View Full Version : Greats of the past Vs Modern heavies.


Heckler
06-08-2006, 11:12 AM
Modern Heavies vs greats of the past.

Would the modern fighters completely overwhelm the likes of Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Sonny Liston with their larger waistlines and 'sports science' or would the work rates of say Joe Frazier cause Wlad klitschko to go into cardiac arrest? Would the swiftness of Ali and the technical brilliance of Joe Louis totally outclass the 7 foot giant Nikolay Valuev?

Your thoughts?

I'll give some of mine. The emphasis on weight is ridiculous.. yes modern heavyweights are 20-30 pounds heavier, but how much of that is lean muscle mass that equates into superior functional strength and power? Would anyone here favour Wlad Klitschko over George Foreman in a center-ring pushing and shoving contest? Does anyone here think that Vitali Klitschko is a better puncher then Sonny Liston?

Liston is an interesting example. Would he be champ today? Even if you threw Vitali in the mix i would be rather confident Sonny would be the HW champion. Solid boxing skills, a strong jab, huge reach, physical strength, and devestating punching power in both hands. I don't think any of the current crop have the depth in their skillsets to nullify the offense of a prime Sonny Liston. A six foot, 212 pound prime Liston would slay these giants.

Your opinions and analyses of how other greats would perform in the HW division are welcomed.

K-DOGG
06-08-2006, 11:40 AM
Modern Heavies vs greats of the past.

Would the modern fighters completely overwhelm the likes of Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Sonny Liston with their larger waistlines and 'sports science' or would the work rates of say Joe Frazier cause Wlad klitschko to go into cardiac arrest? Would the swiftness of Ali and the technical brilliance of Joe Louis totally outclass the 7 foot giant Nikolay Valuev?

Your thoughts?

I'll give some of mine. The emphasis on weight is ridiculous.. yes modern heavyweights are 20-30 pounds heavier, but how much of that is lean muscle mass that equates into superior functional strength and power? Would anyone here favour Wlad Klitschko over George Foreman in a center-ring pushing and shoving contest? Does anyone here think that Vitali Klitschko is a better puncher then Sonny Liston?

Liston is an interesting example. Would he be champ today? Even if you threw Vitali in the mix i would be rather confident Sonny would be the HW champion. Solid boxing skills, a strong jab, huge reach, physical strength, and devestating punching power in both hands. I don't think any of the current crop have the depth in their skillsets to nullify the offense of a prime Sonny Liston. A six foot, 212 pound prime Liston would slay these giants.

Your opinions and analyses of how other greats would perform in the HW division are welcomed.

There is no need for me to elaborate on your already eloquently stated point. K to you for stating the obvious.

Too much is made of the size of today's heavyweights, while ignoring the greater hunger...in most cases...of fighters of poorer days gone by, as well as too much ignoring of the physical downsides of being bigger...less stamina, less speed, less mobility and elusiveness.

Sure, some of yesterday's fighters very well could have fallen prey to teh sheer mass of the dinosaurs of today; but how many of todays mastadons would fall prey to the accurate spears of yesterday's hunters?

To automatically presume today's athletes would have the "advantage" over yesterday's champions in just as great a sin as presuming the fighters of yesteryear would unequivacably blow throught the best of today's lot.

For everything gained, ther is someting lost. Yesterday, they fought 20 rounds or more regularly, and did so being far more active than most of today's champions give them credit. They held their hands low...not all; and if faced with opponents who didn't, don't you think they would raise their guard?

Any man who has ever worn the mantle "World Champion" deserves just as much respect as any other...whether he wore the belt in 1910 or 2010, for to be a "champion", a true champion, is to be a breed apart.

K-DOGG
06-08-2006, 11:41 AM
...sorry; but I can't give you any K until I "spread it around".

THE REAL NINJA
06-08-2006, 11:54 AM
good post ....i think in the long run it would end up about 50/50 you will always find a mis-match that you didnt expect. When you only look at champions Vs champions you kinda know who would have won the fights,but if you bring the also rans into the mix you never know ...lets say Sam Peter Vs Ken Norton , Norton has the name and the history but Sam would have a better chance with Norton then lets say Holyfield ...obviously this goes both ways so in the long run threw the history of boxing IMO all the dream match ups between era's ends up a draw ..... :) this has been a ninja production and thank you for your support :)

RockyMarcianofan00
06-08-2006, 03:58 PM
The answer is most of the fighters of the past would outclass fighters of today. Though fighters of the past tended to be lighter there training was natrual and there size was real, unlike some of todays contenders who's sizes are just do to the fact they took many supplements to gain them weight.

Some of todays Heavyweight contenders are natrual middleweights, that says it all.

Hard Boiled HK
06-08-2006, 05:26 PM
I just simply like the old school guys better: Ali, Louis, Marciano, Fraizer, Liston, etc.

RockyMarcianofan00
06-08-2006, 05:30 PM
I just simply like the old school guys better: Ali, Louis, Marciano, Fraizer, Liston, etc.
I just believe old school fighters were trained better and had more heart, I mean one of the only modern fighters that i know has alot of heart IMO is Mickey Ward (welterweight). there's probably a few others but Nobody trains as well as they used too.

