Yes, one of those threads again. Inspired by the recently bumped Joe Gans thread. What are posters thoughts on the H2H skills of classical and Old School ATGs?From around 1890s - 1960s. Is there are a case some old Timers could make it? Are all old Timers of renown infallible legends? Would they be bums in the current landscape? Please explain.
For me, the most logical way is to take it on a case by case basis. Canzoneri, Leonard, Ross, Armstrong? Great. Others? Not as much.
Terrific fighters of any time would find success in any era, barring stylistic adjustment problems. That's just my 2 cents
The top dogs would do well in any era, for example can anyone name a modern day LHW that would dominate the best Ezzard Charles? No. You can make a case Jones would beat him but it wouldn't be dominant.
Exactly. Johnson's style wouldn't work in this era but if you place, say, Murat Gassiev in 1910 against prime Johnson with their ruleset, I guarentee it won't be pretty for Gassiev
Too much arm clinching work, refs wouldn't allow it + big gloves. His love of attrition also wouldn't work under 12 rounds
I have always felt that the very best of an era would find success in others, whether we are talking about Joe Gans or Floyd Mayweather.
Even if Roy Jones were to dominate him, it would be a reflection of Roy Jones's ability and talent; not a reflection of Charles being out of depth in a more modern era.
There were dozens of fighters in the 20's ,30's, and 40's who would comfortably hold their own in this or any other era.
I didn't specify them. Don't project. They would all do very well today, especially McGovern. Boxers like Gans and Tunney would need an adjustment period. Pure brawlers and strong boxers transfer better from classical styles than the scientific. And I wouldn't say any of them are more skilled than Canzoneri or Leonard.
Gans, McGovern, Fitzsimmons, Langford, Leonard, Canzoneri, Greb, Walker... et al. They translate. But heavyweight is different. Different type of athlete today.
