Which ATG do you think does the worst head to head overall?

i think all the fighters before th 1920s

boxing was a different sport and watxching footage someone like Lennox Lewis would destroy Jack Johnson or Bob Fitzimmons

 

Funny how you rate Jack Dempsey extremley high h2h, and think very highly of the ever so crude Max "i have no technique in my punches" Baer. I think the pre 1953 Rocky Marciano would be a nightmare h2h for most heavyweights. I think his strength, durability stamina and punching power, and defense in low crouch make him very effective neutralizing some of the bigger skilled heavyweights strengths...Id pick him over many.

 

Interesting thread....my choice would have to be Gene Tunney. I feel his bad habit of fighting with his hands at his waist when driven into the ropes, his lack of inside fighting, refusal to take on black fighters, and his question marks on his tolerant level against tall big heavyweights and only 8 pro fights at heavyweight before early retirement make me wonder just how good of a heavyweight he was. Genes footwork while very fast, was also very basic and predictable, he always moved side to side he never changed it up or showed anything different like walcott or ali would do. I would have loved to seen him take on a tall jabber. the only good jabber he fought, a 20 year old tommy loughran, stuffed the left in his face and according to half the newspaper reports won the fight.

 

Kenny appears in most peoples top 20 of all time, IMO that should qualify as an atg. With those above him I agree he would have a difficult time H2H. If ATG was restricted to top 10 (appears some feel that way), I might lean towars Foreman as chris did!

 

I think Johnson would put up respectable showings against most if not all of them!

 

im not saying he would be destroyed by everyone but obviously if he was boxing now he would have a different style and be an ATG. but looking at film of him he just has a bad style to fight a modern fighter

 

I think Jack Johnson would do very well h2h. I also think he would easily adjust to more modern techniques while being able to keep his old school bad of tricks.

 

Im probably one of the few that think this, but I believe Riddick Bowe would have dominated Lennox Lewis had they fought when they were supposed to. Bowe was a much better fighter when he became champion under Eddie Futch as compared to his amatuer career. Lewis on the other hand still had a lot of flaws at the time, and didnt really become a seasoned pro until Emanuel Steward had him for a few fights.
People say he avoided him and he was scared, but I dont believe that. They said the same thing about Gonzalez who beat Bowe in the olympics, and Bowe ruined him (not to compare the two).

 

Personally I think Hearns is at his best H2H at JMW.

Fighters bad in H2H fantasy fights??? Well, to be honest, there are numerous LW's and WW's I'd pick over Henry Armstrong, but not too many fighters at FW to be honest.


Hmmmmm.....hard question. Probably De La Hoya, I guess what he achieved he put him the ATG category, though up at about 80 in my list not that high.

Can't see him beating any of my top five's in SFW/LW/LWW/WW/JMW OR MW.

So, in any of his weights I don't think De La Hoya matches up with 'the best' in the division. For exaple Arguello, Duran, Pryor, Robinson, McCallum and Hagler would batter him at any weight.

There are certain fighters that have not achieved as much as De La Hoya that I'd think more pose more of a threat to the best guys in the respective weight classes, but are they 'as great' as De La Hoya in terms of achievement?

Probably not. But there a fighters who I'd be more comfortable picking in a H2H situation with a great then I would with Oscar, who most people consider an 'ATG'. I think that is the basis of my argument :rofl

Pull yourself together Fleaman :good

 

Depends on who qualifes as an ATG. Some fighters in the hall of fame really were not great, and would do pretty bad outside of their own era.

 

I generally agree with this, though I don't know what to make of calling Hearns "small" at JMW. He was still a physical specimen there.

 

I was meaning more in comparison to real full middleweights.He's certainly not small in terms of height or reach at 154 or 160.as far as overall physical strength and in general how robust he was, i think he would be giving up a lot more than he is at Welter, where strength was never his forte anyway.

It's easier to see him being bullied\worn down if we put him against a consensus field of great fighters that weighed in at 154\160 than Welter.