Modern Heavyweight Who Could Be Contenders In The 1930s

Did I say he was starving? I wrote that he had to look out getting something to eat. Meaning he had to work beside his boxing. You make the mistake of taking the current fighters under the current conditions against the 30s fighters in the 30s conditions but that´s not what this thread is about. This thread is about putting current fighters into the 30s under 30s conditions. How good would they do? Imo without all the support from our day like training, nutrition, medicine and so on and them working beside boxing, fighting much more often and so on they won´t do as good as they do now. Very much speculation that´s true but fun to think about it.

Well, Braddock was more skilled than most guys you think so highly about - and less limited.
Baer quit against the arguable number one hw of all time after taking a beating without the chance of winning and while beeing already past it. Vitali quit against a smw. Other fighters fought on with the same injury. Vitali quit. That says enough imo.

Right Lewis was skilled but Vitali lost and rightfully so. I was cheering for him then but the decision was right that was a terrible cut.
But what you ignore that the Lewis he fought was an unmotivated, fat 37 year old Lewis and not a prime version and still Lewis gave Vitali hell and was about to turn the fight around.
Lewis was an old man, retiring after beating the unofficial heir to his throne is hardly a shame.
And still Vitali didn´t prove himself. One fight is not a prove. It could have been a fluke like Spinks win over Ali.

He lost to Lewis and Byrd. Sanders, Hide, Johnson and Williams are nowhere good opposition. I think you get carried away quite a bit here.

Loughran was faster than Wlad, for sure. Wlad is fast for his size but not much above average for a hw. And Wlad´s footwork while beeing good for his size isn´t but also not much above average. Without his size Wlad would be a very average fighter.

[/quote]

Wow, you are quite a bit pissed it seems - and arrogant for that matter. You firstly shouldn´t take that personally and secondly, you should stay a bit more objective instead of personal.
Sdunek has a proven record of forming champs. To call a trainer like that a second rater just shows your bias and lack of objectivity.

I think you should be less arrogant and more objecitve.

Yeah, because he was so often KOed ... he was never KOed and only lost two times on a TKO near his prime against two of the hardest punchers the division has ever seen. Weak chin for sure!
Easy, today´s division lacks talent and so a guy like Valuev can go on with only few losses - additionally Valuev has lost the first Ruiz fight and the fight against Donald but got a gift in both.

If he would have fought in the 30s for sure but in today´s division. Tell me who has Peter fought? He lost to Wlad and Toney, beat a shot Toney, was three times down against the mediocre McCline and beat the china chinned old man Maskaev. That´s a joke.

Where did I write there weren´t fixes? Please show me, I don´t think I did. The only thing I did is show you that there is corruption in the sport today, too.
Fleischer was biased to the fighters before the 30s that´s well known and documented, don´t try to turn history your way.

I wonßt do that because you can´t compare that like that. Everybody with a common sense knows that and only people who are very biased wouldn´t admitt that.
It seems you also don´t know what this thread is about. To quote myself from the beginning of this post: