Invariably when discussing fighters from yesteryear particularly in fantasy match ups some of us, and in some cases rightfully so, give the advantage to modern fighters due to a size factor. But what happens when we are discussing non-heavyweight classes where size cannot be an issue. Is it fair to say that take Harry Greb and place him in a time machine and have him face Bernard Hopkins and all is fair? Can we take Shane Mosley and place him in a time machine and have him face Kid Gavilan as is and all would be fair? So is there a legitimate argument that can be made that give Modern fighters below Heavyweight an advantage over Old Timers?
This is a very complicated issue. Overall, I'd say there are no temporal advantages for those of a certain size from one era opposed to those of the same size from another. There are many variables - changes in the game itself, in society, in the trending of human physiology - but overall, no insurmountable advantage either way. As stated above, in head to head fantasy matchups it comes down to the better man. The better individual.
Provided they were bound by the same weight limit and weigh in rules you would prety much have a level playing field.
exactly. the issue becomes difficult when people start transplating older fighters into the current era and make assumptions about how their styles would hold up and evolve. we don't really know if harry greb would fight any differently if he faced today's middleweights, we can only judge those fighters from what we actually know about them
Youtube, Charley Burley analyzing genius. That video tells you how an old fighter does today. And he has been beaten by new fighters also. It doesn't matter when, all that matters is how good, and on the day in some cases.
Strong arguments can be made for both im assuming you know which advantages each has as this has been argued a gazillion times here. IMO they kind of equal out.. I am of the opinion though that technique wise fighters improved from late 30s and 40s on although there are a few exceptions that some before that were ahead of their time. although im of the opinion that Greb wouldnt beat Hopkins i do think he should be rated ahead on ATG list based on resume and in his era he was the best PFP.
EXCELLENT video and his style seems to translate well to modern eras and analysis. and you're right: both quality and the day factors into things. Even the best lost from time to time. It happens, especially when you consistently face top notch competition.
I'd say that the best of both are about equal H2H, but with different advantages. For example, I think the modern fighters are skillfully more advanced, but the old timers where better conditioned and willing to take more punishment. And you also have to factor which era you would match them.
What is so complicated about as you stated: " it comes down to the better man. The better individual."? Sounds very stright forward to me.
The conclusion is simple. The journey to arrive there, trying to pick apart and consider the possibilities of any slight advantage being present in each and every extant variable - that part's complicated (and ultimately, a needless/moot complication). :good So yeah, it's easy enough to put it in a terse nutshell as you did. Or you can "show your work", long division style. Same difference.