Why would we expect historic heavyweights to do well in the modern day?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by VOXDEI, Oct 29, 2021.



  1. boxingspitbucket24

    boxingspitbucket24 Active Member banned Full Member

    959
    2,066
    Jul 10, 2013
    Sonny Liston prime is undisputed today. He was 9years old when the farm mule died and he was substituted in. They literally don't build them like that anymore. Add modern strength and conditioning plus a camp with any top trainer, he'd be the 84" reach wrecking machine.

    I pick him over Fury, Usyk, AJ and Wilder. Close fights with Fury and Usyk but knocks AJ and Wilder out of the ring.

    The winner of Fury vs Usyk, I'd probably start favoring against Liston.
     
    Glass City Cobra and kaapa2 like this.
  2. NEETzschean

    NEETzschean Well-Known Member banned Full Member

    1,855
    1,484
    Feb 23, 2021
    According to an Andre Ward program on HBO, 6'9, 270 lbs Fury has equally fast reflexes to 6'3, 210 lbs Ali. Like any other sport, if these attributes are objectively measured then athletes from 50 years ago will always come up a long way short. Ali lost to a visually impaired, 5'11 fat cruiser/LHW and Ken Norton, who themselves were blown out in two rounds by the slow and stiff but hard punching Foreman. Foreman didn't have "unique power", he would just be another big puncher today. He punched no harder than Sam Peter, who ultra-tough journeyman Marion Wilson claimed was the biggest puncher he ever faced.

    You made the claim that the crack addict ABC champions from the 80's are "as skilled as any modern heavyweight boxer", presumably including Usyk and Fury, which is lunacy. Even the claim that Holyfield, who competed in by far the worst cruiser era of all time and had a Chisora-esque HW record, was as good as Usyk is absurd. Gassiev looked like a punching bag when he fought Usyk (which by the sounds of it is the only Gassiev fight you've watched) not so much when he fought Lebedev, Wlod or Dorticos. Foreman would also look like a punching bag if he fought Usyk, to a greater degree than he did against 20-5 small cruiser ultra-featherfist Jimmy Young.

    Fighters in the early 20th century often had vastly more fights than fighters in the 60's-80's and there are also diminishing returns: a veteran of 100 fights who has often fought month on month won't have much of an experience advantage over a veteran of 40 but he will be far more wartorn. Experience also mattered less back (hence there were far younger champions, who hadn't become punch drunk yet) then than it does today because there was far less diversity of body types/styles: virtually no southpaw HW's, no snipers, no SHW's.

    Where is the evidence that boxing was the most popular U.S. sport during the eras you're talking about? Because baseball, basketball and grid iron were hugely popular back then as well. The Cubans and the USSR were the dominant force in the amateurs but they were geared toward that system: as soon as the Soviet bloc transitioned to the pros en masse and these fighters were able to emigrate there was a takeover. Had it happened 30 years earlier the American narrative would have been thematically identical.
     
  3. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    75,433
    15,496
    Sep 15, 2009
    For me, Foreman put this to bed and Wlad then went on to do the same.

    Foreman was a fighter front he 79s,and he came back in supposedly the best HW division of all time, 20 years after retiring, to win the HW championship, not a paper belt, but by knocking out the actual champion.

    Wlad was a bit of a joke fighter from the turn of the century and had been knocked out embarrassingly 3 times, yet he somehow managed to dominate a more "modern" and therefore "better" era for a decade.

    Great fighters are great fighters. Put them in any era and they'll find a way to win.
     
    Glass City Cobra and Loudon like this.
  4. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    75,433
    15,496
    Sep 15, 2009
    Wait, did someone just say Holyfield had a Chisora esque HW record?

    I'm done with this thread.

    Have fun
     
  5. NEETzschean

    NEETzschean Well-Known Member banned Full Member

    1,855
    1,484
    Feb 23, 2021
    1. Foreman was arguably the best of his era. He lost to Ali but destroyed the fighters who beat Ali and didn't rely on gift decisions (in the 70's) to win fights.

    2. Foreman wasn't at the top 10-20 years later: he was a weak champion in the 90's who relied on gift decisions against lesser contenders and was soundly beaten by Morrison and Holyfield. Ko'ing a glass-chinned blown-up LHW Moorer late in a fight he was well behind in was his highlight in the 90's. Holyfield's draw with Lewis was universally recognised as a robbery, though Holyfield had been KO'd by a faded Bowe 3 years prior.

    3. As a big slow behemoth who had very few miles on the clock due to his 10 year hiatus, Foreman aged remarkably well. He was also more skilled and experienced in the 90's and had 30-50 lbs more mass: heavier hands, physically stronger, more durable.

    4. Fighters can take advantage of modern improvements as they fight through the decades. It's not like the tools they have access to are frozen in time from a past era.

    5. Washed-up fat Arreola and morbidly obese Kownacki broke Ike and Tua's punch stat record a couple of years ago. Ali and Frazier can't come close to competing with that 12 round output from those two behemoths over 15 rounds. Maybe fighters 100 years ago were mentally tougher than the fighters 50 years ago but there were quitters at the top level back then and there are more than a few warriors now.
     
