If you were a pro boxer, say top 20 in a weight division, which era of boxers would you rather be fighting ? Me, i go with now.
Deffinetly this era,what with all the titles floating about.Best chance of being a world champ without having to fight 1.
Yeah thats what i think. It seems the other era's were full of good chins. With this era's title holders and contenders, i'd never be surprised if they were ko'd by a supposed "non threat".
Hang **** on this era all ya like guys. The turn of the last century in the USA was less dominant than today. The fighters were generally ill-equipt in defence, attack and skill. Guys like Young Griffo was fighting 45 rounds in Oz.. I believe Griffo's first bout in the USA was a 6 rounder?? Les Darcy was fighting 20 round bouts almost monthly for a couple of years prior to his death. Upon seeing Al McCoy vs Jack Dillon, he laughed at the thought of facing any American over the usual 10 rounds as expected in the USA. In 99% of cases in the USA where a white man held a particular title, there were numerous negros in the divisions that had double the ability, yet missed any opportunity due to colour bars. George Dixon, Joe Gans and Joe Walcott were fortunate. IMO, the vast majority of the American fighters of the day were far from brilliant. A large amount of American title claiments who came to Australian shores during that era were treated to defeats. Why???? Simply because of their inferior abilities. Check the record books gentlemen....
