That there's a massive gap between B-Level fighters now and 50 years past? I've always tried to find a comfortable middle ground among the old/modern debates here, to see the fine points of both arguments and eras... Does anyone really believe that Chris Byrd isn't comparable to Arturo Godoy? Ross Purrity to Buddy Baer? Tommy Morrison to Curtis "Hatchetman" Shepard? I see Vitali Klitschko and Lennox Lewis faulted because many of their wins were against fighters on the quality level of Danny Williams or Larry Donald... But how are they ANY worse than Marciano going against Cockell in the 48th fight of his career? Or Louis fighting dozens of B level fighters throughout his career. I honestly don't see the discrepancy.
It depends on the contenders, really. Ross Purrity isn't B-level in my opinion. In some cases the comparison is valid, there are really two B-level contenders: 1. B-level contenders who tend to only lose to A-level guys. 2. B-level contenders who lose to other B-level contenders.
Do you feel that Purrity is C-Level then? I think he's got an ATG chin, personally. Hence maybe why I think a little higher of him.
I don't even think he's C level, but I guess it depends on how you define C level. He reminds me of a worse version of Tex Cobb. Hard chin, hard punch, that's about it. Tex beat the journeymen, though. Purrity loses to alot of them.
Purrity, I'd say. More power, better stamina even, better chin. Cockell was little more than a human punching bag against Marciano. Purrity took everything Wlad could throw at him, and then came back to TKO him. Took everything Morrison could throw at him, knocked him down twice, and got a crappy draw for his effort. What does Cockell have to compare to even those two fights?
Cocknell had a good streak going into the Marciano fight. He was ten times as skilled as Purrity is/was. In all seriousness, all you need is a chin to give Wlad trouble. Purrity also has many more losses to totally shitty fighters than Cocknell did.
Ross would be the same against Marciano, believe it. Cockell beat better fighters ( Matthews, LaStarza, Farr, Marshall, etc.), and also head-to-head I would pick him to outpoint "The Boss". Purrity beat Wlad early in his career, and I´m not coming with excusses like some Wlad- nut huggers, but that´s it. Otherwise he was just a decent journeyman who could make the water pretty hot for some prospects...
I agree. But I don't see Cockell as even being that, hence Purrity being above him by a margin, even if it's not a massive one.
Cockell had a pretty good run and defeated some good fighters, which was why he earned his title shot than, would have been the same if Purrity defeated after Wlad for example some ranked fighters like Nielsen, Botha, etc., so legacy-wise it´s IMO not even close who´s better, and also judging from tapes, I would say Cockell´s chin was good enough to survive against Ross power...
There is not really much of discrepancy if you ask me. But i guess it depends a bit on your definition of "B-level fighter". Personally, i think it's a bit of denigrating term, or used as such anyway. Purrity, however, does not belong in that category. He's a journeyman who had one great win, which would've made him a brief contender but no more than that. I think Buddy Baer compares better to a guy like Corrie Sanders. A dangerous, big guy with a lot of knockout wins over lesser opposition, but also a limited fighter. Sanders ends up as the "greater" fighter because of his upset win over Klitschko, but in essence, they are similar fighters.
Once upon a time, boxers accumulated far more experience than they do today. While advances in sports science and conditioning methodology might give today's performers an edge, that could certainly be offset by the superior competitive background of earlier fighters. In the USA, professional team sports are now attracting the most talented athletes which used to go into boxing. (This is in large part due to the relaxation in rules which used to require the completion of a senior year in college first, expecially in NBA basketball and NFL gridiron play.) So there's really a sort of trade-off which has occurred over the years. Today, a Muhammad Ali might matriculate at the University of Louisville for a single year before entering the NBA or NFL draft early, where he would have had to get through four years of college in the early 1960s, making a quick post Olympic entry into professional boxing the path of least resistance back then.
I'm not really familair with all-American sports except for baseball. Could you explain me what relaxation in rules there have been and since when? Ali and the University? Wasn't he illiterate ?
Well, it used to be that before entering the professional gridiron draft, an aspiring amateur had to complete four years of college to be considered. This was also largely the general rule for the National Basketball Association as well. Today, players frequently complete a single year of college competition before bypassing their remaining eligibility to declare themselves for the draft. This is revealing, because players from a few decades ago were generally more disciplined and intelligent performers than today's athletes in those same sports. On the gridiron, gone are the days when players on the field called the plays. Today's competitors are not generally bright enough to do that, with very few exceptions. No, he graduated from high school, and there are examples of letters he wrote to his parents in longhand during those years. (In those letters, he always signed his name as "Cassius," even after converting to Islam. Reportedly, he was also known to use a typewriter for some of his correspondence, to luminaries like Bertrand Russell.) He was no less literate than many athletes who do go on to compete at the college level, though it's speculative whether he would have considered going that route today. But he apparently did enjoy watching gridiron play, and he has been seen wearing Miami Dolphins paraphernalia in the past. (This wouldn't be surprising, since the Miami Fifth Street Gym owned by the Dundee Brothers was his base of operations at the outset of his career, and the Dolphins came into existence in 1966. Muhammad would have been there to see Miami go from an expansion team to having the NFL's first perfect season in 1972.) So far as I can determine, Sonny Liston was illiterate (although he did have native intelligence), and Big John Tate may have been. Ali was not the sharpest knife in the drawer (based on mistakes he made in the ring which a smarter boxer with his talent would have avoided), but perfectly capable of reading and writing. Gene Tunney may have had the least formal schooling of any heavyweight champion (only three years of grade school), but he made himself into perhaps the most well read and articulate titlist in boxing history (giving lectures on Shakespeare at Yale), counting George Bernard Shaw among his friends. Unlike Tunney, Dempsey was no intellectual, but his father Hiram was a school teacher, and his mother Celia read the biography of John L. Sullivan while pregnant with Jack in 1895. (Dempsey graduated with an eighth grade education, which was then the equivalent of a college degree today. He was certainly smart enough to completely recover from the 1929 Stock Market Crash which had wiped him out, without having to return to competition.) The question of which boxing champions were truly illiterate is a good one to ask. Aside from Liston, and possibly Tate, I don't know which HW titleholders this might actually apply to. (There's a famous clip from before the Archie Moore fight in 1963 where the young Cassius Clay writes, "Moore in four" on a classroom blackboard, not exactly the sort of gesture an illiterate youngster would be capable of.)
How many fighters are actually out there per weight division these dayS compared to back then. You have Champions now who in the day of 8 weight divisons would in some cases be a #10 or #9 ranked contender.
