Since boxing has evolved so much who wins these match ups.

Distance control? Lol. WTF? Pernell evades punches extremely well with head movement and elite footwork - fact - however he isn't in a natural fighting stance and is often off balance and can't land a meaningful counter. This isn't even a debate. Floyd is the superior counter puncher for a reason and it is because of his defensive techniques. Floyd's defense is by far more EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT. You don't understand the difference between distance control and defense, eh? Do you know what distance control is?

We've seen Sugar Ray Robinson lose, we've seen Muhammad Ali lose, we've seen Henry Armstrong lose, we've seen Roberto Duran lose.. :rolleyes: His O doesn't mean sh*t. :wank: Floyd's defense is "more effective due to positioning." What positioning is that EXACTLY? :lol1: It's ok. I'll tell you. He uses his legs to move away from harm's way. He RUNS away from his opponent's offense. Floyd isn't good enough to stand on a dime and make them miss indefinitely the way Pernell could and the way Duran could. That's not defense, smart guy. It's called DISTANCE CONTROL. :rolleyes: Distance control? Lol. WTF? Pernell evades punches extremely well with head movement and elite footwork - fact - however he isn't in a natural fighting stance and is often off balance and can't land a meaningful counter. This isn't even a debate. Floyd is the superior counter puncher for a reason and it is because of his defensive techniques. Floyd's defense is by far more EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT.

Tabaristio, If nearly every other top athlete from other sports have improved in the current era from past eras, then it's more likely that modern boxers have also improved than not. But they don't keep improving over time. The best fighters today aren't significantly better than the best fighters of the 80's from over 30 years ago. An argument can be made that a lot of them are. I don't think so. Go through each weight class. Of course! However, if we're comparing like for like such as the best from the modern era vs the best from past eras. Or journeymen from the modern era vs journeymen from past eras and so forth, the modern boxers will more often than not, beat boxers from past eras. But it's not just one off fights, sometimes you can make a case for entire divisions. The MW division of the early 90's is significantly stronger than today's division. And that was 25 years ago. If boxing improved each decade like in some other sports, then that would mean that a group of fighters from 25 years ago would have no chance against the current crop. Whereas in this instance, it's vice versa. A tournament today pitting the best of the current crop against the best MW's of the early 90's, would be embarrassingly one sided in favour of the guys from 25 years ago. In how many other sports would that happen? It would be if the comparisons are not like for like (best past era athletes vs worst modern era athletes). This applies for pretty much every sport, including boxing. However, once we start making a fair like for like comparison, the chances and the frequency of victories past era athletes / boxers can gain over modern era athletes / boxers decreases significantly. There'd be mixed results. The point is: There'd be no clear cut wins for the modern guys over each decade. Realistically, the results would always be mixed. There would never be a clear indication to prove that boxing just keeps evolving over time.

Boxing has evolved from his roots. However, it doesn't keep progressing in the same way that some other sports do. Otherwise, today's best fighters would be the greatest fighters of all time. Yet clearly they aren't. There's guys from 50 years ago who could beat some of the guys of today. Whereas that wouldn't be possible in some other sports. However, it doesn't keep progressing in the same way that some other sports do. If nearly every other top athlete from other sports have improved in the current era from past eras, then it's more likely that modern boxers have also improved than not. Otherwise, today's best fighters would be the greatest fighters of all time. An argument can be made that a lot of them are. There's guys from 50 years ago who could beat some of the guys of today. Of course! However, if we're comparing like for like such as the best from the modern era vs the best from past eras. Or journeymen from the modern era vs journeymen from past eras and so forth, the modern boxers will more often than not, beat boxers from past eras. Whereas that wouldn't be possible in some other sports. It would be if the comparisons are not like for like (best past era athletes vs worst modern era athletes). This applies for pretty much every sport, including boxing. However, once we start making a fair like for like comparison, the chances and the frequency of victories past era athletes / boxers can gain over modern era athletes / boxers decreases significantly.

lewis is well within the 'modern era' not just in timeframe but in traits and style.. not the best example there

Agree that whitaker is more offensive minded than mayweather, especially the second half of his career, but saying he was far superior defensively is a joke. He puts himself off balance and out of position all the time, he can get away with it because of his athleticism. You think floyd wont be able to catch him off balance? I've got another customer here.. I think you're confusing "defense" and "distance control." Whitaker had far superior defense. Mayweather is the greatest distance controller of all time but he is infinitely easier to hit cleanly when he's static.

But we have seen Pernell lose. Floyd 49-0 TBE. Floyd defense technique is MORE EFFECTIVE due to positioning which leads to accurate counter punching - all without exerting half as much energy. This is one of the main reasons why Floyd would beat Pernell on points. The end. And Floyd doesn't smoke crack. We've seen Sugar Ray Robinson lose, we've seen Muhammad Ali lose, we've seen Henry Armstrong lose, we've seen Roberto Duran lose.. :rolleyes: His O doesn't mean sh*t. :wank: Floyd's defense is "more effective due to positioning." What positioning is that EXACTLY? :lol1: It's ok. I'll tell you. He uses his legs to move away from harm's way. He RUNS away from his opponent's offense. Floyd isn't good enough to stand on a dime and make them miss indefinitely the way Pernell could and the way Duran could. That's not defense, smart guy. It's called DISTANCE CONTROL. :rolleyes:

