When is it viable to compare fighters from different era's

[Ray Corso]

I understand how and why you can't take my word!! Its because you don't know anything about the "art" of boxing! As I said you need to know Methods & Techniques instead of common opponents and records!! Theres a correct way to do things in the sport and there are individuals who break certain molds!! (Ali leaning away from punches) I'm trying to explain that there are do's & don't's in the sport, if you have never been trained by a quality trainer how the hell are you going to know these things? Yes you can read literature on a subject but participation is how its imprinted and trial and error is essential in the process!!! You don't know if you can take a punch until it lands, you don't know if you know the sport until your opinion is applied. Up until then its an opinion with not much merit. No offense but your talking to someone who earned a living in the business! Ray

[kendom]

Boxing undoubtedly evolved from the 1900's to 1930's so when it comes to head to head situations it isnt viable to compare fighters, however by the 1930's when boxing stabilized as a sport and 15 rounds became the rule it becomes viable to compare head to head, I dont see how guys like Billy Conn, Kid Chocolate etc cant be matched with the best of todays crop.

In terms of resume then yes it is viable to compare across all era's, as you can compare how well fighters did relative to their era.

[Skittlez]

It is very very viable when it comes to the modern era.

Because of video footage. I will not get into it but anybody with a boxing IQ over 50 can tell that Alexander Povetkin is not as talented as the best version of Riddick Bowe.

Or that Tony Tucker is more talented than Samuel Peter.

The movements, tactics, techniques, foot work, etc ring generalship is all on display via video so you can easily break down that Tucker >than Peter and
Bowe >then Povetkin.

But the black and white eras without footage or with limited footage is kind of hard to do.

[TysonBomb]

I say if the gap is larger than 2 or 3 decades eras shouldn't be compared

Many fighters fight through multiple eras, so this idea of the new era athletes being "better" is not always true. Look at how many eras Duran fought through.

The heavyweight era that is currently around is complete garbage and should just be forgotten. The weakest duo of champions ever witnessed and an incomprehensible decline in skill and talent. When your 6'6" frame is the the only thing saving your egg jaw from being cracked you know its a bad era.

Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis, Tyson and even old Foreman, Mercer, Douglas, and McCall would thrash this weak era. Any one of those guys would become undisputed today.

[rightsideup]

I say if the gap is larger than 2 or 3 decades eras shouldn't be compared

Many fighters fight through multiple eras, so this idea of the new era athletes being "better" is not always true. Look at how many eras Duran fought through.

The heavyweight era that is currently around is complete garbage and should just be forgotten. The weakest duo of champions ever witnessed and an incomprehensible decline in skill and talent. When your 6'6" frame is the the only thing saving your egg jaw from being cracked you know its a bad era.

Bowe, Holyfield, Lewis, Tyson and even old Foreman, Mercer, Douglas, and McCall would thrash this weak era. Any one of those guys would become undisputed today.

I am not entirely sure I agree with you as vitally gave Lewis hell before being stopped on cuts