Head To Head Comaprisons - Please Clarify

Actually that is an EXCELLENT point and may well contain the answer...fighting experience and how often they fought would be a huge factor.

 

I never mentioned anything about nutrition.

It is this very simple fact:

Style A was prevalent in the 20's and 30's until people worked out that by switching to style B you could consistently beat style A...so style B then prevails for a time until people realise that with some modifcations style C will always beat style B...so of course the game of boxing evolves and matures and everyone has to fight to the new style otherwise they dont keep up and are stylistically ound to lose...it is a natural evolution of the sport (or any sport).

So dont worry classic afficionados, I am not saying Joe Louis or Rocky Marciano or Harry Greb or Battling Nelson or any on those guys are any less a legend than they are...but what I am definitely saying is that in a "time machine" head to head comparison those guys are destined to lose stylistically.

It was really the question I was asking....surely when you think head to head you are must be thinking of that old time fighter in todays world?? Surely you need to "adjust for inflation" as it were??

As I said I believe styles can only evolve so far and that styles pretty much leveled out in the late 1960's...I mean just look at Clay/Liston?? That was a passing of the torch from old style to new style and Clay was absolutely all over him in the first fight.

I am 42 and grew up on a diet of Hagler, Hearns, Sanchez, Duran, Holmes, Whittaker and the rest and yearn for those days again..when top guys fought top guys.

The fighting once a month argument could equally go both ways..loads more experience and more battle hardened but would take its toll...obviously the other extreme of fighting once a year is no good either.

 

How so??

 

Clay you fool