Why could past ATGs knock out guys 40 pounds bigger than them...

[Bundana]

I would bookmark around the 1930s to be the time when the truly great fighters of then could mix it up with the best of the bunch from the present day or any point in between.

I think it's a bit naive to say that boxing peaked in the 90s, although that's just my view. There's probably not as many great fighters today than there was in the 90s but until there's around 15-20 more years of that lineage, I think you could put this point in history down as a minor blip in the sport, rather than a decline.

Yep... that's pretty much how I see it too!

The heavyweight division today certainly can't compare to the 70s... but to use this as "proof" of an overall declining trend, doesn't make sense. I mean, it's not exactly like we have had no talented fighters over, say, the past 20 years. I'm sure guys like Lewis, Holyfield, Whitaker, Lopez, Jones Jr, DLH, Mosley, Pacquiao, Mayweather, Ward, Rigondeaux, etc. would do quite well in any era.

[Bolo Punch]

There are hardly any fighters today who approach the skill level, or the levels of conditioning, of guys like Joe Gans, Sam Langford, or Jack Johnson. Even a cursory study of skill confirms this.

Do you really believe that Joe Gans fought with the same intensity in his 20+ round fights as fighters do today over 12 rounds? Alternatively, do you really believe that if he were to somehow square off against a fighter of today's elk over 12 rounds he would come through as the victor?

As for Jack Johnson, he would be simply too small and too defensively relaxed to even compete with any top Heavyweight fighter of the last 50-60 years. I am confident of that.

[Humean]

There are hardly any fighters today who approach the skill level, or the levels of conditioning, of guys like Joe Gans, Sam Langford, or Jack Johnson. Even a cursory study of skill confirms this.

You must be joking.

[BKM-2010]

There are hardly any fighters today who approach the skill level, or the levels of conditioning, of guys like Joe Gans, Sam Langford, or Jack Johnson. Even a cursory study of skill confirms this.

Surely you're judging their skills by looking at how good they were in their own times? Because the rules made them fight very differently than now. You can't really compare early 20th century fighters to 21st century fighters, not in head to head matchups. It's unfair to both sides.

[BKM-2010]

Do you really believe that Joe Gans fought with the same intensity in his 20+ round fights as fighters do today over 12 rounds? Alternatively, do you really believe that if he were to somehow square off against a fighter of today's elk over 12 rounds he would come through as the victor?

As for Jack Johnson, he would be simply too small and too defensively relaxed to even compete with any top Heavyweight fighter of the last 50-60 years. I am confident of that.

Jack Johnson is one of the best examples. You can't block punches with your hands and do a lot of clinch-punching. Not only is the latter illegal nowadays but his style of defense can't be used in modern heavyweight devisions. It was a product of the times i.e. small gloves and many more rounds etc.

[Humean]

Jack Johnson is one of the best examples. You can't block punches with your hands and do a lot of clinch-punching. Not only is the latter illegal nowadays but his style of defense can't be used in modern heavyweight devisions. It was a product of the times i.e. small gloves and many more rounds etc.

It was technically illegal then to. Current boxing rules are pretty much the same as the Queensberry rules. Then as now there is usually a fairly ******* stance on clinching and holding. Johnson's style wouldn't be as effective now because he'd be fighting better guys, guys who are faster and who put punches together in combination. The guys who Johnson beat were pretty useless by todays standards. Johnson's punching technique also left a lot to be desired.

[Bolo Punch]

Jack Johnson is one of the best examples. You can't block punches with your hands and do a lot of clinch-punching. Not only is the latter illegal nowadays but his style of defense can't be used in modern heavyweight devisions. It was a product of the times i.e. small gloves and many more rounds etc.

And he fell victim to those examples you've given as a result of times changing. It's nobody's fault, though; the sport, as previously mentioned, was just a lot less evolved.

[BKM-2010]

And he fell victim to those examples you've given as a result of times changing. It's nobody's fault, though; the sport, as previously mentioned, was just a lot less evolved.

Indeed, which is why guys like him are still amazing because they were so ahead of their own times thus they are highly ranked ATG's.

[SBleeder]

Do you really believe that Joe Gans fought with the same intensity in his 20+ round fights as fighters do today over 12 rounds? Alternatively, do you really believe that if he were to somehow square off against a fighter of today's elk over 12 rounds he would come through as the victor?

As for Jack Johnson, he would be simply too small and too defensively relaxed to even compete with any top Heavyweight fighter of the last 50-60 years. I am confident of that.

Gans fought with more intensity than anyone today, bar none. And other than Benny Leonard and Roberto Duran, he'd walk through any lightweight that's come since him.

Johnson's relaxation in the ring is one of the many reasons he was so good.

[SBleeder]

Surely you're judging their skills by looking at how good they were in their own times? Because the rules made them fight very differently than now. You can't really compare early 20th century fighters to 21st century fighters, not in head to head matchups. It's unfair to both sides.

Agreed. There are hardly any 21st Century fighters who would stand a chance against the best fighters from the 20th Century.

Skills are skills; they're apparent from watching video. There is nothing that a guy like Shane Mosley does that is in any way superior to what Joe Gans did, other than get knocked out.