Holyfield on Joe Louis

Walcott was hot and cold though... he had losses in every stage of his career... not just past prime, not just pre-prime, etc.

Walcott was very good at his best... but when in the hell was that?

beat Holyfield? nope!

 

I'd see a few from this era beating all those men, minus Robinson who was special

 

I don't think theres many sports where knowledgable fans would pick sportsmen from the 1930s over their modern counterparts.

 

ezzard charles vs. chad dawson=
archie moore vs. tavoris cloud=
henry armstrong vs. JMM=
LaMotta vs. Martinez=
sandy saddler vs. jml or gamboa=

etc etc

 

If were doing it by the best of the decade how about:

How about:

Armstrong-Mayweather/Pacquaio
Saddler-Pac/MAB/Morales/Guzman and yes Gamboa might well have beaten the limited Saddler too
Moore/Charles-Jones
Lamotta-Hopkins - I see Martinez giving Lamotta all types of problems too

 

so you're telling me than joan guzman and gamboa who looked like **** against orlando salido would get the better of a guy who was complete enough to beat willie pep

and that manny pacquiao who lost to a past prime morales and realistically dropped decisions to marquez is going to beat a guy who held reign over 22 pounds of boxing at one time? or mayweather, who arguably lost to a far far far inferior pressure fighter in castillo is going to beat the GOAT swarmer of those weight classes? or arguably of all time

well alright then

 

True. But then only very few sports have as many dimensions as boxing has.

 

Well, MMA has clearly many more dimensions.

Otherwise, tennis would probably be comparable. In football you can niche yourself, but on the other hand the competition is much, much, much harder. No weight classes and many more practitioners.

 

Soccer !!

 

Perhaps, but I wonder if Holyfield would enthusiasicaly acknowledge that the best heavyweights of today would have defeated him in his prime, as the best track runners of today would have done to the best of 20 years ago?

One part of the problem is that verry few boxing observers employ the "progress of the sport argument" either consistently or sincerely.

It is the oldest argument in boxing by the way. I could drag up articles where people pasionately argue that Jeffries would have beaten Sullivan as surely as modern armies would have beaten those of Alexander the great!

 

I dont think there is ANY sport where the athletes of the 30s benefit from PEDs. Anyone who diminishes the impact that PEDs have had on sports, ALL SPORTS, is living in a fantasy land and probably believes that human evolution can occur in a lifetime or two. :-(

 

If Owens had access to the same "special vitamins" that modern Olympians take with impunity, I don't see why he couldn't make the squad.