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

[Funky_Monk]

Ali will comfortably beat every HEAVYWEIGHT in a best of 3 outside of Lewis........

I'm glad we agree

[PrBoxing88]

Crawford beating Benitez??? Lmao what a bad joke..

[Dosumpthin]

I'll talk about the interesting ones.

Pacquiao does not beat Roberto Duran prime for prime in any equation.

The simplest equation: Duran is one of the greatest defensive fighters of all time to go along with his being one of the greatest offensive fighters of all time. Manny Pacquiao can only claim one side, one half of that equation. He's coming up short. Period.

For Mayweather vs. Whitaker; I don't see how anyone with a keen enough eye and enough understanding who could watch Whitaker - a fighter who had so much control over his body and his movement he makes Floyd look frantic - a fighter in my estimation who was clearly better at unifying offense and defense far more seamlessly - and was in fact a far superior defensive fighter - and a fighter with more aggressive instincts and less fear - wouldn't understand why he would have the competitive edge.

In the grand scheme Whitaker was A+. Mayweather is just an A. I have never seen Floyd do anything in a ring that made me think he was on Pernell's level. Not one time ever.

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.

[Ray Corso]

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

[Sheldon312]

Wilfred Benitez vs. Terence Crawford
Sugar Ray Robinson vs. Keith Thurman
Sugar Ray Leonard vs. Errol Spence Jr.
Gennady Golovkin vs. Marvin Hagler
Vasyl Lomachenko vs. Willie Pep
Carlos Monzon vs. Andre Ward
Vernon Forrest vs. Shawn Porter
Roberto Duran vs. Manny Pacquiao
Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Pernell Whitaker
George Foreman vs. Deontay Wilder
Anthony Joshua vs. Lennox Lewis

Winners underlined. 6-5 to the old school.

How does Crawford beat the bigger more technical Wilfred?

[W1LL]

How does Crawford beat the bigger more technical Wilfred?

He lands a check-hook, in the corner, catching Wilfred coming in and sending him careering, head-first, into the turnbuckle. Wilfred then falls backwards, onto his back, and his feet come off the floor, as Joe Cortez administers the count.

[robertzimmerman]

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 don't understand your point regarding Ray and Tommy.

I may have misunderstood you though.

Ray and Tommy made WW with same day weigh-ins. Today's WW's are just as big, if not bigger. Ray and Tommy didn't rehydrate by much, because they didn't dehydrate as much as modern fighters do to make the weight in the first place. place.

Today's guys can rehydrate anywhere between 7-14 pounds plus.

Thurman, Brook and Spence will easily be between 155-160 on fight night.

[robertzimmerman]

Terence Crawford vs Wilfred Benietez
Keith Thurman vs Sugar Ray Robinson
Errol Spence Jr vs Sugar Ray Leonard
Gennady Golovkin vs Marvin Hagler
Vasyl Lomachencko vs Willie Pep
Andre Ward vs Monzon
Shawn Porter vs Forrest
Manny Pacquiao vs Roberto Duran
Floyd vs Pernell Whitaker
Deontay Wilder vs George Foreman
Anthony Joshua vs Lewis
Since boxers have got better over time does this mean that the old school boxers wouldn't stand a chance against today's technicians and power punchers?

I'm with you man.


It really is as simple as this:

Boxing has evolved from the M.O.Q. but it does not progress each decade in the way that some other sports have done.


Great fighters are great fighters.

Some fighters of today would beat some of the fighters of the past, and some fighters of the past would beat some of the fighters of today.

That's about it.


I've discussed this numerous times in the past few years.

People look at a guy like Usain Bolt, and they think that because a sprinter from 30 years ago would get smoked if you used a time machine, then the same would apply with boxing. But it wouldn't. There's guys who fought 50 years ago who could beat some of today's best fighters.

Boxing should never be compared to other sports. It stands alone.

You can cite sports science and nutrition etc, but a jab will always be a jab.

You can give a fighter today a masseuse, a chef, a nutritionist, a state of the art gym, and a $200 pair of running shoes to train in. It wouldn't automatically mean that he had better balance and timing than a guy from 50-60 years ago.

Boxing is an art, where many techniques need to be mastered. Boxing doesn't rely on technology as much as some other sports do.


Whilst I agree that boxing has evolved from his roots, the best fighters today aren't noticeably better than the best guys of the 80's and 90's, who fought 20-30 years ago.

[robertzimmerman]

Ya but those aren't really older fighters. They are also pretty modern in terms of physical stature. The OP is trying to say modern is NOT better than old timers. That's not true.

Modern IS better. You just have to use the correct time lines. If we go by 80's onwards=modern.

Lewis/Vitali/Tyson/Holyfield will easily cancel out Ali/Holmes/Frazier/Foreman. Than the 2nd tiers of the modern era will destroy the 2nd tiers of the 20's to 70's guys. That's where the gap becomes massive. Prime Razer Ruddock would utterly kill the 10th best HW of 1920 for example.

Lewis, Vitali, Tyson and Holmes wouldn't easily have cancelled out Ali and Holmes etc. But even if you think that the 80's guys were better than the 70's guys, and the 90's guys were better than the 80's guys, today's guys aren't as good as the 90's guys. So there's no clear progression from one decade to another.

[robertzimmerman]

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?