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

I did get banned from sherdog this is true, i don't like two of the mods they tried to insut me numerous times and thought themselves superior so i insulted them back only alot harsher than they allowed. I am glad i am on east side as i find it a much better site with far more discusion about boxing, rather than 3 posts a day which sherdog seemed to be.
In regards to saying your point was stupid my point was that if you only look at it from the older boys perspective then it is going against what you had implied you where against.
I am pretty sure some boxer's from the modern era would get into the ring in any conditions, corrales (rip), hatton, barrera etc are guys i am pretty sure would fight in any era (not saying they would be the best or anything like that) but they would fight.
In regards to the old guys if they had alot of money and didn't have to work so hard, like in today's era would they have become soft i am pretty sure they wouldn't be as tough as they would have been in their own days.
In regards to heavyweight boxer's i had a discussion with a poster about sherdog on this, he was saying how the current heavyweight crop where flabby and soft etc, but if you compare the likes of dempsey,johnson and louis to modern boxer's they equate more to the likes of haye, mormeck etc in build rather than the giant superheavyweights of today. The likes of haye and other cruiserweights look in peak shape compared to most top heavyweights who look flabby and out of shape.
I am glad you responded in a sensible way and stated your point's, i am always happy to discuss boxing with people who are sensible.

 

Joe Gans:good

 

I agree. **** Sherdog. The mods over there are pussies.

 

War blacc jesus, ****ing kk and brooklyn can suck a dick.

 

Damn right. I hate those mod-nazis.

 

Sonny Liston

 

I assume that you mean under modern rules. In which case, it's difficult to go back too far for several reasons.

Most importantly, like any other sport, boxing has evolved. Modern judges don't emphasize the same factors as past judges. As a result, strategies and styles are different.

There are other factors as well. For example: Smaller gloves meant more body punching and less deflected punches.

So, if you were to warp a fighter through time and right into a modern ring with no time to adjust, I think you would have to choose a fairly recent boxer/puncher like Robinson, though I think Joe Louis would terrorize the HW division. That is, if you could force these paper champions to fight him.

Given time to adjust, any past great would do well. However, I think that the further you go back, the closer you get to comparing two different sports.

 

I find it interesting that you don't think boxing has moved on. I can't begin to understand where you are coming from, in saying that a guy from the early 1800's would have some success now.

I'd probably imagine him to be around, 150th in the world right now at lightweight. That's just based on his physical attributes. Someone like David Diaz, who I don't rate at all, would slaughter him. Katsidis would too. I doubt Sam would an entire round against someone like Juan Diaz.

It's a totally different sport. Boxing has changed dramatically in the last 80 years, and there is a big difference in between the 1920's and very early 1900's. The contrast in styles between now and then is immense.

Boxing in the 1800's resembled fencing more than the sport as we know it in 2007. If Dutch Sam was around today, I'd honestly expect him to get further in fencing than boxing.



Anyway, I'd nominate Gene Tunney, just not as a heavyweight.

 

Agreed. They banned me for no reason at all. I didn't violate any rules, but when somebody DOES violate the rules, nothing happens. They suck.

 

Agreed. He would carve up the rankings today. Would be champ from 147 to 175.

 

Les Darcy

Because the Middleweight division is shocking and Darcy was strong as Bull could KO anyone and could never be dropped.

Darcy would wreck Pavlik or Taylor for that matter.

 

I remember reading an article in a boxing mag where they were talking to fight historians about the merits of the old fighters on film.

One of the historians was quite dismissive of a lot of the legends (Stanley Ketchel in particular),but Les Darcy and Ted Lewis were two fighters he rated as phenom's who were ahead of their time.

So I reckon those two would still be very formidable today.

 

Duran at 135.

 

All of the above names are good suggestions. The one who stands out most for me is probably Henry Armstrong. What I find to be most impressive about Armstrong, was his extraordinary work rate. I don't know exactly how many punches he averaged per round, but I think it was one of the higher numbers in the history of the game ( don't know for sure ). His ring activity was remarkable as well, compiling 180 fights in just 14 years. That's a higher frequency than either Sugar Ray Robinson who fought 200 times 25 years and Willie Pep who accumulated 241 bouts in 26 years. At one point, I believe he fought in some 23 title fights in like just two years or there abouts. Also, for whatever it's worth, he was only stopped on two occasions in his 180 outings.

Although I'm not big on head to head matchups across eras, I think I'd feel safe putting my money on a prime Armstrong over the likes of today's welterweight champs in Shane Mosley, Antonio Margarito, Kermit Cintron, and Demetrius Hopkins.

These would be good fights though in my opinion.