Modern Heavyweight Who Could Be Contenders In The 1930s

You totally disqualified yourself calling Braddock a journeyman. And Schmeling inconsistent? He had a weak time between 34 and 35 with 2 losses and one win but beside that he only lost to Sharkey in 32 which most people thought he won and 38 to Louis. Yeah, very inconsistent indeed. If Carnera was chinny than so was Lewis, Baer was crude yeah but he also had a great chin and great power, both above a guy like Peter. the 30s was a better era than today by quite a margin.

The difference between Louis and Vitali is that Louis has proven himself against atg and borderline atg opponents. Vitali has only fought one of them and lost. Huge difference. Schmeling, Baer, Carnera and Sharkey are far more proven than Vitali. Who has that guy beat who is up there with them? Right! Nobody.

Baer and Louis would beat Wlad, Schmeling has a good shot. Damned even Galento has a shot beating Wlad.

Easy, they had far more fights and fought under far more difficult circumstances. If you fight that often, have problems with your health and/or getting something to eat, have to work to earn money you obviously can´t be always at your best and so will lose to lesser fighters.
In comparison Wlad lost to Purrity even though he has all those advantages over them.
Chagaev would do best from today´s fighters. He may even beat Braddock and Baer but would lose to the other top guys.

No, he is not. Carnera is faster, has better technique and is all around a better fighter. Carnera has not as a good chin right but he also fought harder punchers than Valuev and fought more punchers than the Russian. That should all be considered.

Peter is not only crude. He also lacks conditioning, determination and stamina compared to those. He won´t go into the championship rounds with any of the top guys. He also has a mediocre chin - proven by getting knocked down three times against McCline.
Also those guys had a better defece than you give them credit for.

Better than those:
1 WLADIMIR KLITSCHKO
2 SAMUEL PETER
3 RUSLAN CHAGAEV
4 NICOLAY VALUEV
5 ALEXANDER POVETKIN
6 SULTAN IBRAGIMOV
7 OLEG MASKAEV
8 VLADIMIR VIRCHIS
9 JOHN RUIZ
10 CHRIS ARREOLA

If you fight more often and under poor conditions you will lose more often.

This content is protected

Sorry but all that does not matter when ranking a fighter. Resume does, accomplishment does. And there the 30s fighters are far more proven.

You make the mistake of take today´s fighters under today´s conditions in the 30s and that´s wrong. You must take today´s fighters in the 30s under the then actual conditions. And they wouldnßt do as good as they do now.

 

Baer has more power, a better chin, is better conditioned and far more proven.

 

Exactly!

 

No, that does not mean that they hit harder. You have power or you don´t. Holy didn´t become a power puncher even though he took roids. You really think Wlad´s chin wouldn´t be an issue against guys like Louis and Baer.

No sorry. Today´s hws are more limited than the 30s on average.

But that´s the thing. We don´t put today´s hws h2h against the 30s but we put today´s in the 30s under the then actual conditions and assume how they would do.

 

Well, he's retired already, Peter still has a couple of years to go.

What is your evidence for this?

I think bulking up can help a bit, i.e. gaining mass, especially when coming from a lower weight class, but whether a 240lbs man is significantly more durable than 220lbs one?

 

Sure but do you expect him to do anything big in that time? I don´t.

I never wrote that.

 

Questionable, but possible. If he beats Wlad in a rematch, it would be a win of proportion similar to Baer beating Carnera. Of course there is a good chance that Vitali beats him two weeks from now, we'll see.

My apologies, i'll edit it. Obviously i intended to quote PowerPuncher. :dead

 

I agree with the time machine analogy. If you put a lot of heavweights from today into the thirties than they do well. But I see no reason to think that a lot of todays fighters couldn't handle the harder situations of the thirties.

Boxing is a tough way to make a living in the first place so almost any boxer has the make-up and mentality to survive in tough times. And while the thirties may have been a harder time for the average boxer or person in general, there are a lot of boxers who come from the same type of hardships today. If a Peter, Klitschko, Toney, Povetkin, Gomez,Byrd or any other top heavyweight from recent times had to fight more often or forego some of todays advantages I see no reason to think that they couldn't do it. The fact that they are already fighting for a living shows me that they have the right make-up to fight in any era.

 

It is by no means unknown for weak champions to get to the top in strong eras.

The 1990s would be a case in point.

 

Braddock was a good journeyman. Even he would say so. Remember they called him the Cinderella man.

As a champion, Braddock was horrible. He sat on the title for two years. Sorry, Braddock would not be to five today. He was small, not fast and did not hit hard. Light heavies could defeat him, in fact they did! Lewis took a MUCH better punch than Carnera. Bear could take a good punch, but let us also remember he QUIT vs. Joe Louis, and looked like he tanked it vs. Braddock. Shame on Baer vs Braddock.

