Look let's be realistic here. Wlad/Vitali/Lewis would dominate any era of HW boxing

Lewis was only about winning rounds against certain opponents though. He really is an extremely versatile boxer. Against Holyfield-Tua-Tucker he was about winning rounds and he did. Against Briggs-Bruno-Golota-Grant-Ruddock he was never about winning rounds, he was about breaking you down and taking you out.

If Lewis wanted to win 'rounds' against Prime Briggs he could have pulled a Vitali vs Shot Briggs and won 12 rounds of Boxing, he went toe to toe with Prime Briggs and knocked him down 4-5 times. Vitali hit Shot to **** Briggs 4000 times in the face and Briggs still had the strength to eat/****/**** THAN go to the hospital.

Lewis is more versatile than Wlad, Haye's Matrix stuff would have failed against another Slick and Black.

 

Haye would spark Lewis. He hits harder and cleaner than McCall or Rahman.

 

This is a great thread and deserves to stay at the center of the forums. Boxing fans need to understand that while nothing can take away the greatness and even superiority, in many ways, of the old timers, if we're just talking H2H, they get blown out by today's fighters. Look at the quantifiably measured sports, such as sprinting. They are vastly faster now than before. Those athletes have also generally increased in size (i.e. Usain Bolt). Boxing has seen the same type of size progression etc as the other sports with quantifiable higher performances, it would be irrational to think that despite all evidence to the contrary, the same rules don't apply to non quantifiable sports and that they wouldn't be able to dominate past boxers H2H.

For the record, my overall top 15 HW ranking is, in order, Ali Louis Marciano Dempsey Lewis VK Sullivan Holmes Johnson Foreman Tyson WK Frazier Tunney Jeffries, because I include in-era dominance and import to the sport and to history in my evaluation. If I just made it about H2H, it would be 1. LL/VK 2WK 3Tyson 4Holmes 5Ali 6 Foreman 7Bowe 8Holyfield. and I strongly suspect I'm being biased toward old timers and giving too much credit to them. In track and other quantifiable sports, all the top contenders are blowing past the record times of 30 years ago.

 

It should go without saying that the dominant fighter of one era would dominate another…

Provided you removed the fighter that actually dominated that era.

Otherwise, all bets are off.

 

If you have hung around enough in the Classic subforum, you know that the argument people make for why the rule of progress doesn't apply to boxing, is that they had it tougher in the old days so they were tougher and boxing is about toughness. More rounds, smaller gloves, you can hit the opponent as soon as he gets up etc.

There are threads where people argue on tens of pages about Lewis-Marciano and other such ridiculous match ups not acknowledging that like in other sports - physical parameters and technique of athletes improve in every generation. They can't seem to really imagine what it would be like when 180lbs Rocky would face Lennox freaking Lewis. It looks like it will stay this way too because like you said, boxing is not quantifiable.

 

Ali/Foreman definitely loses hard to Lewis (No doubt, even historians have it as such)

But they would stand a much better chance vs the K2 bros

It would be great bouts. But K2 bros probably take 7 bouts/10 against each of them

 

When I think Dominate I think of tyson's younger years. I dont think winning on points is DOMINATING. I think it is only winning evry fight. To me there is a difference. I think the klits could have been successful in any era but to say they DOMINATE is a different story.

 

They would be relevant and top level regardless of era.

I don't think they would have dominated the way they do now during the 20's to early 90's.

They knew it too. That is why they hid out until the HW ranks thinned.

 

You guys are nuts.

If blah guys like Kevin Johnson can give this alleged world beater fits, there is no way in hell he would be as dominant in any decent era of HWs.

Cory Sanders was good, but really? Again, no way.

 

As a whole, I don't think boxing has improved. Sports science and nutrition has improved fighters diets, and training methods. Obviously technology progresses each year, and modern fighters have better equipment etc. But I wouldn't say boxers today are more skilled as a whole. I can't see any real evidence to suggest that technique has improved as a whole.

With regards to your Marciano vs Lewis example, styles make fights.

You think that Lewis vs the Rock would be a mismatch in Lennox's favour.

But I think an Ali vs Wlad fight (Ali at his 67 peak) would be a mismatch in Ali's favour.

I've asked this question on the other Wlad vs Ali thread.

Pick as many weight classes as you want, and then name the all time top 5-10 greatest fighters that's ever fought there.

Let's see how many modern day fighters make the list.

Lets see how much boxing has improved.

Let's name the best fighters who's ever fought at:

WW
LHW
HW
LW
MW

+ Any others.

Let's see how many modern fighters can crack the top 5 spots.

 

The evidence is that all quantifiable sports that I know of have progressed vastly over the years, to the point where top competitors (non medalists) are blowing past the record times of thirty years ago. There has generally been an increase in body size, height and weight, in all those sports. There has been a similar increase in body size in boxing and other non quantifiable sports. It makes no sense that those other current athletes are able to vastly outperform their predecessors, but current boxers are not. But it's not just size, its also technique. If you look at football today, the offensive and defensive schemes are just overwhelmingly more complicated today than before. Its part of sports (and biological) history that entities will adapt to what they've seen and evolve to deal better with it. It doesn't demean the accomplishments of past boxers to understand that H2H, they couldn't compete with current boxers, as you understand that their in era accomplishments and overall impact and greatness can be better.

