Oldest fighter you're SURE would do well today...

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by cross_trainer, Oct 3, 2007.


Page 1 of 4
  1. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    18,216
    14,030
    Jun 30, 2005
    Who is the earliest fighter you can think of who you're SURE would be just as dominant today in his weightclass as he was in his own time period?
     
    cross_trainer, Oct 3, 2007
    cross_trainer, Oct 3, 2007
    #1
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,938
    47,968
    Mar 21, 2007
    Do you mean entirely without any modifications to his style?
     
    McGrain, Oct 3, 2007
    McGrain, Oct 3, 2007
    #2
  3. rydersonthestorm

    rydersonthestorm Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,957
    17
    Sep 27, 2007
    Without style change i think ray robinson.
     
    rydersonthestorm, Oct 3, 2007
    rydersonthestorm, Oct 3, 2007
    #3
  4. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,568
    27,201
    Feb 15, 2006
    How well is well?

    I think that a great fighter from any era with a deep talent pool would be sucesfull up to a point. Try Dutch Sam.
     
    janitor, Oct 3, 2007
    janitor, Oct 3, 2007
    #4
  5. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo VIP Member Full Member

    51,048
    25,124
    Jan 3, 2007
    That would be my pick. I think Sugar Ray Robinson would seriously have an outstanding chance of beeting today's welterweights, middleweights and even some lightheavyweights.
     
    mr. magoo, Oct 3, 2007
    mr. magoo, Oct 3, 2007
    #5
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,938
    47,968
    Mar 21, 2007
    Sure is such a strong word.

    Peter Jackson would probably have more success these days what with the colour bar being down. I'd pick him to be more successful than he was at Heavy.

    Jack Dempsey the MW. He'd clean house I bet.

    Langford at peak would clean up any one of five divisions. These are some possible answers.
     
    McGrain, Oct 3, 2007
    McGrain, Oct 3, 2007
    #6
  7. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    How can you be sure of this?
     
    Manassa, Oct 3, 2007
    Manassa, Oct 3, 2007
    #7
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,938
    47,968
    Mar 21, 2007
    I'm not sure. But I bet.
     
    McGrain, Oct 3, 2007
    McGrain, Oct 3, 2007
    #8
  9. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    We haven't even seen film of him.
     
    Manassa, Oct 3, 2007
    Manassa, Oct 3, 2007
    #9
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,938
    47,968
    Mar 21, 2007
    I have.
     
    McGrain, Oct 3, 2007
    McGrain, Oct 3, 2007
    #10
  11. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    Please elaborate.
     
    Manassa, Oct 3, 2007
    Manassa, Oct 3, 2007
    #11
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,938
    47,968
    Mar 21, 2007
    :D

    What I understand of Jack is that he was two-fisted, tough, very very quick and had ko power in the right. But more than any of that he was a comsumate box-puncher who could fight any which way he needed to. This hints at great adaptability which is a real bonus if your just talking about picking them up and dropping them into a title fight. I guess a lot of guys will look to pick scientific fighters, but I would go for an adaptable fighter every time.

    You are right when you say i've seen no film. Nor have I seen film of Jackson for that matter - but you read reports and stories about these guys and you form a vision and an opinion. My opinion is that Dempsey was better in terms of raw tools, than any of the currenc crop of Middles - that combined with his appartant adaptability makes him a good pick for this question.

    Of course, he might fight at 154 in this moder era.
     
    McGrain, Oct 3, 2007
    McGrain, Oct 3, 2007
    #12
  13. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    The problem with forming opinions and visions based on written accounts is that when you do eventually see the fighter on film, he fights nothing like what you imagined. It's usually a disappointment, particularly with pre-'20 fighters.
     
    Manassa, Oct 3, 2007
    Manassa, Oct 3, 2007
    #13
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,938
    47,968
    Mar 21, 2007
    I accept that - sometimes you will be right, sometimes you will be wrong.

    What about you? Do you think that Dempsey is a particularly bad choice for some reason?

    Which fighter would you pick?
     
    McGrain, Oct 3, 2007
    McGrain, Oct 3, 2007
    #14
  15. Manassa

    Manassa - banned

    7,766
    93
    Apr 6, 2007
    I won't say Dempsey is a bad choice because the question asked 'who is the oldest fighter who would do well...' And Dempsey was prehistoric by modern boxing standards. But I could never be certain on someone I'd seen little to no footage of. My answer to this question is Benny Leonard.
     
    Manassa, Oct 3, 2007
    Manassa, Oct 3, 2007
    #15
Page 1 of 4