Jack Johnson in the current HW division.

Is there any sport on earth where it would be seriously considered that an athlete from 80 - 100 years ago could compete today? Other than pure strength feats, which were amazing back then (the mighty Atom for example), any sport involving technical skill has improved. Even in the Joe Louis era, HW's had virtually now footwork compared to the more proficient HW's later.

 

Wlad and Vitali ARE very fast. Valuev not really, he was just too big. Boxers like the Klitschkos have to be fast with fast reflexes otherwise they would get caught in almost every fight like Wlad did in the Sanders fight. Haye would have landed almost every punch against Wlad with his speed if Wlad was that slow. Of course, as in every other sport athletes not only got stronger and taller over the decades, they got also faster. And boxing is NO exception, why can't people accept it?

A comparison between today's and past champions will always be an assumption and should not be taken seriously at all. Of course it is more likely that a Lewis, Wlad, or Vitali would beat the past champs rather than the other way around, but I cannot be 100% sure unless I saw them fighting in the ring.

 

is there something under your spacebar which is stopping u from using it?

anyway, on topic, the technique from 100 years ago is awful. only in the classic forum would people think that jack johnson could mix it up today

 

Whilst I think Johnson would have to make changes to his style to suit modern boxing, it is worth noting that Vitali has a classic style, similar to many pre-Tunney heavyweights. He leans backwards, doesn't have the high guard and keeps his feet wide apart. That's why Vitali would have few issues adapting to boxing 100 years ago unlike his brother, he'd be out of his depth and would get blown away by much smaller fighters.

Johnson with a few adaptations could be have as modern a as Vitali does, without question.

The only other issue is size but Johnson wouldn't be small by todays standards. Corrie Sanders knocked out Wlad and he's not much bigger than Johnson was. Byrd beat Vitali and is probably smaller than Johnson.

So, yeah, to discount Johnson because he had a classic style or because he wouldn't be a 'Giant' today, is pretty ignorant.

 

It's not "awful". It's different but Johnson had far more technique than any modern heavyweight as far as pure ability goes.

And like I said, Vitali has a very classical style. If he is able to avoid getting hit, why couldn't Johnson who was far better defensively?

 

I like that quote, it's sheer nonsensical of course. Tell me, those Stanley Mattews have far more technique than a modern great like Messi as far as pure ability goes?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-mmT6dlCnY&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-mmT6dlCnY&feature=related[/ame]

Vitali's lean backwards style works for him today because he's 6'7 plus with far better footwork and lateral movement than Johnson ever had, even though Vitali's footwork isn't one of his stronger points.

 

It's a well known fact that bakers in 1752 were excellent. They produced perfect bread, day in, day out. Undeniable proof that nothing in the world has change. In fact, we're all worse than we were 100's of years ago.

"Far better footwork and lateral movement".

Laughable.

I genuinely don't think you've ever watched Jack Johnson fight.

 

There's nothing where you're pointing.

 

That's not me, mate, it's the legendary Argentinian Carlos Monzon, the former middleweight champion of the world and a genuine all-time great. Every boxing fan should know that!

Stick around on ESB though and you'll learn who people like Monzon are in a few years. For now though, I recommend you look up a guy called "Joe Louis". He was a nifty fighter too but you might not be aware of him either.

 

This is correct. I honestly think people have only seen clips of fighters back then and make a judgement. I mean, i was talking with one guy before on this thread who claimed Povetkin was better than both Johnson and Langford, yet in another thread he said

 

:good

 

I think people should spend a bit of time researching who these fighters are and why they're considered greats. If someone wants to rate Johnson fairly low, that's fine, but at least come to a conclusion why after watching him fight and spending time analyzing his record. For what it's worth, I also think Johnson is overrated because he was historically important but that's not to say he wasn't a great fighter. He was a great, without question, and he had sublime skills. To simply discount him because he was from a different era and he may not be considered big now, is short sighted to say the least.

The guy in your avatar is another great and he, sadly, is another who doesn't get recognition from modern day fans who think everything can be answered by browsing BoxRec.

 

I was sure it was you, mate. Monzon has that English rocknrolla look down pat in that one, and that's not a compliment.

 

You are absolutely confused, how can you compare bread and sports?
This is as stupid and irrelevant as poster The President's claim that music hasn't become better today. Athletes are the same as bread and music? atsch You guys have no clue. And that nothing has changed is not true either, materials change, skills and methods change, technologies change, a lot of things improved until now, only the mentality and wisdom of people hasn't improved, just look at the politicians around the world.
I am hungry now, I will go and eat a slice of today's overrated bread.

 

100% agree! People look at incomplete boxrec records and make a judgement on a fighter saying 'he beat 200 bums'. Laughable statement. I have carried out extensive research on Mr Wilde, and he is my second favourite fighter of all time, behind duran. A true great of the sport. a master of defence who could bag with either hand.

From what i have read and seen, he hit like a welter!

He also claimed to have had over 800 fights (mst of which were 'phone booth fights'), winning more than 650. There is a fabulous interview with him which can be found by google-ing Jimmy Wilde BBC. It's only 8 minutes long, but offers great incite. Such a shame he was set upon by a gang of thugs!