We love doing mythical match ups, it makes for interesting debate and good coversation. We learn alot about certain fighters during the and it keeps us more enthralled in the sport of boxing. I think there needs to a format to how we do mythical match-ups especially when he are comparing fighters in thier respetive primes. I guess its all about setting parameters. For instance, If Fighter A is from the 60s and Fighter B from the 90s we are talking about a span of 30 years between them. In the proposed match up (assuming we are comparing two champions from different era's) who would be the champion? and who the Challenger? (that makes a difference in the pysche of a fighter) Its not often that ATG fighters meet for a Championship bout in thier primes with both of them being champions. There is always one fighter who has clearly seen better days and on the way up. Who is the more experienced fighter at the time they meet? Who has faced the better competition at the time they meet? We can agree that in boxing that makes a difference as well as what stage in their respective careers they are in. For example: Joe Louis vs. Muhammad Ali- there is a big difference if we are comparing an incumbent champion in Joe Louis vs Muhammad Ali from the Cleveland Williams fight taking into account all of his experience when in life that is clearly not how things work. If two Champions from past and present were to meet for a title fight- which era would they be fighting in? Would Marciano be fighting Klistchko in the post millenium or would Wlad be the up and coming contender in the he late 40s early 50s looking to take the title from the Rock? For instance a match up that takes all this into account would be Lennox Lewis fresh off his win over Donovan Razor Ruddock looking to challenge World Heavyweight champion George Foreman who had just beaten Ken Norton looking to make his 3rd title defense over the unbeaten Lennox Lewis. or Sugar Ray Robinson fresh off his third round KO over Rocky Graziano moving up to 175 to face Roy Jones Jr. who had just stopped Eric Harding. I hope this makes sense. Comments? Feedback?
I think you may complicating it too much. It seems to be work best when you establish 15 rounds, modern rules (ex. neutral corner) and place both fighters at their best in the given weight division. For example, Holyfield vs. Marciano. Holyfield at his HW, not CW best (say, Bowe II but make it arguable) against 1954 Marciano. 15 rounds. Other factors such as a permissive ref, 3 kd rule, etc should be stated as incidentals or qualifiers.
I get what the poster means but usually when I do mythical match-ups, I make it kinda clear anyway for eg. If its SRL v Floyd jr then I would say 12 rds as Floyd has never boxed 15 & SRL has experience in both.... I would say 147 lbs as SRL has never fought below that weight & Floyd has & is currently at that weight.... I might also say the PBF who beat Hatton vs the Leonard who beat Benitez. Thats usually simple enough as people cast their minds back to how good that particular boxer looked & performed on this night, then imagine both guys facing each other then BOOM they come up with a winner & sometimes even a vision of how Floyd..er er er... I mean how that guy gets KOd or whatever.