Where do you draw the line?

I think it is a question of where you can say it with confidence.

You are on pretty safe ground saying Joe Louis, because we know exactly what Louis was.

You are probably justified in saying Dempsey, although there is an element of interpretation.

You would have to define what Jeffries was, before you could even offer an opinion, and your interpretation would involve a number of assumptions.

 

I really don't think it's about the color line if that's what you are referring to. It's about the line when styles changed from the old timie to the more modern style. I believe glove size and shorter distances impacted styles.

 

I think Dempsey would be a good starting point, I don't think there's that much element of interpretation with him, but prior to him, fighters such as Jeffries, Willard, etc are hard to pin down.

 

Maybe when the rules changed so that you couldn't stand over a fighter and hit him as he was trying to get up, that was a very significant change in the rules, that Dempsey found out big time against Tunney.

 

Dempsey for sure

 

Fighting is fighting. It has always been about hitting and not getting hit. Some are really good at it, and some are not, regardless of era.

 

The Slavic Line is a mark upon the sport.

 

Confirmed stooooopit

 

Definitely:good

 

My positions are unorthodox but my methods are sound.

History will bear me out.

 

It's been confirmed already you don't have to have a double confirmation do you? :good

 

Ezz always seemed to be the first of the 'oldies' to exhibit modern style IMO but how can you compare eras? How chiseled would the Klit bros. have been in 1920 in post-Tsarist Russia? What would Ray Robinson have looked like as a 25-30 yr. old in the 21st century?

 

In frankness, I like Adam's response. Its always and still is a game of hitting and avoiding being hit. Sure, skills have changed over the years but there have always been guys who could hit and even the best defensive wizard gets hit flush. Drawing a line is difficult, outside the transition from LPR to MDQ.

 

Could todays stars outpoint Battling Nelson in a 12 round fight? Perhaps. But I favor Nelson in a 45 round fight with horse filled gloves, and boxing in thongs. The game has change, not sure if there "Better", but its a other rule set that different skills are needed to win.

 

Yes but this was the question:

Boxing has evolved since the time of John L. Sullivan and London Prize rules. So I ask this most well informed of forums what year or fighter was the line in which a fighters became viable and able to compete with the modern greats?

I feel like this could clear up a lot of controversy on this forum or stir up a **** storm. Either way it will be interesting.

I believe that what the question is calling for, is your opinion on when styles changed, not "a game of hitting and avoiding being hit." Of course even bare knuckle fighters knew something about defense. The line between LPR and MDQ, marked a change, but an even bigger change in styles came in the 20's. Of course there were outstanding fighters who could compete who fought in the early 1900's, by the 20's, the stance changed, the fights got shorter. The 20's and 30's brought about more changes to rules and glove size.
So it wasn't just a matter of hit and not getting hit.