Dempsey 1919
06-08-2006, 11:23 PM
I just believe old school fighters were trained better and had more heart, I mean one of the only modern fighters that i know has alot of heart IMO is Mickey Ward (welterweight). there's probably a few others but Nobody trains as well as they used too.

Yeah, like James Toney. :D

Smokin'
06-08-2006, 11:29 PM
Old timers, easily. it's simple. all sports where skill/technique is involved, 90% of the time the skilled guy wins. This is evident in boxing.

Brassangel
06-08-2006, 11:54 PM
The fighters used to be very offensive minded: They had their style, they went with it, and lost matches when the styles contradicted one another. Today, the fighters are very cautious, and usually wait for counterpunching opportunities. It makes for fights that are less entertaining, less flashy, and rather lackluster. That doesn't mean that the fighters of today are any less amazing than the fighters of old, but it does make it more difficult for an icon to emerge without some sort of signature style to be attracted to.

hellfire508
06-09-2006, 12:50 AM
Most champs of the past would dominate today. Not all though.

Ali, Liston, Louis, Tyson, Foreman, Holmes, Frazier, Lewis, Bowe would all dominate.

Marciano, Dempsey, Johnson would be the champ, but may have a few difficult encounters, perhaps a loss here or there.

Schmelling, Walcott, Norton, Charles among others, would all be great contenders, maybe belt holders, but wouldn't be THE champ.

RockyMarcianofan00
06-09-2006, 12:52 AM
i believe if Tyson were to come out of retirement now and have the drive he had in the 80's he could have comeback better then Foreman, because lets face it if Tyson had the drive he had in the 80's then very few of todays Heavy's would be able to challenge him.

I'm not talking 80's version of Tyson vs todays Heavy's I'm talking about today's Tyson with motivation vs Today's heavy's.

Heckler
06-09-2006, 12:57 AM
The fighters used to be very offensive minded: They had their style, they went with it, and lost matches when the styles contradicted one another. Today, the fighters are very cautious, and usually wait for counterpunching opportunities. It makes for fights that are less entertaining, less flashy, and rather lackluster. That doesn't mean that the fighters of today are any less amazing than the fighters of old, but it does make it more difficult for an icon to emerge without some sort of signature style to be attracted to.

They used the style that suited their physical attributes. No matter which style Joe Frazier used he would've lost against George Foreman. The fighters of old had great trainers that would mould and develop a fighters style around their strengths and minimize the ability of an opponent to exploit weaknesses. Break the fighters down individually, look at their strengths and weaknesses, skill level etc. Could you say in all honesty that the current crop are on par with the fighters from the seventies? Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman?

THE REAL NINJA
06-09-2006, 09:24 AM
Most champs of the past would dominate today. Not all though.

Ali, Liston, Louis, Tyson, Foreman, Holmes, Frazier, Lewis, Bowe would all dominate.

Marciano, Dempsey, Johnson would be the champ, but may have a few difficult encounters, perhaps a loss here or there.

Schmelling, Walcott, Norton, Charles among others, would all be great contenders, maybe belt holders, but wouldn't be THE champ.
I agree :boxing: the thing about Era Vs Era is that some people under think it there will always be a bump in the road for every fighter . I see a lot of people claim that because Ali is thought of as the greatest that makes it a simple fact that he would beat every other fighter in history. In truth, No fighter in boxing has ever reached that level [IMO], but Ali would be part of a very small group i would give a chance to run the gauntlet of heavyweight greats. At the same time where does legand and reality separate ? Marciano for one as great as he was would not have been undefeted in most other era's but yet because of his legend we find a way for him to win against insurmountable odds. :boxing: People say that love is blind and because of the love we have for these greats we are some times blinded of the truth that they are beatable :boxing:

Frazier's 15th round
06-09-2006, 09:31 AM
Sonny Liston would crush anybody today.

tjmoney
06-24-2006, 09:47 AM
Now I would say that The Modern heavies of today would have the advantage. This however is because i have a different definition of the "modern era" than most apparently. I think the modern era began with the likes of Joe Louis, Max Schmeling, Max Baer and the like. I believe the modern era began when the fights were limited to 15 rounds, instead of the 20+ round fights of the guys before them. With these fighters sports medicine and medicine overall began to improve, training methods began to improve, technique became a major part of the game. Guys were developing gameplans rather than going in and just doing what they did in every fight. To me the "old timers" are the ones from the Jack Johnson era. These are the fighter that fought without the advantages of sports medicine and in depth gameplanning These are the guys that lacked the use of fight footage and style definitions that the modern era fighters enjoyed. And because of these things they are clearly at a disadvantage. I mean imagine a slow sloppy fighter (by todays standards) like jack johnson fighting Wlad Klitschko who's much stronger, more accurate, taller, and understands the luxuries of a good jab (which he obviously has). I mean that has lights out written all over it.