Will people ever STOP OVERRATING old primitive era boxers with little skill?

[madsweeney]

No they won't.

Literally every other sport the athletes today blow away their counterparts from the olden days and it's accepted as fact, but boxing fans want to say Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis would rule today.

It's total nonsense, you may find fighters from past eras more visually appealing, I can understand that but it doesn't mean they would reign today.

It's trendy to hate on whatever we have now though, it makes you appear like more of a boxing hipster to say Jack Dempsey would wipe the floor with Tyson Fury, lol.

Yea, not true. There's always that argument that ATGs given modern training would be even better than the best of today. They were limited by tech and knowledge of their time...and they still were phenoms. People are aware the advantages of modern science and technology give athletes, GOAT debates almoast always include some normalization when comparing different eras. Jordan/LeBron in each others era..Wilt with modern science/training, Bo with modern surgery/medicine...Ruth/Gretsky, nevermind, normalization not needed for those guys. Point is they're in the discussion because they were freaks...genetically and/or skill/intelligence that would make them competitive in any era, moreso with modern advantages.

[Ascended]

Yea, not true. There's always that argument that ATGs given modern training would be even better than the best of today. They were limited by tech and knowledge of their time...and they still were phenoms. People are aware the advantages of modern science and technology give athletes, GOAT debates almoast always include some normalization when comparing different eras. Jordan/LeBron in each others era..Wilt with modern science/training, Bo with modern surgery/medicine...Ruth/Gretsky, nevermind, normalization not needed for those guys. Point is they're in the discussion because they were freaks...genetically and/or skill/intelligence that would make them competitive in any era, moreso with modern advantages.

Wrong cause these names would need advances gret Jordan or wilt they all need advances cause the era after is way more technical so no they can't just come in how they were and do great like have you seen wilts era or js both of these eras are slow and missing mutiple advances in plays and movements you can watch on youtube so why did you say not true for

And jack would be destroyed by fury Anthony and mutiple others its easy to see this

[Good ol' Douglas]

So it's possible to be very successful in the modern era even if you lack skill and are lighter than your opponents if you have other strengthsand attributes. I find that interesting.

Nobody said otherwise? You are attacking strawmen lmao

Joe Louis, for example, is slow and stiff as **** like a small, predictable robot. He lacks Wilder's athleticism, power and physical attributes.

Louis is the most overrated HW ever outside Ali and Tyson because you have cringe pseudo-analysts like modern martial artist on YT sucking off his "perfect" right hand that was loopy and weird.

Terrible biomechanics and weight transfer, but the sheep eat it up because they are uneducated, easily impressionable and have a strong desire to fit in at all costs.

[Ascended]

Nobody said otherwise? You are attacking strawmen lmao

Joe Louis, for example, is slow and stiff as **** like a small, predictable robot. He lacks Wilder's athleticism, power and physical attributes.

Louis is the most overrated HW ever outside Ali and Tyson because you have cringe pseudo-analysts like modern martial artist on YT sucking off his "perfect" right hand that was loopy and weird.

Terrible biomechanics and weight transfer, but the sheep eat it up because they are uneducated, easily impressionable and have a strong desire to fit in at all costs.

No joe is the most overrated so called hw its mutiple trolls here saying how he was the most skilled yet missing mutiple advances they had in movement since 70s

The resume to show me him using advances i have asked mutiple people since last year to show me on video him using advances they had since 70s they wont show me they wont expose me as being wrong but will tell me how im wrong these people are crazy

Like if I was wrong why is video so hard to provide if it exist the reason is cause the Joe they speak of is a fiction joe in their mentally messed up heads

the man we talk of is the real joe on video and he is like you said and I have said mutiple times on this site and others slow and stiff

Even though deon tech and movement trash for this era and compared to people like fury ali and a lennox he still has more angles and moves better then they did in Joe's era

[Apollo7]

Nobody said otherwise? You are attacking strawmen lmao

No that would be you when you said the following...

I pity deluded nostalgists like you because all your arguments are either fallacious or emotionally-derived..

I was simply adding a point to the debate.

