We love to speculate about how well various fighters across eras would do. But there is a basic flaw in most all of the reasoning done when considering division competitions. The more modern guys have more advantages overall-sports science & technology, nutrition, access to the best training & the leusire to pursue it...Much greater population & more internation competition...This is before we consider the significant gain some get from PEDs being invented & stacking perfected. The advantages the old timers (or just up to the late 20th century) have are fewer, & come from hard work: more bouts, having to struggle & be tough to survive & succeed, etc. So it seems particularly unjust & senseless to ever compare men at a formalized weight: when for decades now due to de & rehydrating for day before weigh ins, guys routinely weigh near, or even over, 10% more than the division they are competing in! For example, it would be impressive enough if SRR was the greatest boxer ever at his prime weight: the mid 140's. That would be an absolutely incredible achievement-& he may well be. But how can anyone be good enough to be better than the greatest Welterweights ever-when for many years they come into the ring as at least as natural, &/or built up with modern training &/or drugs-Middleweights? And some at SMW-which would have been LHW in his day. Duran, good as he was, at lightweight we expect him to beat what effectevely are LMWs? Greb already fought guys any size who would fight him, but how can we compare a then MW, or at most 165 lbs., with guys who would really be HWs in his day, today Cruiserweights? Same thing for everyone else, especially multi-divisional ATGs greats like Armstrong. LHWs cannot be matched fairly with guys who actually are pushing 200 lbs. in the ring. Most people recognize that given the size of HWs for years, they are effectively a few divisions bigger than in the past. Thus a second tier but world class fighter since the 80's might defeat the best HWs of yesteryear. And remember after a certain point the returns on size & strength re: fighting capacity, though real, are diminishing. This effect is even stronger when considering the smaller guys, since due to proportions/percentages a few pounds makes a larger difference. You cannot muse about a Willie Pep, a featherweight, Bantamweight or below, without compensating for what they *really* weigh across eras. SO: Why should we EVER consider who is best all time by just referring to a named division? We should specify in-ring weight. So we would never be matching guys just by what was the title of their division. Do you agree? If so, don't you think we should stop referring only to the name of a division. & instead use an actual fight night WEIGHT? Or if using a title like MW, always specify it means IN RING weight? Otherwise, the comparisons are absurd & meaningless. For example, almost everyone has Hagler between #1 & at least top 5 a MW, right? But most realize he would not be likely to beat other GREAT fighters at LHW. But MWs today routinely are at least LHW, & many stray into the CW territory. Hagler, as he was at almost 160-besides that he did not have the frame to be be more than a bit better even in absolute terms if heavier... Would he even rate in the top 50 fighting just LHWs? Top 100? If so, let us always just use numbers "at 175", never divisions. Unless we always specify when the weigh in is/what the in fight actual weight is. Thoughts?
For me the flaw is Placing old fighters in the present, but refusing to place current fighters in the olden era. Example: With no PPV, No Closed Circuit, how does a money hungry Floyd make $$ unless he is fighting 10-20 times a year? And with no medicine, no IV bags, no hand injections, this dude loses often, damn the skills- his hands are pampered in this era, but all eras had guys with bad hands who fought thru the pain. Key word is (some) I think there is proof that many users never get to the belts let alone win one. Not sure I agree. Yesteryear it was somewhat common for a small guy to take on bigger guys. I learned here there were catchweight back then, but not abused or used for championship bouts. I think every division has several to choose from 1. guys who walk at the weight they fight at( Hagler, Hopkins, Mayweather, Pacqiao) 2. Guys as U stated who drain themselves, then blow up 24 hours later (Moorer, Hearns, McCellan, Canelo) 3. Guys who can't control their weight due to lack of discipline (Hatton, Kirkland, Toney) Though I admit, I'm not sure of your position/question on comparing at a 'formalized' weight. In theory I agree, technically speaking Roy Jones Jr did it. never made HW., though he fought at it & won. Again, I agree in theory, but technically speaking every era of HWs there has been a smaller guy who pummeled his larger foe regardless if he was outweighed by 20,30,40lbs more. I thought that was where the term P4P comes into play. Seeing a fighter's skill set regardless of what they weigh. I think I understand your point. A guy campaigning as a LHW, might in fact not be one on fight night., rather a CW. So in effect the guy who won, weighed 175 the day before, but came in at 188, so he couldn't be called the best at 175, if he won weighing that of a cruiser. Here's is my take. If a guy fights for 175 title, wins, but came in at 171, how do we rate him? he didn't win weighing the limit he came under, so rather than say he was the baddest 171 beating a 175, the term LHW specifies the range one can compete before a different division needs to be considered campaigning at. If that wasn't your point, my bad!!!