I know hearns and leonard were pretty big for ww, but shouldnt they theoretically be smaller due to the same day weighin? If current boxers have to weigh in same day, i dont think spence could make ww, kovalev could make 175, etc. The one day prior weighin gives guys more time to regenerate after squeezing down in size, so current boxers should also be bigger than the ones who had same day weighin. Or am I thinking wrong? You are right. Basically, most fighters today would be in the class above if they brought back same day weigh-ins. Thurman and Brook will easily weigh 155-160 in the ring on fight night. Leonard and Hearns were no bigger. (Apart from Tommy obviously being a freak of nature)

The only old vs new comparison that can work will be the Heavyweights. Since other weight classes size difference is so much smaller. Hearns/Leonard were actually giants vs today's 147 guys. They will be 154 today due to rehydration. Modern=80's to now. Since the physical difference between a Frank Bruno/Tyrell Biggs/Razer Ruddock is minimal compare to say a Derek Chisora. You don't really see a true size difference unless you go back to say the 70's. I know hearns and leonard were pretty big for ww, but shouldnt they theoretically be smaller due to the same day weighin? If current boxers have to weigh in same day, i dont think spence could make ww, kovalev could make 175, etc. The one day prior weighin gives guys more time to regenerate after squeezing down in size, so current boxers should also be bigger than the ones who had same day weighin. Or am I thinking wrong?

I always thought that skills pay the bills so I don't understand how some are Saying Wilder beats Ali and Thurman would supposedly beat Robinson. Because they're ignorant and uneducated, casual fans of the sport.

Because Wilder is bigger than Foreman and hits harder I'd have bet my house on George beating Wilder.

Boxing has evolved from his roots. However, it doesn't keep progressing in the same way that some other sports do. Otherwise, today's best fighters would be the greatest fighters of all time. Yet clearly they aren't. There's guys from 50 years ago who could beat some of the guys of today. Whereas that wouldn't be possible in some other sports. I always thought that skills pay the bills so I don't understand how some are Saying Wilder beats Ali and Thurman would supposedly beat Robinson.

Ward vs Monzon at what weight? Monzon was a legit 160 Ward might have fought 3 times at 160+ a few. GGG vs Hagler would be a great match up while it lasted. Hagler has the better skill set and experience as a pro. GGG has determination and is willing, I'd pay to see it. I'd favor Hagler because I've seen him under pressure GGG doesn't have the talent base in his opponents that Hagler had. Thurman vs Sugar Ray Robinson................seriously? It better be at the hospital parking lot because Thurman is far far over his head! Pep vs Lomo would be interesting, again never seen Lomo in tough other than Salido surprising him. The "Modern Era" of boxing began in the early 1930's with Tunney and Conn using lateral movement and slide stepping with jabs. Theres is NOTHING today thats new, NOTHING! No new punches developed less technically superior fighters now and less rounds fought in championship bouts and far less activity compared to then. Duran beats the crap out of Manny, I like Manny but just watch the film! Ray Great post Ray.

Boxing has evolved? WTF you talking about? If anything, it has devolved. Fighters today are fighting twice per year against cherry-picked opposition. They are more protected now than ever, fights get stopped earlier, gloves are bigger, and trainers are quicker to throw in the towel. Fighters of previous eras were masters of the sweet science. They perfected their infighting game, they were in top condition, and fought more often. Boxing is the one sport where athletes have not evolved over the decades. Great post.

If you were speaking purely on an athletic competition (like swimming, sprinting, etc.) modern technology, medicine and nutrition would give modern athletes an advantage. Boxing is as much reliant on (moreso IMO) skill, instincts, and durability than pure athletic ability and while skills can be taught, the other two cannot and when you look at modern fighters, they tend to be fundamentally less skilled than older eras as they rely on athleticism more. A great post.

You might find exceptions but as a generalisation, modern era will beat historical. You'll always get people who like to harp back to the good old days. Your example puts a multiple time WC who reigned for a period of time up against someone who won a WT and never defend, and a WC against a contender in modern day. I'd have Ali as the greatest HW of all time that doesn't mean I think he'd beat every heavyweight. The divisions in boxing ebb and flow and they have done for a while now. The early 90's was now 25 years ago. That's a long time. Compare the MW division of the early 90's to the current one. There's no contest.

Why would they? Because Wilder is bigger than Foreman and hits harder

This sums up the whole thing perfectly! Nothing more needs to be added to this. Boxing has evolved from his roots. However, it doesn't keep progressing in the same way that some other sports do. Otherwise, today's best fighters would be the greatest fighters of all time. Yet clearly they aren't. There's guys from 50 years ago who could beat some of the guys of today. Whereas that wouldn't be possible in some other sports.

Just look at other sports, WR's have been dropping consistently and by sizeable amounts. I'm not suggesting the modern boxers are like for like better but a 2015 against a 1970 fighter there is only one winner modern sport is so much more advance. Why on earth are you comparing boxing to other sports? There's plenty of fighters from the 70's who would be able to compete against and beat today's best guys.

Almost every modern boxer would beat the older ones on a now vs then basis. If the older ones were given the same levels of training and nutrition now practised the ones with more natural skills would win most obvious would be Lewis would beat AJ and this is one of the closer gaps in terms of years Why would they?