Prime Muhammad Ali vs Michael Hunter (Boxing Evolution Theory)

That has NOT happened.

 

Dynamic literally proved you wrong with this last week.

He listed the height, reach and weight for all of the fighters.

They all would have been HW’s.

 

I don’t believe that you believe this for a second.

 

Nobody but Wlad, has dominated for the last 25 years.

Nobody at all has dominated the sport since 2015, the end of Wlad’s reign.

The other thing to note, is that every top guy today, has either struggled with, or lost to, smaller HW’s. And the exact thing happened to Wlad himself. And on numerous occasions.

 

Ray Mercer was not big, and that was the only time i saw lewis decisively outjabbed, so size is not that important, if the bag of tricks is big enough and you are quality, Lewis was lucky he had other weapons that day to close the gap.

 

I'd even opine that the stupidity is EVOLVING to new levels.

 

Right? "logic dictates..."

 

These old vs modern debates usually end up missing subtleties.

Modern fighters being bigger and better on average doesn't mean that the older guys have no chance. It doesn't mean that smaller fighters today automatically lose, or even that an Ali-sized fighter couldn't compete today. (One of them clearly can.) It also doesn't stop styles from making fights.

People often talk about how close Jesse Owens would be to modern sprint times if we equalized equipment. They cite the guy who says he'd be within a stride or so of more modern Olympians. Could be. But that stride is the difference between medaling and not. IIRC, that analysis would usually put Owens as a Olympic level sprinter today, but not an absolute top guy. Compare that to Owens in his own day, when IIRC he ran well, well ahead of his competitors. That's what progress really looks like. The strongest, fastest, best athletes of the past would still be pretty good athletes. Hermann Goerner wouldn't suddenly turn into a scrawny wimp just because Eddie Hall is stronger. Jesse Owens doesn't suddenly become slow if he arrives in 2025. But the best today would have advantages over the best of 50-100 years ago.

 

You keep repeating this. There's no truth to it at all.

 

Cross Trainer just made the best post in this entire thread-

"These old vs modern debates usually end up missing subtleties.
Modern fighters being bigger and better on average doesn't mean that the older guys have no chance. It doesn't mean that smaller fighters today automatically lose, or even that an Ali-sized fighter couldn't compete today. (One of them clearly can.) It also doesn't stop styles from making fights.

People often talk about how close Jesse Owens would be to modern sprint times if we equalized equipment. They cite the guy who says he'd be within a stride or so of more modern Olympians. Could be. But that stride is the difference between medaling and not. IIRC, that analysis would usually put Owens as a Olympic level sprinter today, but not an absolute top guy. Compare that to Owens in his own day, when IIRC he ran well, well ahead of his competitors. That's what progress really looks like. The strongest, fastest, best athletes of the past would still be pretty good athletes. Hermann Goerner wouldn't suddenly turn into a scrawny wimp just because Eddie Hall is stronger. Jesse Owens doesn't suddenly become slow if he arrives in 2025. But the best today would have advantages over the best of 50-100 years ago."

 

He'd slap Hunter silly.

I'm all for a good intellectual exercise, but this one is idiotic.

 

Usyk's Cruiserweight competition is massively propped up to make him look better. He's great but overrated.

 

There is precedent. I read that as dinosaurs moved from the Jurassic to the Cretaceous, the heads, and thus brains, got SMALLER to accommodate the bigger bodies. Evolution is blind, and there can be evolution towards stupidity.

 

We see examples of this now and then on this forum.

 

Here is a novel idea...for some. It is skill, ability, heart that matter in any fighter at any weight. Yeah, you can argue a good big man beats a good little man, but that's a somewhat fallacious all things being equal statement. Would a 6ft 5in Ali who weighed 240lb beat the original Ali if they had exactly the same skill set, reach etc...yeah, sure, I'll go with that. But to simply suggest bigger fighters win because they are bigger is a reach at best and an outright fallacy at worst. The dominant heavyweight of the past have been dominant because...they were the best. It is that simple. Else we might have Valuev and his ilk as long running champions. Wlad, Lennox et al would be champions in any era simply because they were incredibly skillful and had excellent attributes.