[billeau2]

http://www.heavyweightblog.com/3510/...mon-buddy-baer

Some great points raised... Ill respond briefly to a few it is the least I could do considering you posted the article:

1. There is an assumption that KO percentage is a correlate to success. It goes like this: "Well if you look at how Ali, Louis, Marciano(?) perform against larger opponents, they do not manage to KO them with nearly the same frequency"...and there is a stat that shows diminishing KO%.

One has to ask: Since when does the ability to kO an opponent with a particular advantage indicate a decline in the ability to beat them? For example, picture one of the Klitsko brothers going into the later rounds in a fifteen round fight with a lighter heavyweight...

A corollary to this point would be: If you look at the "giants" in foregone eras, they may have not been punchers (because the largest fighters seldom are punchers) but they were conditioned to fight for 15 rounds if need be.

In either case, there is no connection to KO% and Win%, a KO is one way to win a fight.

2. Size and punching ability: The Klitskos and Louis are actually somewhat exceptional as big men because all three had real punching power. Tyson Fury, who I believe is better than either Klitsko and on a par with Lennox as great as he is, is not really a big puncher. If you look at who lewis and the Klitkos lost to, suprise? smaller guys who have a big punch and in the case of Vitalie? a smaller fighter who won on a fluke. But Vitalie never fought anyone much good until Lewis beat him so he is an anomolie. Vlad and Lewis both lost to smaller heavyweights with a big punch.

In fact, when we look at big punchers, and the best pressure fighters who used accumulation these guys are in the mean for what people consider the average range for a heavyweight fighter: between 210 and 240ish or so... Wilder at his best performances came in around 215-220. Holyfield at his best was what? around 230 at most?

So... even with the giants around... the big punchers hardly need weight.

3. This is my biggest bone to pick: Weight is NOT an absolute advantage and only one part of SIZE. Liston was constructed from a blueprint when a man asked the good Lord to produce the cannon of proportions for a heavyweight: Liston had immense arms and shoulders, giant hands, a thick neck.... weight in all the right places and came in around 210 to maybe 225? How was Fitzzimons able to fight heavyweights? f you look at the guy he is a light weight from the legs to the waist and a superheavy from the waist up! lol. ( I am being cheeky here). Weight CAN BE an advantage or a disadvantage.

If you look right now we have a typical sample of heavyweight greatness: Fury is huge and excellent, and would be so at half the size, and Usyk, who regardless of weight, is a smaller heavyweight. Those are the top two and a pretty good indication of the advantages/disadvantages of size... Lets see who comes up and when ALL champs on average are over 250...

[billeau2]

Wilder has been regularly coming in above 220 lbs since 2012. 230+ lbs in his past two fights.

Man is 6'7 with an 83" reach and explosive KO power. Name a single fighter prior to the modern era with all these attributes? Oh wait, you cannot.

Also, Usyk is the second best of this era and the greatest technician the HW division has ever seen.

I pity deluded nostalgists like you because all your arguments are either fallacious or emotionally-derived.

Wilder was at his best at his lightest... Look at tape. Bulking up was not succesful against Fury, on the contrary. And while Wilder always had limited success, his best chance to win was the first fight punch that could have counted Fury out. At this weight? around 215 at the max, though more like 210 or so...

[Good ol' Douglas]

Some great points raised... Ill respond briefly to a few it is the least I could do considering you posted the article:

1. There is an assumption that KO percentage is a correlate to success. It goes like this: "Well if you look at how Ali, Louis, Marciano(?) perform against larger opponents, they do not manage to KO them with nearly the same frequency"...and there is a stat that shows diminishing KO%.

One has to ask: Since when does the ability to kO an opponent with a particular advantage indicate a decline in the ability to beat them? For example, picture one of the Klitsko brothers going into the later rounds in a fifteen round fight with a lighter heavyweight...

A corollary to this point would be: If you look at the "giants" in foregone eras, they may have not been punchers (because the largest fighters seldom are punchers) but they were conditioned to fight for 15 rounds if need be.

In either case, there is no connection to KO% and Win%, a KO is one way to win a fight.

2. Size and punching ability: The Klitskos and Louis are actually somewhat exceptional as big men because all three had real punching power. Tyson Fury, who I believe is better than either Klitsko and on a par with Lennox as great as he is, is not really a big puncher. If you look at who lewis and the Klitkos lost to, suprise? smaller guys who have a big punch and in the case of Vitalie? a smaller fighter who won on a fluke. But Vitalie never fought anyone much good until Lewis beat him so he is an anomolie. Vlad and Lewis both lost to smaller heavyweights with a big punch.

