Dempsey 1919 vs Tyson 1989: What would happen?

If that was the case, then Sugar Ray Robinson wouldn't be the concensus pound-for-pound greatest fighter of all-time. If the sport has really evolved that much over time, then it would continue to evolve. That would mean Miguel Cotto was a greater fighter, and that just isn't true.

It's the same with those other sports. Is Cristiano Ronaldo a better player than Pélé or Maradona? No. If that was the case, then Gareth Edwards wouldn't be the greatest rugby player ever, it would be Dan Carter.

When does this period of evolution in sport start and stop for you? I made the point about Garrincha because I assumed you would of held the same views, but then you came back with 'He wasn't playing in the 30's'. I know he wasn't, so does the evolutionally period of football happen for you in the 30's and then just stop? Is that the same for boxing? At what point did the sport stop transcending in your opinion?

 

Absoluite bollocks. Pure speculation not backed with fact at all.

 

I used to slag off 'old timers' left right and centre funnily enough, say they were just 'tough men'.

I now have Greb as no.1 :deal

I reckon the antagonist in this thread is about 12 years old.

 

That no technique having robot wouldn't even be able to hurt me, it would have zero to no effect on me.

 

Sure pal.

get back to jerking off over your, ahem, pornos (Terry Norris/Ayala DVD's):deal

 

I'm not a Tony Ayala fan you clown. I guess you like stiff robotic no technique having fighters, whatever suits you I guess you **** sucker.

 

Dempsey was fluid at times. I like having the ability to see, something you clowns obviously don't have if you think you could take Dempsey in a fight.

 

To those who say Dempsey and his era, were primitive to todays "modern techniques", whose fighters box an average 40 or so bouts in a CAREER,as opposed to 100 or MORE.fights the Dempsey era, and Louis eras had, I say to those doubters of "experience improves,fighters" that since the 1920s, FAR MORE techniques have been FORGOTTEN, because of greatly less boxing matches, and mostly part time TRAINERS,TEACHING today ,then NEW inventive skills, seen today...If I work the internet,for 1000 hours, I will be vastly more accomplished than i would be with 100 or so hours....Thus, so with boxing....

 

Amen.

And that doesn't even take into account all the lost fights that the old-timers had. As an example, Jack Dempsey said he had over 100 early professional fights of which no records exist.

 

Benny, you'd beat the **** out of Jack Dempsey ? In a street fight or the ring ?

Interesting ..

 

Every sport has a period of huge evolution, then it hits it's limits and a period of slow evolution starts. That's way some fighters/players of some eras are more competitive in today's game.

For football the break point would be the 70's Ajax, Bayern and Liverpool. Those teams and their players (like Cruyff) changed the game to what it is today.

For HW boxing it would be Sonny Liston. Look at the size of HW champs before and after him.

 

Thats not true, foreman was hitting the weights in the 90s

 

If hes as good as aprime Mike Sprott he could well outbox and bet up Dempsey

 

Jim Jeffries was as big as Sonny Liston and there were fighters in the bareknuckle era who were even bigger.

I personaly think that the boxers of the early 20th century were much better pure athletes than those of today because of the rules they fought under.

There were lightweights at the turn of the century who could match modern punch stats over the course of a 45 round fight.

Look at the training regimes of these fighters and compare them to a modern fighter and you will see that the modern fighter would not have a chance against them in an all round athletic contest like "the champions"

If Jim Jeffries had been in the same episode of "the champions" as Joe Frazier he would have embarased him.