Who could have beaten prime RJJ at 160 of 168

Really? Tell me this - who would win in a sword fight? A primitive Roman Praetor or a current US Marine?

Now who would win a gunfight?

There are major differences in almost every aspect of boxing today except the boxing itself (even then, less rounds, heavier more padded gloves, improvements in footwear and other equipment have changed boxing)

Take broadcasts? There are far more cameras from far more angles, with far more ability to slow down and broadcast in high definition the intricacies of boxing - we can slow motion a combination and look for weaknesses and flaws, WE can do that as a consumer of boxing, let alone what some training camps are no doubt able to do in terms of analysing fighters.

Not to mention we can get literally near any fight pro boxers have today (need I mention even Charlie Zelenoff?) and have a much bigger catalog of fights to choose from with which to analyse opponents

This works both for and against boxers, boxers can analyse fight styles far better today but it means their fight style can be analysed too, give and take argument

I don't know if Old or New was better and I don't attempt to say NEW is better, I think it's disrespectful of the achievements of old but to say that things really haven't changed that much and it's easy to analyse based on strengths and weaknesses?? Even the way we see strengths and weaknesses in todays age has changed due to increased coverage as previously stated.

 

I don't think you could consider yourself a fan of boxing if you didn't have the "What If" questions of a guy like Harry Greb facing some of the guys of today... or whether or not Sugar Ray Robinson would dominate in todays era like he did in his era...

But trying to state definitively yes or no on who wins is where I draw the line because I just don't believe you can analyse black and white footage from one or two angles vs color footage from a series of angles with crystal perfect slow motion replay

 

Fair enough. We'll agree to disagree on this subject and leave it at that I guess:good

 

But that has nothing to do with what I said.

 

You said I insinuated new was better and that primitive was a bad word, it was actually someone elses word.

So like I said, who wins a sword fight? A Praetor vs a Marine? OK, lets change it, now who wins a close range knife fight? A Praetor vs a Marine?

It's hard to definitively say, isn't it?

 

You did insinuate it, though it may very well have been poor choice of wording. Either way, I am merely pointing out that you claimed that someone was making an argument they clearly were not making.

As to your question, I don't know enough about the participants to make that call. Not to mention, you are talking about thousands of years difference as opposed to a couple of decades. They are hardly accurate examples...

 

Shouldn't matter should it? Just two combatants swinging a sword?

The subtle point I'm making is that in the last two decades, the world has seen a burst in technological improvements which have also benefitted athletes at the same time which literally IS worth a thousand years of evolution during near any other period.

 

Michalczewski

Jones ran from his for years, and for good reason.

 

Hagler probably had the best chance at 160, but I would put my money Jones. Like everybody else picked at 168, nobody.

 

I completely disagree with that argument because simply put, there is no proof.

And yes, 1000's of years is different than a couple of decades. Your estimation of the improvements worth is simply not enough evidence to convince me otherwise.

 

No more than Darius ran from Joe.

In neither case is 'ran' the correct term.

Hagler, Monzon and Maybe Robinson at 160, might have a chance, though I would pick Jones over any of them on any given night.

At 168, nobody.

 

Maybe I'm just sucked into all the hype generated by Calzaghe and his successes recently but I have to at least give him the same shot as some of the 160s mentioned.

I like Calzaghe's chances, durable, awkward and doesn't seem to lose his composure when things aren't going his way early. I still expect Jones Jr to "60/40, I'll whoop yo ass" Calzaghe but if we're saying guys at 160 can beat Jones Jr, Calzaghe has to be seen as an equal chance at 168.

 

Roy Jones is the best 168LBer of all time so at that weight I would pick him v anyone. But of course there are serious challengers to him throughout history even a peak Joe Calzaghe would give him a fight.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think that too

But I also think he takes a hell of a lot of beating at 160lb and think his combination of size, speed and strength at that weight makes him a nightmare for near any boxer.

His punching power at middleweight has to be rated amongst the top twenty or so. His speed has to be in the top two or three. His technique at that stage of his career was no hinderance due to his reflexes and his chin had held up to some of Bernard Hopkin's patented right hands.

At 168, you've at least got a guy who can match size and endurance with Roy Jones Jr, handspeed, Calzaghe is some way off being near Roy but he's potentially fast enough to land on Roy, how would Roy take the shots at 168 (before Calzaghe's well documented hand injuries changed him from a boxer puncher to a slickster)

 

Calzaghe perhaps...

Most people don't know the true extend of Calzaghe's skill, what he was truly capable of. Roy Jones did though, he could see it. Hence Roy Jones chose to be born in 1969 rather than 1974 or some other year when he would have been more likely to face Joe Calzaghe in a prime vs prime matchup.