Which Past Fighters Would Dominate in Today’s Era?

[HisExcellency]

How do you think, the best fighters of the first quarter of the 20th century would do against the best from the first quarter of the 21st century? Would they "wipe the floor" with the modern sissies - or have today's boxers, over a 100 year period, evolved too much for the old-timers to keep up?

I’d favour the old-timers because like I said, they literally fought HUNDREDS of times during their careers including a dozen times a year. They also made MASSIVE jumps in weight (e.g. Greb started as a Weltwerweight but fought as high as Heavyweight). Nobody is doing anything like that today. Therefore, the men of the past were braver, tougher and stronger and would probably beat today’s best fighters 9 times out of 10.

[Anomalocaris]

Hearns is a perfect example - at welter and light-middle if you are not called Sugar Ray you have no chance at all.

[Bundana]

I’d favour the old-timers because like I said, they literally fought HUNDREDS of times during their careers including a dozen times a year. They also made MASSIVE jumps in weight (e.g. Greb started as a Weltwerweight but fought as high as Heavyweight). Nobody is doing anything like that today. Therefore, the men of the past were braver, tougher and stronger and would probably beat today’s best fighters 9 times out of 10.

Only a tiny, tiny group had this crazy schedule of a dozen (or more!) fights a year. 99% of the old-timers fought, on average, less than once every 3 months!

That fighters back in the day were (on average) braver, tougher and stronger than today... well, we don't really know that. It's of course nice to think, that they were (I mean, we all love the old-timers, right?) - but where's the proof?

Also, several modern boxers have gone through multible divisions, for example guys like DLH, Pacquiao, Mayweather, Hearns, Leonard, Duran, RJJ, just to name a few.

[HisExcellency]

Only a tiny, tiny group had this crazy schedule of a dozen (or more!) fights a year. 99% of the old-timers fought, on average, less than once every 3 months!

That fighters back in the day were (on average) braver, tougher and stronger than today... well, we don't really know that. It's of course nice to think, that they were (I mean, we all love the old-timers, right?) - but where's the proof?

Also, several modern boxers have gone through multible divisions, for example guys like DLH, Pacquiao, Mayweather, Hearns, Leonard, Duran, RJJ, just to name a few.

You specifically asked me about the BEST fighter's of the last century vs. the best fighter's of the current century which would include the likes of SRR, Armstrong, Greb etc who fought hundreds of times during their careers and more than a dozen times per year. Therefore, that in itself would make them braver, tougher, stronger than the best fighter's of today's era you listed who barely fought 3-4 a year during their peak. Also, although the likes of Pacquiao and a few others did conquer a number of weight classes, NOBODY comes close to Greb who jumped from Welterweight to Heavyweight (and won).

[Bundana]

You specifically asked me about the BEST fighter's of the last century vs. the best fighter's of the current century which would include the likes of SRR, Armstrong, Greb etc who fought hundreds of times during their careers and more than a dozen times per year. Therefore, that in itself would make them braver, tougher, stronger than the best fighter's of today's era you listed who barely fought 3-4 a year during their peak. Also, although the likes of Pacquiao and a few others did conquer a number of weight classes, NOBODY comes close to Greb who jumped from Welterweight to Heavyweight (and won).

Why would the fact that some of the old-timers often fought a dozen (or more) times a year, in itself make them braver, tougher, etc.? Don't you think, that some of even the top fighters, sometimes just went through the motions against hapless journeymen... doing just enough to prevent them from being thrown out, for not wanting to fight? I mean, with often a super-busy schedule, wouldn't their main concern be to get through the fights, with a minimum of effort - so they could go on to the next fight, uninjured and with as little damage sustained as possible?

[Anomalocaris]

You specifically asked me about the BEST fighter's of the last century vs. the best fighter's of the current century which would include the likes of SRR, Armstrong, Greb etc who fought hundreds of times during their careers and more than a dozen times per year. Therefore, that in itself would make them braver, tougher, stronger than the best fighter's of today's era you listed who barely fought 3-4 a year during their peak. Also, although the likes of Pacquiao and a few others did conquer a number of weight classes, NOBODY comes close to Greb who jumped from Welterweight to Heavyweight (and won).

Tommy came the closest Welter to Cruiser (Heavy by early 20th century standards).

[HisExcellency]

Why would the fact that some of the old-timers often fought a dozen (or more) times a year, in itself make them braver, tougher, etc.? Don't you think, that some of even the top fighters, sometimes just went through the motions against hapless journeymen... doing just enough to prevent them from being thrown out, for not wanting to fight? I mean, with often a super-busy schedule, wouldn't their main concern be to get through the fights, with a minimum of effort - so they could go on to the next fight, uninjured and with as little damage sustained as possible?

Lol I don’t think they were fighting many journeyman during the peak of their careers. Also, let’s not forget that SRR, Greb, Armstrong etc fought in MULTIPLE weight classes (often becoming champions in most) so would’ve been facing strong competition on their path to fighting for or winning world titles (and slightly lesser titles). Therefore, the fact that they were fighting good competition in multiple different weight classes many times a year MAKES them braver, tougher, stronger etc than today’s best fighters.

[Bronson66]

You specifically asked me about the BEST fighter's of the last century vs. the best fighter's of the current century which would include the likes of SRR, Armstrong, Greb etc who fought hundreds of times during their careers and more than a dozen times per year. Therefore, that in itself would make them braver, tougher, stronger than the best fighter's of today's era you listed who barely fought 3-4 a year during their peak. Also, although the likes of Pacquiao and a few others did conquer a number of weight classes, NOBODY comes close to Greb who jumped from Welterweight to Heavyweight (and won).

How many of Armstrong's welterweight challengers deserved title shots?

[Ben Bolt]

Therefore, that in itself would make them braver, tougher, stronger than the best fighter's of today's era you listed who barely fought 3-4 a year during their peak.

Tougher, probably, but so were the times. They fought more often because they had to, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was to their advantage.
You could argue that their bodies didn't get enough rest and time to heal, and there was also less time to be in the gym to improve skills and hone details.

[Bundana]

Lol I don’t think they were fighting many journeyman during the peak of their careers. Also, let’s not forget that SRR, Greb, Armstrong etc fought in MULTIPLE weight classes (often becoming champions in most) so would’ve been facing strong competition on their path to fighting for or winning world titles (and slightly lesser titles). Therefore, the fact that they were fighting good competition in multiple different weight classes many times a year MAKES them braver, tougher, stronger etc than today’s best fighters.

So you want to continue focusing exclusively on SRR, Greb and Armstrong? I wonder, why that is... could it be because they just happen to be at the very top of most "greatest fighters of all time" lists?

Yes, those guys were undoubtedly brave, tough, strong, etc.! But were the top old-timers, generally speaking, really in a different league to the top fighters today, when it comes to those qualities?

I think someone like Pacquiao exhibited plenty of strength and toughness, when he went through all those divisions - often facing top opponents that were naturally much bigger than himself.

Same with DLH, Whitaker, Inoue and many more, as they were going up in weight.

And how about someone like Usyk - who pretty much cleaned out two divisions, when mostly fighting in his opponents' backyard.

Are all these (and the rest of today's top fighters) just modern sissies, who would be crushed "9 times out of 10" - if put in against real fighters from days gone by?