Wilder would have dominated the 1920s

Thats the word. Former middle weight.

Im comparing them in the sense that both gained tons of fat to move to heavyweight. I never stated he was anywhere near as good as Tony. Regardless the point still stands. The man wasn't a middleweight on the night. And Wilder certainly handled him with ease. He didn't go to war with him or anything

You'll never see a 169 pound fighter give a modern heavyweight any problems. Also Billy Conn was a former welterweight and even started up as the size of a modern light weight.

He was 188 when he fought Fulton i believe which is what some big LHWs rehydrate to. He certainly wasn't the size of a modern cruiserweight. There's a reason you don't see 180-190 pound fighters win titles in the modern heavyweight division. SHWs would toy with them

 

He didn't stop him in one round and by most accounts I've read, he looked miserable against 40 years old 5'9 obese MW who came out of retirement. How is that worse than fighting with Conn or Miske?

So, gaining 40 lbs of fat at the end of your career makes you a HW, but being a prime healthy 188 lbs makes you a LHW?

I'm well aware of dehydration, but your logic again is extremely flawed. Miske wasn't a LHW during Fulton's fight.

You don't know that.

 

This. Wilder would have a tough time in the 20’s. Wilder hasn’t shown anything to indicate he can dominate any era. If he thought Fury was too rough and dirty I can only imagine him fighting in the 20’s against someone like George Godfrey or Harry Wills, who were as dirty and rough as they come.

I would heavily favor Jack Dempsey, Jack Sharkey, Harry Wills, George Godfrey, Babe Hunt, Knute Hansen, Jimmy Byrne, Harold Mays, and Paulino Uzcudun to beat Wilder.

Wilder against guys like Monte Munn, Arthur De Kuh, Otto Van Porat, Jose Santa, Jack Gross, Phil Scott, and Firpo would be 50/50 fights.

 

Did Wilder get KO'd by the obese former middleweight ? Did he go to war with him ? Or did he toy with him and KO him within a few rounds ? I think it's latter because the few accounts i read Wilder had no trouble with him.

It's not, you're not reading my post correctly. I'm not going to call him a middleweight against Wilder because he wasn't a middleweight against Wilder. He was however a former middleweight but against Wilder he was over 200 pounds. But let's call him a middleweight then. Did Wilder have trouble ? Nah. Not at all. Im calling Miske a LHW because a lot of light heavy weights are around that size as 188lb on the night of the fight which is why i mentioned them hydrating. I'm not going to call him a cruiserweight because modern cruiserweights are larger than that. Cruiserweights have gotten bigger.

But lets call him a small cruiserweight just for the fun of it. Regardless you don't see 188lb guys winning titles at heavyweight nowadays. The size gap between them and SHWs is too big to overcome because SHWs aren't the same clumsy rudimentary SHWs that they used to be in the early 20th century. That's my entire point.

 

Sailor Tom would destroy Wilder.

 

That's the most likely scenario, yes.

 

Foreman never displayed anything close to Chavez in terms of footwork or cutting off the ring. I didn't see it against Peralta or Young.
Even when he got Ali to the ropes where he wanted him what happened there? I am not arguing Wilder>Foreman by he way I don't like watching either. Joe Louis was no plodder everything was purposeful if you wanted to learn to punch or move Louis was the man everything flowed so intentionally we haven't seen anything close to him at HW again does that mean boxing has regressed since Joe? Look how sound and skilled Walcott, Charles ect where... To which you can say look at Max Baer, Tony and Buddy do you understand what I am saying?

In Jack Dempsey's era things were different but there were guys you would called "skilled" with a quick glance Gibbons and Tunney took up the "St Paul" way of fighting from the boxing central of the time and looked better then Wilder, Fury and AJ.

 

Wilder would of seriously hurt some guys in the 1920s but he also would lose some fights. Wilder struggles terribly to let his hands go with any movement at all presented to him. Szpilka, the football player and especially Fury have all befuddled him with movement. And aside from Fury none of them are great movers. Fighting smaller men that move would present some problems for Wilder. He might blast out some of the bigger guys for the era but I think he would also lose some

 

When i compared Foreman to Chavez i was comparing footwork. Foreman was amazing at cutting off the ring. Ali said it himself and we saw it against Ali. Ali was the best mover in that era. Foreman also showed it against Norton. After the Ali loss Foreman changed up his style which is why you didn't see it against Young. Foreman really stalked Peralta but never really cut off the ring. That doesn't dismiss the great ring cutting he showed in the Ali fight so i don't see your point. Foreman could pivot better, had a better jab, was a better combination puncher. Besides frame and speed. Wilder has nothing over Foreman and Foreman himself was a big guy. Much bigger than Dempsey

Foreman swung on Ali but got outsmarted on the ropes. You think Ali wouldn't jab Louis's face off ? Joe Louis in his prime had trouble with Walcotts movement. Peak Ali schools him much worse than he did Foreman. I also disagree that we've never seen anything like Joe Louis. Holyfield is better than Joe Louis. Louis stalked his opponents and was an amazing combination puncher but Holyfield was a better, more consistent counterpuncher, had better head movement, better footwork, a more complex guard, and arguably quicker hands. Louis was good but on camera i can tell that the SHWs nowadays severely outclass the SHWs in his era.

