How would pre-1920 fighters do today?

As in if they walked into the ring with the training that they had vs a pro with todays training. if that were the case they don't survive by any means. they would be embarrased , no disrespect.

 

They wouldn't stand a chance.

 

they would do just fine, the argument goes the modern style is too advanced. who's to say the modern style doesn't compensate for the older style?

 

just getting into the ring at their age if any of them are still alive is a success, but if they do get there against the softies of today. KAYO BABY. they would beat today's pussies senseless. the today fighters vs. the 29s fighter know as much about fighting compared to the oldies, as Ramon knows about ****in. now suckin, ramon wins handsdown

 

They'd excel. Thinking about their skills allied to modern nutrition and training. An awewsome thought.

 

given all benefits of modern tech and style advancement, i think they would do just fine.

but if you had a time machine and plucked them up and dropped them in today 'as they are'. with guys 6'4"+ that can fight like a smaller fighter back then in terms of agility and speed, i think they are in for some hurt.

let them grow up in today's world of boxing and they would be great still.

 

I am very interested in this comment, as i actually think the training is the only/main basis for suggesting they can compete.

What parts of training do you think it is that modern boxers excel at. Other than the obvious new emphasis on weight lifting (even at lower weights from what i can gather). But what other exercises are done that is so different. If anything, i would have thought that training and dedication to training had digressed. Certainly modern boxers dont train harder than the old boxers because that would be impossible since there simply isnt enough hours in the day.

So, what is it about the training that gives the advantage, in your oppinion?

 

Poli,
Can i just ask, do you really think that todays behemoth's have the speed to compare with the smaller older time fighters? I just dont see it. Watching on film, I dont see it. The old time fighters are like watching a fast forwarded modern heavyweight fight. Although that is understandable because they probably were fast forwarded for some of it. But, even if you look back to say the 70s where film was identical, todays fighters just look so slow, when compared. Of course, i am sure that they now hit very hard, but agility and speed is not the advantage they would have over the older fighters.

Also, i am not sure what you mean by modern tech. Tech is basically just pampering, which historically is not a good thing for a boxer. The only real tech advantage i can think of is steroids, which isnt allowed today anyway.

Obviously adopting to the rule set and conditions is a big factor, particularly the stricter clinching rules and softer gloves.

 

i should have phrased it better perhaps. English is not my first language, apologies. what i mean is that i think fighters today on average are much larger stronger and faster, and a 6'4"+ fighter today is much more athletic than most from past in my opinion. having to deal with someone who can be competent in the ring, yet still tower over you. no longer are 6'4"+ always slow uncoordinated giants, as they were often in other past eras.

i think with regards to athletics, there is a significant gap between modern vs past. i am talking pre-20s not 70s.

and by tech i mean is medical (legal), nutrition, and health aspects in order to keep a fighter at peak physical condition.

i think past fighters (Sam Langford, etc.) would do great if brought up in this era. but i think if you just dropped one in via time machine, it may not be a good sight. that is just how i see it. :conf

 

Let me see, all around training . Do you think that the guys of the 20s era did the things that modern era fighters do?
Did they have the equipment and advancements . I don't think these guys got to focus full time on boxing as they probably worked regular jobs. Correct me if Im wrong. I do think that fighters of today have the advantage of studying film of their opposistion against several different people. Weight training, different conditioning programs, legal supplements. I know that a legit contender does nothing but eat sleep and **** boxing. I am completly naive though about the era that you speak of though. But if you pluck them out of their time and match them up I don't think that they would last against modern era fighters.
To me from what I see when I watch those old fights , it seemed like all they did was brawl and beat the **** out of each other.Practically nothing but toe to toe I hit you , you hit me back till one of us can't take it anymore. Were there many technicians? Like I said , I am naive about this era so please educate me on what you feel.

 

I thought you phrased it fine. I was just querying a few things, which are the commonly held belief.

For example, I dont think that todays giants can be described as fast (and this is my main point). Even coordinated is a big call. The thing is that every fighter today is large (and in reality slow and uncoordinated). Just Like Willard, Carnera, Trammel, Hein Ten hoff, etc. But when these two big guys face each other it isnt as obvious because their opponent doesnt have the fancy moves and speed to show the other up. Now if todays guys had to face guys like say Roy Jones Jr, they would be shown up as large and uncoordinated guys just like Ruiz was. Of course the flip side is that when the little guy is caught, he can be knocked cold more often.

You do make fair points though, it is just that i mostly query whether or not todays big guys are faster than yesterdays smaller guys.

 

Benny Leonard beats any of todays lightweights.
Harry Greb beats any of todays middleeights.


Thats the only two i pick and even Greb isnt with too much confidence.

 

I havent got time to expand at the moment. But very quickly, the old fighters (the good ones) were every bit as full time as todays fighters from what i understand. In fact, i have often in past that they were more dedicated to training than todays (or so it often seems) guys and i think this is a big part of why they could stand up, as opposed to runners, tennis players etc. In short i see the biggest differences being an emphasis on conditioning as opposed to todays emphasis on strength.

that is why i often ask the question about what advancements have been made in training as this emphasis is the only difference i see. Personally, i dont see it as a positive change, but i could be wrong.

Regarding conditioning, I dont know enough about the top guys, but it really does seem that the top guys to do have so many easy options such as walking into a shop and ordering steak and eggs with a side of juice or whatever, whereas the older guys pretty much cooked their own meat, and squeezed their fruit, meaning they were assured of having less preservatives etc. I know that knowlege has increased and some bad practices are no longer done, but for the old timers who didnt engage in the bad practices, I am not sure exactly what the advancements are. Of course this is my own lack of knowledge probably, which is why i ask what the advancements are, rather than just acknowledge they exist.

 

This is why I prefer to rate the man, and not the time line he boxed in. A good athlete in any century would likely pick up on new techniques. A puncher in any era is always going to be very dangerous.

I believe the following fighters pre 1920 would be at least an alphabet champion today.

Heavy: Jeffries, Dempsey, Langford
Cruiser: Tunney, Fitzsimmons, Johnson, Jeanette
Light Heavy: Tunney, Fitzsimmons
Middle: Greb, Clark, Dillon
Welter: ?
Light weight: Gans
Bantam: McGovern
Fly weight: Wilde