While, line up smaller, less than skilled guys vs Vitlai and see what happens. In fact, Vitlai fought two blown up cruisers. Herbie Hide and Olin Norris.They lasted a combined three rounds. It is likely both would be highly ranked contenders in the 1930's.



Since there were no skilled super heavies in the 1930's, no man you can mention in the era was proven vs them. Why are Carnera, Sharkey and Baer more proven. The truth is they look more un-even that Vitlai does on film by a mile. Are you aware Vitlai has never been down on the cards vs any many past round three in his pro fights? I hihgly doubt Vitali would look bad s Conn, Farr, Pastor, or any ohter of the types who made Joe Louis look bad, simply stated he's too big, too strong, too long, and too active...amd his skills are good too.

I'd take Wlad's and his skills to defeat Baer. Baer has a puncher chance if he keeps his heart in the game. Baer's record vs skilled boxers is suspect, and the likes of Lourghan or Farr are not anywhere close to Wlad. Galento would be bashed by Wlad, and unlike Louis I tend to doubt a guy with a journeyman record would catch him and nearly score an upset early in the fight.

Counter point, Wlad was 22, had never gone past 8, had 2nd rate trainer, was fighting in front of his home town fans, and had a human anvil type of guy in front of himself. In-experienced, with a poor corner giving him advise, he punched himself out. It was one loss to a journeyman. Fine, then how about the numerous other guys in the 1930's who also lost to journeyman? I could have a field day here.

Chagaev may even beat Braddock? You cannot be serious here. Are you watching the same films I am? If they meet 10 times, I back Chagaev to win 8 or more.

Carnera could take a body shots, but not head shots. Valuev is more durable, bigger, and wears guys down. His jab is solid, and he can hit about as hard as Carnera did. I think Valuev is at least even with Carnera, and more likely to upset someone decent because he's much harder to stop.

Peter has more skills than Max Baer or Galento. So Peter was down three times in his career. Do you really want to compare and contrast how many times say Carerna was down in his career. Hint-hint, a lot more than Peter was. Peter was " crude enough " to defeat a top boxer like Toney twice. If Peter was in a decade of small boxers with poor defense or big and stiff boxers with poor defense, he'd blast them out.

Are you warare historians laughed at the 1930's prior to Joe Louis? It is true. Nat Fleischer wrote the division was on life support. There was little talent. Another boxing writer wanted to kick Carerna out of his chair, by creating a 250+ division. Old timers laughed at this decade. this includes Wills, Johnson, and Jeffries. The decade was also marred by FIXED fights. Heavyweight boxing was at a low point in the 1930's. Take off your

This content is protected

glasses.

If they wer evs a weaker field, sure they woudl do as well. Maybe the trainers were better in the 1930's. Most of the top fighters today did not have it on easy street when they were young.

 

At his best, yes I think Braddock was world class in the 1930's. I do not think Braddock would beat ANY lienal champion post his time, with the perhaps Leon Spinks being the exception.

A low KO percetnage? Who did he knock out? Where can I see this walop on flim?

Do you believe this? Over Schemling? Over Marciano? I think Louis is not being honest or is going out of his way to say something nice to Braddock.

As I said before, Vitlai has 300+ combat matches before the injures started to limit his activity. 210 amatuer fighter, 50+ kick boxing matches ( which create more injury than boxing ), and 37 pro boxing fights. Show me a guy who fought this much without breaking down. He does not exsist. Vitlai turned pro late. On his way up, he was very active.

 

Well, Braddock suffered terribly from hand problems and getting something to eat. Take his career before and after his hand problems and he is hardly a journeyman.

Yeah, he sat on the title but that was due to a hurt hand - a fight with Schmeling was already made for 37 but Braddock had to pull put - and due to the boxing politics of nobody wanting a German world champion and Schmeling beeing his number one challenger. Yeah he was quite small but he also was very tough and skilled. He would pose problems for quite a few greats. Lewis took a great punch but Carnera wasn´t that far behind it. He didn´t have an iron chin but it was solid. Yeah, Baer quit. Vitali did too. What´s the point?

Both those guys aren´t anywhere near the class of the top contenders of the 30s. Vitali is highly overrated because he looked good against mediocre opponents. He didn´t fight any one of note in his career and people like you make him to some kind of monster. :bart

Those guys are more proven because they fought suprior opposition to every hw who is around today not named Holyfield. That´s just fact.
Vitali proved his skills against bad opposition, hardly an evidence how he would do agianst top opposition. Sorry, I don´t buy that Vitali is great h2h thing, he never proved he was.

Loughran and far are more mobile and faster than Wlad. Wlad wouldnßt knock out Baer and when Baer realizes how Wlad panics when beeing crowded he would do though and the fight would be over soon after. Galeto has a shot against Wlad, he shouldn´t be favourite though.

