Take One Fighter From Any Era...

Yeah that was some fight.

 

It's true they fought more often but most of them got paid a pittance.
Most modern greats (HW's excepted) have had hundreds of fights in the amateurs including GGG who could have retrospectively fitted in back in the 40's
Mike McCallum always reminded me of a black murdered row fighter.He got the title shots and won titles but couldn't get a fight with the big 4.It isn't that that reminds me of Burley, Williams, Charles, Marshall, Moore though, it's his style, he could do it all.

 

If McCallum had been given the superfights we'd have been talking about The Fab 5 today.

 

Yeah no doubt but as it is he falls just short like Wilfred Benitez

 

I don't get, why some people think the oldtimers would hold an advantage over moderns, because they fought so often!

The way to get in top shape isn't to fight every month or so - but to take time off and recuperate, until your body is ready to gradually build up to the next big fight. I would have thought, this is common sense!

 

I think thee and me are in a minority on here

 

I'm with you on this too.

 

Fighting is Fighting and Battle Hardened combined with TOP Opponents, times years at Top Level, times dozens & dozens of fights makes for a pretty indomnable force...

Fighting is Different to ANY Other Sport, it is a serious endeavor, no extra help once your in there.

l just don't think there's a great argument against Numbers & Years.

 

I don't read too much into number of fights and years. How good a boxer is, is more important to me.

Take some of the best fighters in recent years, such as Loma, Rigo, Beterbiev, Usyk, Inoue, Bivol... they all rocketed to the top of their respective divisions in 20 fights or less. Unheard of in the "good old days"... but would they have benefitted from another 20-30 pro fights, before going for a world title? I don't think so!

 

agree, to a degree... But you have absolutely "nailed the fact", that thousands of TOP Fighters GIVEN the Chance could have won & held a World Title too.

 

Hard to disagree with that... yes, there must have been lots of fighters throughout the history of boxing, who could have won a world title, if they had had the breaks, and had been given the chance.

The point of my posts here, is to question that the oldtimers were automatically better, because they may have had 100-200 (or even more!) pro fights. No proof of that being the case. In the end, it all takes place in our fantasy... and who comes out on top, depends on what we want to see!

 

It is scary to think what Henry Armstrong might have done with modern sport science.

The man had to drink pints of water in order to fight at welterweight.

Imagine if we could actually make him bigger and more powerful!

 

I think it would have to be a highly defensive and mobile fighter.
Defense and mobility are traits that can carry over in every era.

While not exactly mobile, and not exactly old timers, from my lifetime I always thought B Hop and James Toney were two guys who could have been successful in any era, especially Toney...he seemed to get slicker and harder he hit the older and heavier he got

 

Sugar Ray Robinson would kill people in the ring with modern day everything thrown into the mix.