In fact, when we look at big punchers, and the best pressure fighters who used accumulation these guys are in the mean for what people consider the average range for a heavyweight fighter: between 210 and 240ish or so... Wilder at his best performances came in around 215-220. Holyfield at his best was what? around 230 at most?

So... even with the giants around... the big punchers hardly need weight.

3. This is my biggest bone to pick: Weight is NOT an absolute advantage and only one part of SIZE. Liston was constructed from a blueprint when a man asked the good Lord to produce the cannon of proportions for a heavyweight: Liston had immense arms and shoulders, giant hands, a thick neck.... weight in all the right places and came in around 210 to maybe 225? How was Fitzzimons able to fight heavyweights? f you look at the guy he is a light weight from the legs to the waist and a superheavy from the waist up! lol. ( I am being cheeky here). Weight CAN BE an advantage or a disadvantage.

If you look right now we have a typical sample of heavyweight greatness: Fury is huge and excellent, and would be so at half the size, and Usyk, who regardless of weight, is a smaller heavyweight. Those are the top two and a pretty good indication of the advantages/disadvantages of size... Lets see who comes up and when ALL champs on average are over 250...

1. The claim is simply that smaller fighters are generally easier to KO, hence being easier to beat. This is statistically true and the reason why weight classes ultimately exist. The Klitschko bros would not need 15 rounds to deal with the small HWs of the past. They would have viciously stopped them in quick fashion.

2. Fury is not a big puncher compared to the hardest hitting HWs of all time. But I guarantee you he hits much harder than Joe Louis. The "smaller guys" who beat Lewis and W. Klitschko are massive compared to the old era HWs. Plus, are you not proving my point by saying they needed to get lucky in order to beat larger, skilled men? Holyfield was not a big puncher at all. Wilder is a complete anomaly with his ridiculous height and reach as it allows him to generate torque a man that relatively light should not be able to.

3. The answer to your question is simply that Liston was massive FOR HIS ERA and had no competition. Imagine chinny, LHW Patterson competing against the super-heavyweights of today? The reddit post below details how the average HW has been getting ~10 lbs bigger every generation. Why? Because it is obviously beneficial to be bigger. It is the biggest factor (not the only) when determining the outcome of a fight, thus why multi-weight champions get more props than single weight ones.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Boxing/comm...hts_over_time/

Notice how Louis, Liston, Ali and Foreman are all noticeably bigger than the average for their era? Marciano and Tyson* are the only small HWs to enjoy sustained success across any HW generation. This is not a coincidence. Because smaller guys need to compensate with other attributes like power which is purely a genetic factor and get lucky with weaker competition like in the 50s and late 80s vs. the much stronger 90s respectively.

*I guess Holyfield as well. But what happened when he ran into Bowe and Lewis? Man was probably the juiciest fighter of all time too lmao

Wilder was at his best at his lightest... Look at tape. Bulking up was not succesful against Fury, on the contrary. And while Wilder always had limited success, his best chance to win was the first fight punch that could have counted Fury out. At this weight? around 215 at the max, though more like 210 or so...

Wilder putting on weight helped his durability and strength in the clinch. A 215 lbs Wilder would not have survived to the back half of the fight.

A relatively pillow-fisted, weight-drained and rusty Fury trained by the fraud that is Ben Davison was able to stun Wilder at times. Imagine Kronk Fury in that first bout.

[KidDinamita]

I don't believe a lot of today's fighters will beat Sugar Ray Robinson at his weight and in his prime, or Harry Greb.

Those two fighters fought non-stop not like today's fighters which maybe they fight once a year.. IF..

Do you think Mayeather that fought JMM would beat any of those two? and Mayweather is considered the greatest of our generation.

[QueensburyRules]

Do you think Mayeather that fought JMM would beat any of those two? and Mayweather is considered the greatest of our generation.

- - l'l floydy never fought BALCO Juan.

l'l juany was peeing into a liter bottle that the poor deranged dolt promptly chugged down for another go. That and throwing rocks around on mountains was his training camp for l'l floydy.

TBE TUE U generation.