As an example, if WK fought anyone 190 pounds today, he would be laughed out of the sport. He wouldn't be allowed to fight someone that small. 1967, 6'3, 190 lb Ali has no chance against 6'6 240 pound Wlad. Realistically, neither did 215 lb 1974 Ali, but it is at least not as patently impossible from a physical standpoint as 1967.

The point is you can say Ali is, pound for pound, era for era, better than Wlad, and I would agree with you. But it's really almost like denying the world is round to say Ali could beat him H2H.

 

You can't compare boxing with ANY OTHER sports such as track and field.

Just because sprinters etc are breaking old records, that has nothing whatsoever to do with how boxing has evolved.

Show me evidence where technique has improved in boxing.

If you go back a few pages, and also look at the Wlad vs Ali thread, this topic has been discussed in detail.

A lot of great techniques have been lost over the years. Fighters used to live in the gym and learnt their craft from old trainers that had forgotten more about boxing than most of today's trainers will ever know.

Look at Toney, Hopkins and Floyd Mayweather's techniques. They're all old techniques that been passed on.

Fighters today have got it easy compared to fighters of the past.

Again, sports science, nutrition and technology (training equipment etc) has improved.

But what skills?

Now there's more weight classes and the HW's are bigger.

But put The K Bros in the 70's, 80's and 90's. They wouldn't dominate.

It's a complete myth that techniques have improved.

Why the hell would a 1967 version of Ali have no chance against Wlad?

That is ridiculous!

Boxing isn't about who's the biggest.

Boxing is very scientific. It's an art.

Do a head to head breakdown of skills between Ali and Wlad, and it's not even close.

Ali was more skilled, had faster hands, better footwork, better timing, a better chin, was faster, had better reflexes etc.

Wlad is bigger with more power.

There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that Wlad could have coped with Ali's footwork.

Why isn't Valuev the most dominant force in the HW division?

What do you think would have happened if you'd have put a 5'10, peak Mike Tyson in the ring against Nikolai Valuev, who is 7'2, and who weighs over 300 pounds?

Mike weighed about 220 in his prime.

How was a fighter that was only 5'10 and who weighed 220 pounds, able to compete and dominate (in his prime) against all of those bigger guys who he fought??

Who's Wlad ever beat, to give you the impression he could have beaten a peak version of Ali?

Name me the best fighters who have fought in the following weight classes:

Either the top 5 or top 10.

HW
LHW
MW
LW
WW

Lets see how many modern fighters crack the top 5.

 

Boxing is not like any other sport. Boxing is a combat art. It's not even a sport to be perfectly honest. Boxing is character driven in more ways than any team sport or track+field.

In combat.. you don't really improve just because you are stronger physically than someone 40 years ago.....

Gun to my head.. If I have to pick hand to hand combat between a 5'10 190 Pound Gladiator who fought day in and day out in the arenas of ancient Rome and trained gladiator prospects every day or a 6'3 220 Pound MMA Fighter who also served as a body guard ....

I will pick the smaller Gladiator....


If I have to pick between an Roman Scout Runner OR a Track+Field Star of today. I will pick the track/Field star of today.



But Ali was 6'3 and 215.. not 6'0 and 190.. lol

A 6'3 man is fully capable of over coming a 6'6 man ....... to say that Wladimir's 3 inches of height is significant in any sort of way is absurd....

Tyson Fury is 6'9... even if he reaches Riddick Bowe skill levels I will still pick Wlad or Lennox over him.. despite the two being much 'smaller' men.


The day a 7'3 300 Pound Lennox Lewis appears.. will be the day I will reconsider my opinions in regards to size...

 

A great post!

Who would you pick in a fight between a 6'9, 250 pound Tyson Fury, Vs a 5'10, 220 pound, peak version of Mike Tyson?

My girlfriend has assured me that size doesn't matter!

 

I will go with the one quote Riddick Bowe said that made a lot of sense.

Bowe said 'when the bigger man is just as skilled as the smaller man and there is no stylistic issues... if the bigger man is willing to walk through anything the smaller man throws.. the bigger man will always win."

Obviously the word 'always' is wrong since nothing is a sure thing. But, if Lewis fought Holyfield 100 times in a row. Lewis will win 96 of the 100 fights.
Lewis is just as skilled as Holyfield.. he's much bigger (3 inches and 30+ Pounds) Holyfield also presents no styles issues.


If Lewis fought the 5'10 Tyson 100 times.. Lewis might have lost 50 of the 100 fights... despite being arguably more skilled and obviously much bigger. Tyson's style is very difficult for Lewis and an absolute nightmare for Wladimir.


It's
Skills

Styles Make Fights
Size

In that order of importance. If the 1st is the same.. and the 2nd do not exist.. we have to go with the third.