Denis Lebedev V Schmeling,Sharkey and Baer?

Does he get his modern trainers and camps in the time machine?

If not, he probably loses muscle mass fighting in the 1930s, for starters. And that isn't even (just) a steroids and supplements issue, but a coaching and training style issue. Mackie Shilstone hasn't even been born yet. Periodization and all the other Eastern Bloc training advances are decades in the future.

Worse, Lebedev probably will not be able to regularly afford good training camps unless he's a top prospect or better. He will have to fight more frequently. His style may need to adapt to put in workmanlike efforts over and over again, like Jersey Joe Walcott or Ezzard Charles learned to do. He won't exactly have much high quality film of his opponents to study, either.

Oh, and if it's the Depression, he might not be able to afford good food regularly. And he's got a lot of competition.

Does Lebedev have a family? If so, he'll have to support them, too.

Well, at least it's not the 1890s, where he'd get arrested for boxing in public.

 

Gassiev is no Corn Griffin. No way, no how.

 

The bigger problem I see here for Lebedev is that exactly the same problems that you emphasize for old-timers will affect him now, too.

Baer, Schmeling, Louis, Braddock, Sharkey, heck, even Carnera showed that they could overcome the problems that Depression-era American life threw their way. This kind of stuff usually doesn't come up in most threads, but it might here because of the way the OP has presented the question.

If the 1930s fighters truly did suck, then Lebedev is going to suck too, for the same reasons.

 

All those are pertinent things to consider, but past a certain point you just have to take the fighter as they are, else any permutation of events can be envisioned to suit one's narrative. The likelihood is that Lebedev under Soviet rule would have never become a boxer in the first place, and would certainly have never fought in the West, so the whole question becomes even more academic than it is.

Better to simply match him up as he is, warts and all.

 

I agree. The way the question was asked made it ambiguous though.

 

Gassiev does show some lazy traits, I'll agree with you there. He also tends to blow up between camps, which is never a good sign for longevity, especially with young fighters. We'll see how he pans out. Right now, though, I think we can see enough to conclude that he's a very naturally talented fighter with a lot of ringcraft for a guy with so little experience. Huck has twice as many fights as him and still fights like a caveman, so it's not just about fights under your belt but what you learn from those fights.

His performance against Usyk was a little disappointing past the opening few rounds where he was very much holding his own. That could be down to inexperience or it could be down to Usyk's getting the measure of Gassiev and not letting him get into the fight, the way he's done to so many others. It's impossible to tell without more data. Gassiev could turn out to be an Abraham type that shuts down when boxed at range, or he could turn out to be a very good fighter who was simply outfoxed by a brilliant one. The more we see of both men the more we'll know.

I have to disagree with your assertion of Usyk's holding back. I think the more obvious conclusion to draw is that he didn't KO Gassiev because Gassiev has a good defence and Usyk doesn't hit that hard.

At worst I'd put Dorticos around the same level as Makabu, who knocked Bellew down and gave him a decent, albeit quick, fight. At best I'd put him a level above that, given his slightly better resume (Kuds and Kalenga vs Mchunu and an ancient Glen Johnson), as well as his superior Cuban amateur background. Regardless, both fighters would give it their all, and who wouldn't want to see that?

It sounds like you're saying Gassiev has the stronger resume to me.

No, he's reckless and prone to getting knocked down by bangers, or easily outboxed by faster and slicker opponents than himself (Chilemba, Stevenson). Guess which mould Usyk falls into?

Whatever age he was, Abdoul proved he had one of those rock solid chins that just doesn't crack. It's just a silly point to make to say that Gassiev couldn't even knock him out, which is what I was highlighting.

 

It does sound a bit like that, I grant you, though I think the OP simply meant taking Lebedev as he is.

 

Here's a couple of HL vids of Lebedev in action. Can anyone seriously tell me he'd do worse than the sloppy Braddock vs the even sloppier Baer?

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

You've got more faith in the ability of people who've never sparred a southpaw counterpuncher in their lives to figure one out and outclass one on the spot than I do.

That kind of fighter literally wasn't allowed to exist in the division in that era. They were all converted to orthodox.

 

Some great posting here from @It's Ovah

Lebedev I think is an ATG in his own right. He was victim of boxing politics and disgraceful ducking for a good portion of his prime(otherwise he'd have a better resume and probably would have unified). But there's no question that he was the most proven guy of the last 10 years or so before Usyk came along. The only guy who really has a chance against him is Drozd. He was tough and probably a better boxing than those guys. Of the 3 I'd give Schmeling the best shot. Baer was just too crude and probably gets lit up pretty badly and stopped late.

 

Well there was LHW Champ Bettina and after sparring him Louis stated he would never fight a southpaw.

 

Thanks mate.

Lebedev strikes me as a fighter who came along far too late for people to appreciate him the way he deserved. Had he fought in an earlier era, preferably at HW in the US, in a climate that would have seen him against the best of his division, I think we would be talking about him now in far more reverent terms.

As it stands we have to rate him on his merits alone, and that can be hard when so much of a fighter's greatness is tied up in the narrative woven around them.

 

That's a big question mark surrounding fighters from that era, to what extent they'd struggle against lefties and how that might skew their chances. Are there any accounts of credible southpaw fighting at world level in those days? Were they merely avoided, or were they simply not trained to fight that way more often than not?

 

Besides Bettina, there were actually several southpaw champions "back in the day":

Tiger Flowers
Al McCoy
Freddie Miller
Johnny Wilson
Georges Nichols
Lou Brouillard
Jimmy Carruthers
Young Corbett III
Jackie Patterson

 

Great post.

I have no doubt that in a time machine Lebedev would’ve been one of Louis’ best challengers.