Give a guy like Jack Dempsey the modern training, nutrition, supplementation, hGH, anabolic steroids, etc. that guys today have access to and are using and he would be 220 pounds with sick speed and power. All with Head movement to boot. He would be deadly.
I agree with all of your picks. Good to see Fitz as the only 2 division champion, though i think if he wins those two divisions, he is certain to also win the middle title. And i think Langford might settle as a cruiserweight or light heavy, though could also see him winning a heavy title. Also, Dempsey would be a definite cruiser champ, probably following a Haye style reign with the difference being that i think he has a better chance against the klitchskos. Is that really Jack Johnson you listed as a cruiserweight champion? I agree and think he would be a certainty.
I forgot Dempsey could be cruiser weight champ too. Ditto for Corbett, and Sharkey. Let's be honest, the Cruiser weight division never has much talent in it. I think Johnson is wildly over rated, but he could be one of the cruiser weight champs ( I say #1 today ) where his limited height, lack of reach, sometimes suspect chin, and merely solid power would not cost him as dearly as it would in the heavyweight division. That is if he didn't eat his way past 200 lbs. Johnson best filmed effort to me is vs. Burns when he was 192 pounds. When your game is quick hands, and defense, adding 15-20 pounds is not always a good thing.
i understand. i agree to an extent. however, physically humans are larger and faster than we were then (on average). to me this is shown clearly in various pure athletic challenges that have occurred through history (weight lifting, 100m speeds, etc.). records that get consistently broken to points where many runners can break into that sub-10.5s range. now, that does not specifically impact boxing exactly. but as a baseline for an athletic ability's advancement through years i do not think it can be ignored. in my eyes humans in general can be much more finely tuned physical specimens than in that era. and it is easier to do so. greater choices of healthy food, of which its intake can be monitored more precisely to support larger frames. much more access to knowledge about this sport and tactics to be used, their opponents tendencies, etc. i think if you take a top 6'6" athlete today and put him next to Willard you would see a noticeable difference in their base athleticism.
30 pounds. He had twigs for legs. Broad shoulders and developed back. He could hold 220 easy and still keep his speed. The guy was an athlete and way ahead of his time. What I said is not BS. Look at the guys skill set and frame. Don't even talk about Tyson who is barely even 5"10". Dempsey was a legit 6'1" and lean. I know what I am talking about here.
It's little bit unjustful. Old timers fought on the rules of their time. They were ready for 20 rounds, and extra muscles don't help your stamina. Also they often had no decision fights. How would today boxers fought if they knew that going the distance won't cost them L? Fighting once-twice per year gives popular fighters good money. Old timers had to fought more to full their table. Totally different approach. I think that skilled fighters like Dempsey, Tunney, Langford, Gans, Jack Johnson, Tommy Gibbons, Fitz and some more like Billy Miske would do very well in any era. But big hitting fighters of that that period would have some difficult time there.
I agree. Weight is an asset as long as it is not fat, and does not take away speed, flexibility, and stamina. Adding 40 to Dempsey would be too much, but 20 would be OK. Remember Ali and Holmes at their best were about 209-215. I could see Dempsey at 210 today.
look at the record books man. Day jobs! shut the **** up ! they fought all the time compared to two or three times a year nowadays. And this juvenile idea that the bigger the muscle and body beautiful the better the fighter is dead wrong. weightlifting is the LAST thing you want. you need long smooth muscles like the men of old the bulging muscles don't hit as hard and tire quicker. You're a bunch of ****ing moronic kids talking **** about what you don't even know about. those guys had moves you never see anymore. I love when some imbecile says he is tottallly naive about an era in sports and then begins to comment on the era. Boxing is in bad shape kids, because they DON'T train as they use to and learn their skills all arounsd. tyhey all try to look like mini Holyfields and aren't worth a **** over a long career. You can't even compare a guy like Bradley to a Benny Leonard or a canzonari. And if you have no idea how highly Leonard was thought of (HE was considered the best EVER by his peers and sportwriters, even those who saw Sugar Ray Robinson) then maybe you better read up on the history of the sport before you go spouting about fighters of today vs. yesteryear.:fy
There have always been big heavyweights in boxing, it's just that we have a couple of exceptional ones around today. Without them it would be much the same as usual, the smaller ones outspeeding the biggers ones for the most part. This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected This content is protected