  6. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,040
    8,222
    Mar 7, 2012
    Great fighters are great fighters.

    They would do well in any era.

    A tournament between today’s fighters and guys from the past, would simply yield mixed results depending on how they matched up stylistically.

    It’s that simple.

    Boxing has progressed from its roots, but it doesn’t keep progressing. It just ebbs and flows. There’s whole divisions today that aren’t as strong as what they were 20-40 years ago.

    Today’s HW division as a whole isn’t as strong as it’s been in previous eras, such as the 90’s.

    Regarding some of your points:

    Guys like Andy Ruiz and Tyson Fury don’t take advantage of today’s sports science/nutrition.

    There’s been no new techniques or rule changes for decades. Deontay Wilder is a top 5 HW with poor technique.

    Lewis, Foreman, Tyson, Homes and Ali etc, would all be top 10 HW’s today. Just remind yourself of today’s top 10.

    If you want to specifically look at the 60’s and 70’s, then you’re looking at: Ali, Liston, Foreman, Norton and Holmes etc.

    Why on earth couldn’t they find success today, when a guy like Dillian Whyte (I’m a fan) is a genuine top 10 guy.

    A great HW would be able to beat other great HW’s from any era.

    Sports science and PEDS are beneficial, but skills and styles will always determine the outcome of the fight.

    The biggest, strongest guys aren’t always the best.

    The biggest, strongest guys will always have a stylistic nemesis.

    Every fighter has a stylistic nemesis.
     
  7. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,040
    8,222
    Mar 7, 2012
    Boxing is more skill based that athletics, which rely more on strength and power.

    Great boxers from the past could beat today’s super sized athletes.

    Usyk has just embarrassed AJ.

    An obese Andy Ruiz ran through AJ 2 years ago.

    Fights are won based on skills and styles, not just strength and power.
     
    cross_trainer likes this.
  8. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,040
    8,222
    Mar 7, 2012
    How are the performances measured in those other sports?

    They’re mostly measured by time and distance.

    The sports rely more on strength and power.

    Sports like swimming and sprinting are timed in milliseconds.

    When you have a sport that is based on a fraction of a second like sprinting, the equipment and the surface etc, can play a huge role in the outcomes.

    Boxing is more skill based.

    It’s not who’s the fastest from point A to point B against a clock.

    It’s 2 men squaring off in a ring, in a physical game of chess.

    Fights are always determined on how the fighters match up stylistically. Always.

    I’ve been a huge boxing fan for over 30 years.

    I know that’s there’s whole divisions today that aren’t as strong as what they were 20-40 years ago.

    There’s great fighters of the past which would destroy SOME of today’s guys.

    The sport of boxing does not keep progressing every decade.

    It simply ebbs and flows, just like it has done for decades.

    It would be completely ignorant to assume that in 20 years time the fighters will be better than what they are today.

    They might be. They might not.

    No new skills or techniques have been invented.

    There’s been no rule changes for decades.

    How on earth could anyone assume that in 50 years time, there’ll be a HW who could play with our favourite fighters?

    It’s so ignorant.

    Based on what?

    Recorded times from OTHER sports?

    Larry Holmes’ prime was 40 years ago.

    How many of today’s HW’s could have played with him?

    Today’s fighters are not the best fighters of all time.
     
  9. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,040
    8,222
    Mar 7, 2012
    There’s fighters from 40-50 years ago that would be able to beat today’s guys.

    Fights are determined by how the 2 fighters match up stylistically.

    Time can’t change that.
     
  10. mrbigshot

    mrbigshot Active Member Full Member

    689
    363
    Oct 29, 2021
    Of course boxing - especially hw - is about strenght and power.

    If it would not be the case you can cancel any weight classes and let box lightweight guys against hw athletes - wont happen .

    Its also no conicidence that the hw division is traditionally not leading by athletes from asian countries with an all in all 'smaller' population .

    Boxing obviously is about size , strenght and punching power , in combination with skill , reflexes and technique. Both parts are needed.
     
  11. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,040
    8,222
    Mar 7, 2012
    Great post.
     
  12. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,040
    8,222
    Mar 7, 2012
    You are as ignorant as the nostalgic people that you’re criticising.
     
  13. alangjk

    alangjk Active Member Full Member

    1,119
    801
    Aug 7, 2015
    We are in love with them.
     
  14. SmackDaBum

    SmackDaBum TKO7 Full Member

    5,191
    1,711
    Nov 22, 2014
    I dont. I dont rate small or big heavyweights from the past that high. Small low because they were small. Big also low because they just had to bully small.

    Modern super heavies has to face eachother unlike in The past. And everytime a big heavy encounter another big they expose eachother. Lewis-Vitali Wlad-Sanders etc...
     
    ertwin likes this.
  15. Loudon

    Loudon VIP Member Full Member

    39,040
    8,222
    Mar 7, 2012
    WTF?