If he is just a little under the limit -& most all guys compete close to the top of their division (HW an exception, no limit there, but they have gotten bigger)-then we can fairly compare a 171 lb. fighter with others who are a max of 175. Mainly I would like to know what you think about what I am arguing. That it is completely unfair & senseless to compare fighters head to head by the name of any division. When these guys are typically at least 10, 15, even a good 20 lbs. heavier in the ring. I saw Crawford win at what is supposed to be 140, when he was actually a MW (157) in the ring. Considering him head to head across history, he should be compared to MWs, not light WW. So if we try to consider who is the greatest MW ever... We should at least specify whether same day (weight), or with rehydraton? So IF it is the former, you/we should not *consider* guys who are actually at least 2 dvisions heavier, at LHW! If it is the latter, then you/we should consider say Sugar Ray not as a Welterweight against guys from today... But against *at most* a Lightweight-because these champs normally weigh not less than the mid 140's that SRR fought at! Otherwise, using the mere category of a division across eras is not reflecting their actual sizes! Unless it is cheating/PEDs, I would not deny all the advantages modern guys have when considering who is better. Because that is establishing who is better, even though some people have more than genetic advantages. But it is completely bogus to expect an accurate perspective on greatness if the dudes are actually not effectively, + for all practical purposes, in the same weight division!
Unfairness in weight disparity is what I think you are making a point on. To which I agree it is unfair, but it won't change. LMAO! Reading this, Gman vs Jackson comes to mind. Post fight 2 I know Jackson didn't want to sound like he was complaining when he said "Gerald is a REALLY BIG middleweight" Yeah, he came in weighing close to 180, that is unfair, wrong and about as dangerous as fighting someone who uses PED. That much of a weight gain overnight if I had my way would be illegal. Fight at the weight you walk around or leave the game, don't come with hydration blah-blah. @ 6:20 into the clip is when the commentators stated Gman had to run again to make weight 1/2 pound over. But tonight. Here is what I (think) is your point. Gman TONIGHT IS WEIGHING CLOSER TO 180LBS. This content is protected I think this is the only part where we disagree. It seems you are using examples of weight gain working to their advantage as opposed to weighing (metaphorically speaking) those who come in under, but can still thrash a dude. Last example-Margarito gains 20lbs, & got about 18 of them whooped off him by Pac. I say keep the title, name or division, but enforce same day weigh in. Why? To ensure fighters are competing at their walk around weight, not that best advantage weight. That way if a fighter weighing 171 beats the guy weighing 175, they are competing in a division where the weight limit is established based on same day weigh ins. Again, like you, I'm offering opinions. I agree with your topic (it's unfair), but disagree with how to resolve it.
You are mistaking my argument Trammel. I am not arguing to change the name of any divisions. I agree with you on same day weigh ins actually. It is just a completely different point than I am making. First, sure some smaller guys beat bigger ones. But that does not dent my point that, all other things being equal, size helps. And I am considering ATGs in particular. And I am not talking about how to handle divisions now, but your solution is what I have in mind too. Again, I am talking about comparing the very best boxers throughout history. So while say a Monzon or Hagler or even SRR could be argued as the GOAT there... Nobody would seriously say any of them would be the GOAT at LHW. Especially if they did not move up in weight! Yet we routinely expect these guys to be better, or even considered against/H2H, later fighters that are often effectively LHW. Sometimes even CW. While even IF say a Monzon is greaterP4P than anyone who *fought* at MW in the decades after him... He would not be as good, in an absolute sense, as some MWs who were much bigger in the ring! And on the other side, weight drain & rehydrate these legends to so,pete at least 2 divisions lower than there natural one... They would seem even greater. I am talking about academic comparisons across eras man. And that we must use specific fight night weights to effectively & fairly compare folks.
The assumption always is they would enter the ring at the same/similar weight concerning the lower weight divisions (below hwt) We are comparing skills/styles not weight. Hwt is different as weight is unlimited.
You’re a definitely smart guy, but aside from PED’s I take issue with every single supposed modern advantage you listed. First, there are no advantages brought about by sports science and technology. Literally none. This often sounds absurd to people who hear it for the first time, but there is no dedicated, rigorous branch of science that studies how to make athlete perform better - it just doesn’t exist - and nutritional science is aimed almost exclusively at exploring questions of health and longevity. Moreover, most of what science has come to understand about nutrition takes place at the cellular level, and this has lead to few if any solid practical recommendations as to what people should actually eat, in large part because it’s it’s extremely difficult - I’d say in most cases pretty much impossible- to do population studies free of confounders. For now I’m agnostic on the question of talent pools, and as for the question of day-before weigh-ins this is just a convention, like the standing eight count, and we can just choose apply it or not in hypothetical matchups. In any event I don’t think “modern hydration techniques” are of much relevance. Electrolytes have been known about for quite a long time. For my part, what I usually have in mind in these matchups is a hybrid rule set and equipment, in which each fighter, modern and old, gets six months to a year to spar and adjust to the new environment.
In watching that clip I notice two things, admittedly of very little evidential consequence but worth mentioning: 1) I’d never noticed how much of a facial resemblance McClellan bears to Harold Johnson 2) He looks (to me) distinctly less muscular than Johnson did at light heavyweight.
