Where do you draw the line?

Joe Gans looked modern enough vs Kid Herman, only a bit relaxed/sloppy, perhaps, possibly because of overconfidence.

 

There is no line imo.

There's a case by case comparison to be made on every single match up.

Some people look like they would be elite today, some people do not.

Fitzsimmons and Ketchel don't look like they'd be good enough to reach the top of the MW tree today. But someone like Gans, Johnson or Langford do look like they would be good enough to reach the top of tree today.

 

Mid-late 40's.
Even then, we have to make sure that the old timer has had a good rest.
PED's started to make its way into boxing then.
Having said this, some greats would have bamboozled modern greats with their ring smarts.

 

I always thought Gene Tunney looked like a modern fighter.
I think into the late twenties into the thirties overall fighters didn't look that different from today's.
Prior to that it was just the odd exception.

 

In the heavyweights i draw the line at Dempsey, and i'm a bit leery there too. I'm undoubtably happy Joe Louis and forward. I like some good solid footage. Love Freddie Steele on film. Mickey Walker looks crude but his determination and toughness are mind boggling.

 

Post-Zolkin

 

It's hard to say, with the distorted and low-quality footage of the early part of the 20th century. I'd probably say that the sport started rapidly evolving in the 10s/20s and reached its peak in the 40s.

 

Why am I not surprised you came up with something stooooopit

 

Agreed. I think Joe Louis onward is a good place to start. And even then there are pockets in between Louis's time and today consisting of some men who would have done exceptionally well and others not so much. I can't see Floyd Patterson surviving in too many heavyweight eras outside of his own.. Where as Muhammad Ali would have been great anytime.

 

Fitz always has the power to k.o. any MW. He was a blacksmith by trade....and continued "smithing" while boxing. He was on PED'S, before they had PED's.

 

It's horses for courses.

The Pont where the line starts is where you have full time professional career boxers. Actual pros.

It's great fights that makes great fighters not the number of fights or how they look.

 

Huh, please explain?

 

Rate the man, not the rules or tactics of the day under which he fought.

Those who hit hard, took a good punch and had size, and speed would be the same in any era, and all 4 traits are assets in any weight class.

 

I don’t think that there is a line as such.

You could formulate an argument that Tom Cribb would have destroyed every single modern heavyweight, in a bareknuckle prize fight.