Wilder would have dominated the 1920s

Then why Wilder couldn't stop a 40 years old washed up MW in one round? It actually happened and unlike Fulton's opponents, Wilder's opponent wasn't even good at his own weight.

You haven't seen Fulton but you're sure Ortiz is more skilled. Got it, you don't want to gain knowledge about the era, you simply know better.

 

Was this washed up MW a MW on the night he fought Wilder ? Because if he wasn't then he's not a middle weight and Fulton got KO'd by LHW bums anyway. Besides, gaining significant amounts of mass can potentially increase punch resistance. The more weight someone has the more force it takes to rock their head compared to somebody of similar downscaled physical dimensions. Not always because multiple things affect punch resistance but sometimes. I didn't follow Wilder's career. Who was this washed up middle weight that Wilder fought ?

There is not one heavyweight who was more technically proficient that Luis Ortiz besides maybe that light heavyweight Jack Dempsey in the 20s so Fulton sure as hell wasn't. And his record reflects that

 

Firpo?

 

...

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

A lot of people in classic call me crazy. The evidence is right here
It's just no comparison. Luis Ortiz was on a higher level that the guys that roamed the 20s heavyweight boxing rings. Them mfs from the 20s were sloppy in comparison

 

You have to consider the gloves for things you think you might be seeing think about it.
As a science and a self defence boxing has really regressed- Now I am not defending either side just offering food for thought.

 

It's regressed since the 70s i agree but it's a lot better than the 20s. Gloves were different but the punching form and positions in the classic video look way off. At one point those guys are no less wilding swinging than that skilless one trick pony Wilder. But the thing is Wilder has an enormous height, reach and power advantage over Dempsey and even Wilder of all people can pick his shots better than the big guys from the 20s

 

Not trying to be cruel but regressed from the 70s? It's poster boy was as flawed as they came (Ali). Foreman swung as wide and horrible as Wilder and Bonavena, Chuvalo, ect prowled. Now compare that to Tyson, Holmes and Lennox... To which you can say look at....

You get my point. Some fighters bad as they look got where they are developing the cunning to apply what they had. Even ugly styles require years of study to develop into a contender or even champion and a man who spends a career fighting cannot be dismissed some generations just have goofs (Buddy Baer) guys like Sung Kil Moon (IK he is a fly but it helps my point) blur this a lot the line between caveman palooka and ATG was his comp bad and unskilled (No) or did he win because he was just better in spite of perceived short comings?

 

You have given an unusually low height for Wilder, but if so, assume everyone else is ~ an inch smaller than is listed.
More importantly, he sometimes utliizes the jab, first career Foreman could be inconsistent with it too, but Wilder is less skilled.
But you give him short shrift-no pun intended-when you make no mention of his extraordinary speed for his height, & top notch power.

Since on average HWs have gotten better-even if not more skilled, the size helps-it stands to reason that Wilder,-for all his very considerable flaws-would stand out more ~ 100 years ago.

However it is possible he would so about the same in terms of success-which is still a bunch of title defenses-if he could notg get away with avoiding ranked fighters most of the time.
But Dempsey did not defend his title often.

 

Oh, so Marlon Hayes isn't a HW because he gained 30 lbs of fat and didn't look like a professional fighter? Don't be ridiculous...

Also, who was the LHW that stopped Fulton?

 

Foreman was a smarter boxer than meets the eye. He was a wild slugger at times but he could afford it due to having a size advantage and strength advantage over most of his fighters and he was more coordinated than Wilder, pivoted better than Wilder, had footwork that cut off the ring well like Chavez. Even his head movement was better than Wilders and Foreman had almost none. Joe Louis for example had slow feet but his footwork was actually sound and he refined combinations unlike Jack Dempsey, or anybody i see from the 20s.

I thought Dempsey had great head movment. It would even be impressive today. Overall i think he was just better than most despite the eras short comings.

 

The word your looking for is former middle weight. If he was 200lb when he fought Wilder then we wasn't a middleweight. I wouldn't call James Toney a middleweight the night he fought Samuel Peter. Don't forget that Joe Louis went to war with a middleweight.

Billy Miske, and besides that he also got stopped by a couple cruiserweights and got KO'd by bums.

 

Dominated what?

 

Wilder might be the most overrated fighter ever…calling him a boxer is a bit of a stretch. The Firpo of his times. He’d fit right in the 20s w his skill level. How he would handle the pressure fighters is remained to be seen. Let’s see if he actually made adjustments (I don’t think he will).

 

He was 5'9 40 years old former MW with no experience at HW and he carried 40 lbs of fat. Are you serious?

Again, you're comparing James Toney who was fantastic fighter and experienced HW to a bum who never reached anything relevant in any division... Nice logic.

I don't forget that (Conn wasn't a MW though), it's you who believe that Wilder would stop every man below 200 lbs within 1 round. I'm fine with taking smaller man over bigger one if he's better and there were plenty of better fighters than Wilder in 1920s.

Billy Miske wasn't a LHW.