People laugh at Joshua for Loosing to Ruiz but that fat 5'9 midget had Louis on the floor and he's nowhere near as technically sound as Ruiz and Ruiz isn't even all that. No disrespect to Louis because he was great. The best combination puncher I have ever seen in my life but there are heavyweights who are better than him in other aspects like counter punching, head movement, foot speed, footwork, jab, distance control, speed, etc.

Fury is levels above Tunney. Even if they were the same level the size difference is enormous between them and a Joshua or a Fury. And these guy's aren't the clumsy big men that existed back them. There's a reason you don't see a Jack Dempsey sized fighter dominante today. Big guys in boxing have gotten more athletic and more skilled. That is the exact reason Artur Beterbiev isn't ever going to win the heavyweight title. He's 6'0, 185lb and a huge puncher. He'd fit right into the 20s heavyweight landscape. But the size difference between him and these 6'4+, 240lb+ is gigantic

 

Based on cutting the ring against Norton and having Ali go to the ropes on purpose you compare him to JCC? Saying the Young fights and Parelta fights don't count is a cop out. Ali you realize watched the Peralta fight for the Rumble because he saw flaws in George. Muhamad did not see the monster we talk about on here he saw a big strong guy with suspect stamina looping punches and very, very few rounds under his belt and who needed a lot of space to work he was a very flawed fighter.

This isn't about Wilder>Foreman or talking about his size over Dempsey. This is just me explaining that every generation is filled with extremes at the top level that the regression isn't quite true. The part I have highlighted has very little with what we are talking about and is what I was trying to avoid If you read what I said.

The reason you don't see men Jack Dempsey's size at the top today is because it would not be worth it. Dempsey and his opponents where all cruisers and LHWs some were smaller. Building an argument on the SHWs of that time does not change anything it is proving my point... I disagree that Fury or AJ fight better then Tunney. In a fight I could not tell you who wins most likely Fury and AJ but that wasn't what I was saying.

I am trying to just tell you that the gulf in talent exists in every era if you take certain fighters and use them as an argument for that era being inferior it just becomes a finger pointing game that leads nowhere when you are talking about skill.

 

Ali also claimed Foreman cut the ring off well. He improved since the Parelta fight but by the Young fight he had a different style. He was looking to slowly walk down and box with Young early instead of cutting down the ring and beating young up on the ropes like he tried against Ali

Well when I'm comparing generations im also comparing elite vs elite for each generation

It seems im the only one in classic how boxing has evolved since the early 20th century. When i look at fighters from the 1920s and compare them to fighters today i see a progression in skill and precision. In my honest opinion if you took a modern world class cruiserweight and put them in the 1920s heavyweight division, they'd clean house. Easily.

 

Ali also claims a lot of things for his legend. He tries cornering Young plenty he just couldn't.

Again read my posts.

You are in the majority for the highlighted section actually...

Your final point tells me you have not understood what I am telling you.

 

Foreman was excellent at cutting off the ring, we saw it ourselves on that night. Thats part of the reason Ali decided to ditch the dancing and do rope a dope. He was far more aggressive against Ali. Against Young he slowly walked young down but didn't cut off the ring as well because he was trying to box with Young more than he did against Ali. You said he never displayed any footwork for cutting off the ring and i gave you 2 examples. The fight with Ali and the fight with Ken Norton.

I understand what you're trying to say. I say lets compare the elite fighters of each era instead of comparing elite fighters of one era to mediocres from another. Lets compare Jack Dempsey to cruiserweight Oleksandr Usyk, because Jack Dempsey was the top "heavyweight" in his era and Usyk was the top cruiserweight and top heavyweight. I just think Usyk far surpasses Dempsey in every aspect besides power.

Joe Louis beats Wilder I've said that. But imo nobody from the 20s would have the tools to be the favorite against Deontay Wilder

 

Did I say he showed NO footwork? If I did let me rephrase he was nothing compared to JCC and was not great at cutting off the ring.
Ken Norton was no hard target and Ali again wanted to be on the ropes.

This isn't about H2H. You are talking about ability the regression of "skills" you are also comparing guys from two different rule sets look how big the gloves are Usyk was wearing and understand the way Dempsey had to fight the way he did Usyk for example would be helpless in the clinch and on the inside with Jack Dempsey and would be parrying next to nothing if we took him as he was. Dempsey would lose a lot as well coming to Usyks era of course.

 

Ali tried to move around the ring in the early rounds and got shut down. I believe thats why he decided to play rope a dope with Foreman

I don't necessarily disagree, but Joe Louis wore the same type of gloves correct me if im wrong and he seemed more refined and well rounded than Jack Dempsey or anybody in Dempsey's era on film. Usyk could clinch though.