of thing quickly and also could go twenty hard rounds. Wilde also looks good and what about Naseem-power and relaxation?

 

but would Locche be able to win a majority of these fights? he was great on the defensive side but would his offensive output be enough to win a short 3 round fight? especially that amount of consecutive short 3 rounders :think

 

so the fighter of the decade in the 90s and the val barker winner, who was cheated out of gold, in the '88 olympics needs to protect his chin vs a bunch of golden gloves fighters. prime jones took a punch just fine. tyson, jones and louis would have the best chance imo.