Great boxers of yesteryear who would do f-all in the current era

After going 85-0 with 69 knockouts (most in the first round) as an amateur.

 

Assuming they aren't just plucked from the past, ie/ they have access to todays diets / supplements and training, I reckon a great would be at least a champion today.(plenty of belts about). Some would find it hard though I think in todays safety first culture. All history's bleeders and dirty brawlers run a stoppage risk and I suppose its no good being the best from round 13 on in a 12 round fight, so those who outlasted opponents may struggle.

my pick from champions I saw (not ATG's ) would be

Vito Autonfermo
Alan Minter

Its difficult as what made them great was ability to do the job whoever it was in front of them. I think it would rob us not of great fighters but great fights.

eg/ Marciano v Charles (split nose)
Frazier v Ali 3 ( one of them would have been stopped earlier )
Dempsey v Willard would be a quick blowout (other Dempsey fights too?)

With a three knockdown rule many great bouts and the fighters in them would be a little diminished these days.

 

What about poor Matthew Saad Muhammad!?

 

phuck yes, he would do good in this era. robinson would make mayweather look chinny.

 

I honestly think that any great fighter could be successful today.

The number of weight classes today, the number of titles within each weight class, and the level of competition you have to fight to get ranked would all stack the deck heavily in their favour.

 

Saad would drop every single second of every round right up until the point when he would knock Adonis Stevenson dead with a single right hand. :deal

 

Same here.

 

it really is hard to believe people can think such nonsense, especially naming fighters like SRR in among such ridiculous comparisons.

no matter how many times you point out that old **** film footage is not a true representation of how life was.

Did past people have trouble walking, working, running, playing or anything else? NO!

so why is it so hard for these people to think that fighting dozens and dozens of fights at the TOP doesn't prove or show superiority over lesser era's and fighters.

it is despairing forsure. :shock:

 

I can't think of any truly great boxers who'd have no success today. Even guys from the turn of the century without a lot of technique were often superb athletes if nothing else. The smaller Heavyweight champs could mostly be Cruiserweight champs today.

The only weak champs from the past who I don't think could hack it in today's game are Freddie Mills, Mike McTeague, and Battling Siki at light-heavyweight, Billy Soose at middleweight, and Virgil Akins, plus Don Jordan at Welterweight.

Also, the guy who thinks that Mayweather would beat Robinson is silly. Robinson could punch like a light heavyweight and would break Floyd like a cheap toy.

 

I agree; Floyd is up there with the best, and I favour the old timers i n general. Class is class.

 

NO oldtime Greats and TOP Contenders would struggle in this age, they're proven by their sheer volume of top level fights...

but send top men from today back to a fighting regime that saw you fight EVERY 3 - 5 weeks, spend 15 - 20 years in the ring and fight 'close' to your natural body weight and UP in the next division too.

BHop, by example, would be a L-HW and RJJ would have been a HW.., this IS the true accurate question, reverse it.

many of them wouldn't have made the history books at all!!!

 

First of all, they are two completely different fighters. Lamotta had good aggressive defense, and could find his way inside behind an excellent jab.

Alvarez fought Mayweather scared or threw the fight.