Greats of the past vs bigger modern fighters

A huge factor is the style of the former champion and their physical attributes .. just like some of the larger men may not be as good pound for pound but match up well against smaller men, some of the smaller guys may have reach, defense , speed ect that would allow them to compete in cases where other smaller men who might beat them directly could not .. To me speed, power and reach give some a better shot than others who dominated thru power and strength ..

 

I prefer to only judge fighters against their peers and their accomplishments in their own era. Especially when doing all time polls. I do believe in the evolution of athletes, they are bigger, faster and stronger today than ever before with a skill set not seen on men their size in years past. I do believe an all time great fighter like Dempsey and Louis could beat them but on a whole would be at a distinct disadvantage against today's super heavyweights.

 

Floyd Patterson would be on an equal footing with today's giants.
They could knock him down just like the old guys did.

 

And did not rely on physical strength as much as speed and power .. Both Dempsey and Louis showed the power to flatten giants ... they have a better shot of landing than a Rocky who had to bull in ... In my opinion they simply match up better ..

 

Right on. You need the right toolset to overcome size disparity. Speed and power is the best start.

 

Therein lies the answer. A guy who weighs 235 - 250 who can throw a fast jab, right hand with the same accuracy and speed of an old timer, obviously has a huge advantage over a guy 40 - 50lbs lighter.

 

No Foxy because if you a boxer from the 1930s you could be 5'9 and weigh 170 pounds and only fight fighters who weigh 170 pounds that means you can beat 6'5 240 pound guys.

Weigh classes are only for show. Pernell Whitaker could out boxer either Klistchko and even knock out Wlad. If Corrie Sanders could do it then clearly that means Whitaker the more skilled boxer could even though he was naturally 100 pounds smaller.

It is all about skill and you being born back in the day. That is what makes a champion.

 

Some peoples ignorant trouble children,,,,

 

:good

Its true I see Whitaker throwing a compact, quick haymayker on Wlad's head in the late rounds, knocking him out.

 

Harry Greb beat Heavyweights. Speed/skill kills.

I watched Wladimir vs Povetkin and Wlad simply wrestled with and leaned down on his smaller opponent. Neither one of them hard much skill. Povetkin was slow and not clever at all. I could not imagine Wlad in with Tyson who would come in slipping and hooking just like Frazier with fastest hands, highest workrate and deeper desire to win. Wlad would be fighting for his life with only his heavyweight as an advantage. For me that is not enough.

 

Wlad would be fighting for his life with only his heavyweight as an advantage. For me that is not enough.

also HEIGHT and that is the main point. sure some HW's fought the rare & odd giant, BUT todays giants aren't 6'3" - 6'5", there 6'5" - 6'9"...

even if these giants are not as good their going to win more times than not, this is why we need S-HW based solely on Size. a division with a height attached to it. as I've said numerous times before over 6'4" and over 225 or 230lbs.

 

So are you claiming that because 2 guys both 6' 2" tall with 82" reaches both 230lb plus KO'd Lewis, Harry Greb, and Marciano would have?

Furthermore Povetkin is 6' 2" and weighed in at 225, to Klitchko's 241. I remember clearly the 6' 3" Douglas with his 83" reach punching the 5' 11" Tyson, at will and for fun, yet you seem to convince yourself the 6' 6" Klitchko with his 86" reach would struggle with him.

Wierd.