Ali COULD have beaten any HW in history, even on their best day. Why would they have to have had a bad day?
Absolute nonsense. You can't make a generalisation like that. 1967 was 50 years ago. Are you telling me that Ali and Liston couldn't have beaten anyone from today's top 10?
The only reality is: Styles make fights, and skills can overcome size. What do you mean today's HW's would crush the old timers? Regarding AJ, which eras are you referring to?
Not all. But a lot of them do. For all the advancements in sports science etc, the majority of today's guys would struggle if 15 round fights were reintroduced.
That would be horrific. The last thing boxing needs is another division with another 5 belts to fight for. How many SHW's are they? They could look at changing the limit for CW and HW.
Fergy, Joe Louis wasn't Superman. But he was big enough and good enough to beat some modern HW's. Again, skill can overcome size. An exceptional big man like Lennox, who possessed a height advantage, and huge advantages in reach and weight, would probably have been a bridge too far. But that's because he also possessed great ability to go hand in hand with his physical advantages. I don't like how a lot of people on here are generalising. If you want to discuss Louis in fantasy fights with modern guys, you have to an*lyse each opponent as well as their styles. You can't just assume it's a given he'd have lost due to size and strength. I'm certain that Joe would have had a good chance of beating Deontay Wilder.
Stop exaggerating. Of course weight can matter, especially with a unique talent like Mike. Mike was a freak of nature. But Mike wouldn't have beaten Oscar just on weight alone. It would also have been due to the unique speed, skills and power that he possessed. That's a silly example. Mike himself regularly beat much bigger fighters than himself. I've never heard anyone say that fighters from 100 years ago are as skilful as modern HW's. Again, I think you've exaggerated. What the guys on the classic are saying, is: skills can often overcome size. Size alone doesn't win fights. It's based on the ability of the fighters and their styles. It's not a given that a bigger HW will always beat a small HW. It has to be looked at case by case.
Both sides are generalizing way too much. Skills matter. You cant arbitrarily decide modern guys win simply because of size then when people bring up buddy baer/carnera/etc whine and say "modern guys are more skilled". Its dishonest. Size matters You cant ignore how fighters like Hearns and Holmes dominated with their ridiculous reach over guys who were on average smaller with a shorter wingspan. Or how the K bros dominated for a decade with limited natural talent and p4p skill. You have to look at each case. Each generation had its own unique stable of fighters with different trainers, nutrition, and equipment. I will also say fitness and cardio matters. I dont care if you're 260 lbs of solid muscle with an 8 pack and hit like sonny liston. If you gass out after 3 rounds you arent going to beat Larry Holmes. Period. As for punch resistence and weight, lol. Some guys are harder to k.o because they just turtle up or are just trying to survive. Everyones chin is different and there are too many factors that go into taking a punch, like timing, leverage, speed, accuracy, being off balance, endurance, and if you saw the punch coming, etc. All of which have absolutely nothing to do with size alone.
Imagine Parker from the Ruiz fight against Sonny Liston. It'd be so one-sided Parker would probably lose years from his prime.
Saying older heavyweights are more skilled than modern heavyweights is a meaningless statement unless it can be quantified in some way. Skill isn't just something that exists as an independent variable like height, weight, speed etc. It's a dynamic set of applied techniques and strategies that's constantly shifting to suit its environment. A fighter like Wlad might lack infighting ability but then he's never had to use it. Bodywork doesn't play as big a part in today's division for a whole host of reasons (larger gloves, fewer rounds, judges' and refs' proclivities). It's pertinent to claim that less focus is put on technique nowadays as fighters are so big and powerful that they can get away with less than perfect technique, but that doesn't mean they're any less capable of winning. They simply devote their energies to different pursuits (strength building, explosiveness etc).
I don't follow heavyweight since around Vitaly retire. Just watched fury highlights on YouTube. All I see is fury beating a bunch of no hoper peter mcneely types. And they are all smaller. I don't see a massive increase in heavyweight size as everybody here proclaimed. Show me a naturally big heavyweights of modern era beside Lennox, the kilts brothers and fury.