I know all these points I use them all the time defending Wlad on here but Wlad had Sdunek in his corner and that guy is not a 2nd rate trainer. He made more than 8 fighters to champs and is alongside with Wegener and Timm the most succsessful trainer to ever come out of Germany. Get your facts straight. The difference between now and then is that today´s fighters are brought up much more coutiously. If you are a highly touted prospect you fight always the opponent perfect suited to the stage of your career. While then you would be brought up similar to how Maskaev was brought up.

I disagree, as much as I like Chagaev he is rather limited and although he has a decent defence for today he isn´t that hard to hit and slower of hand and feet than Braddock. Those two are closer than you think.

Yeah, ignore that Carnera was faster, had better footwork, bestter skills and was at least as strong. And Carnera has a solid chin. He was never KOed, only has some TKOs against him and the only two close to his prime by two of the hardest punchers in history. Yeah, weak chin. Carnera is a step above Valuev.

Peter was knocked down thrice by light punching McCline. He beat Toney once and the second time Toney, who was nearly forty and a ****in' fat mw, was shot. Hardly a great accomplishment.
Why do always going on about the guys then had weak defence? At least they had one if you compare them to today´s guys. Peter would either get outboxed or outfought by the top contenders of the 30s. He lacks nearly everything he needs to compete then with the exception of his punch.

Yeah, I am also aware that people laugh about today´s era and greats of the past have very rarely a good oppinion about the actual era. I´m also aware of Nat Fleischer beeing an extreme old timer lover.
Talking about fixed fights ... have you seen the last two fights of Solis?
And no the 30s weren´t at a low point, they weren´t a great era either but for sure a better era than today´s.

Nah, they wouldn´t do that great. Some of them would be ranked high at some time but on averge they wouldn´t do well.
What of today´s hws had it not easy on the streets? Most have a middle class background.

 

Please list a source that says Braddock was starving in any fight. Braddock had a regular job of working on the docks. If you know a lot about boxing in the 1930's, then you know journeyman who fought on a regular basis earned more than the typical 9 x5 guy.

He sat on his title for 2 years, and then sold out to Louis for 10% of Louis career purse. Braddock very skilled? LOL, again show me the film. Braddock was moderately skilled. Baer had no injury when he quit. Vitlai did, and despite that was well ahead of a prime Chirs Byrd who for a while was the #1 guy out there. If Vitlai had already earned his money, or if the fight was for higher stakes, maybe he finished the fight. As it was when his arm went numb, he feared a bad injury and quit. The injury happened in rd 3, not the end of the fight.

Lewis was skilled. In fact, he never lost a decision in his career. Vitlai was up 4-2 on all three cards, which means Lewis needs to win four of the next six rounds on at least two cards to make it a draw. It was a cuts win for Lewis, and of course Lewis would not take a re-match. Not even for 14 million + for him! Lewis knew he would not be as lucky the next time around. So your theory that Vitlai didn’t prove himself vs the best is wanting.

Bad opposition? I think guys like Lewis, Byrd, Sanders, Hide, Johnson, and Williams would all be top ten guys in the 1930's.

Loughran was not much faster than Wlad? Wlad has elite level hand speed, and pretty good footwork himself. Wlad sure could KO Baer. With Baer's lack of defense, and lack of offense outside of a right cross, the fight would be Wlad's.

How many champs did Sdunek have when Wlad meet Purity. Tell me, Mr. expert. How does zero sound.

Sdunek did not know what he was doing then. He never used enswell until recently, and his advise was not slow down and take the win. I not too impressed with Sduenk in the 1990's.

I think this is funny.

Carnera did not have a solid chin. If Carnera was as skilled as you say, then why did he lose so many decisions, while Valuev has only lost one? Speak up please.

Peter has only lost one decision, and that was vs Wlad. If Peter was limited in skills, he'd lose a lot of descions...like Bear, Braddock, et al.

The 1930's were old times, and Nat’s generation. Fleisher called it like he saw it. The 1930's were full of fixed fights and mobsters. Again, I really think your responding as a fan only. I will fill you in a bit. When Sharkey lost the title via DQ to Schemling, there were 9 other such DQ's ( FIXES ) in the next year, which lead to a rule being passed to prevent title changes on such fights. Mobsters such as Boo Boo Hoff, and others were in on many fixes with fighters they managed. Not only were the skills lacking at heavy, but the fix was in a lot, including some shady stuff shrouding the " ironed chin" Carnera. Even Joe Louis was mob connected with MSG. In fact one of his managers went to prison.

Once again, if you want to compare films, wining percentages, losses to journeyman, of the top ten of the 2000's vs the the top ten 1930's, let me know. It will be a field day.