FWIW, I think there are probably tons of modern fighters who would have more knockouts (and losses) if they were willing to open up more and get into the high-action slugfests that were more common among their predecessors.
Were there really more high-action slugfests in the old days? Or do we just like to think there were - because what we today can study of the old-timers (say before WW2) on film, is only the best of the best? Not a whole lot of journeymen just going through the motions in boring matches. I think, that only being familiar (on film) with the top boxers, and the lack of footage of "normal", down-the-bill fights from the old days... may give us a false (or at least not complete) picture, of what the overall boxing scene actually looked like.
Fair points though I actually wasn't referring to the fighters of the distant past specifically. I'm over-generalizing but even if we just compare the top fighters of the past 20 years or so to the top fighters of the 1970s and 1980s, I think that there are some noticeable stylistic and strategic differences.
In the KOs record of the Great Middle Julian Jackson many opponents beaten by Wilder are missing and probably the same Wilder too
I thought Corrales-Castillo I was rather exciting. If we're talking pure non-stop action, Sithchatchaval-Monshipour will be hard to top. And just a couple of weeks ago, there was a pretty decent fight in Japan!
James "Bonecrusher" Smith. Late starter who never really developed the technique to set up his powerful punches. When he did land, it was usually big trouble for his opponents in upsets of Mike Weaver, Tim Witherspoon and undefeated Frank Bruno. Even in losing efforts against opponents like Marvis Frazier and Mike Tyson, he either dropped or stunned them when he caught them clean.
