Old-school HW's vs. today's HW's

Ask Seamus.

 

Very good.

 

For my money they would be the cream of the crop?

The only intriguing factor for me would be a comparision with the Klit's? for one of two things would happen Wlad and vitali would be tested by a greater variety of styles and level of oposition than they have to date...would they be exposed as the mediocre champs that have controlled a pathetic era as many on esb suggest, or would this cement their legacy as atg's when all is said and done?

I don't think their level of dominance, would be as high as it is today? But I believe outside of Liston they could give a good performance in any of these?, but would be tested harder than they ever have before as well.

 

i dont like making comparisons with regular contenders who did not win key fights against other non champs in their own time automaticly cream championship material in another era.
regardles of how good an idividulal looks in a winning fight (often against weaker oposition) this must be balenced agaimst what he brings to the table in 50-50 fights when there is more on the line. there is a lot to be said for having the right temperment often that is the diffrence between champ and contender. There has been so many great contenders who cant deliver their "A game" for whatever reason on the big nights and this must be taken into consideration.
on paper terrel should have given ali a beter fight, he had the tools and size and equal reach on ali and was proven at a good level. as good as ali was terrels A game was absent and did not do himself justice.
klitchko is a champ amoung belt holders. Thats not to say they are any worse than an old fashioned champ and his contenders. I think even with a time machine its all prety even.
i honestly belive the only difference with eras is one decade is often more colorful, exciting but that the talent is most often prety close on paper.