ok, so I got a pet peeve for debates with old champs vs new champs, take Louis and Lewis for instance, I think Lewis would win because he was pretty decent plus he was 6.5 240 and would have had easier angles to defend himself vs Louis then vice versa. So that is a fair statement I feel, right or wrong, but then you get these boxing experts that come strolling in and "ADD-ON" my pet peeve that being, "well if they were alive today they would have better nutrition and or PED's to benefit from so I would take Louis because he would of been even better than he was" excuse me but that's not old vs new, that is a manipulated old vs new,,,, the reason this annoys me is it screws up the whole point of comparing old and new :| When you make a comparison of old and new its HARD enough to do it without throwing a huge freaking ****** bar into the middle of it totally taking the debate into a alternate reality for gods sakes :deal if I ever catch anyone on this forum doing this I am going to verbally harass them with hundreds of long winded creepy PM's :hey
True. If we give them modern drugs and what not, we have to also put them in an environment where modern management won't have them fight the best and they will fight less frequently. etc, etc
