Any one else think Jimmy Wilde was over rated?

[Joey Giardello]

Your thoughts on this?

[DR.ORGYY]

I dont think so cause i never heard of him....

[sonnyboyx2]

yes and no.... from Wilde`s era he is not overated but compaired to todays fighters he is overated

[JAB5239]

yes and no.... from Wilde`s era he is not overated but compaired to todays fighters he is overated

I would argue the opposite my friend. Compared to todays era he is underrated. I can't claim to be hugely familiar with his comp, but being successful from 100lbs to over 126 is pretty amazing. I'd have to brush up on Wilde to make a better argument, but I think any fighter today that could do what he did would be revered.

[Postman prat]

Listen,he's not the greatest Welsh fighter of all time,but he's in the top two.

[sonnyboyx2]

I would argue the opposite my friend. Compared to todays era he is underrated. I can't claim to be hugely familiar with his comp, but being successful from 100lbs to over 126 is pretty amazing. I'd have to brush up on Wilde to make a better argument, but I think any fighter today that could do what he did would be revered.

yes his achievements were unique for his era.. i have seen almost all the footage which is available on Jimmy Wilde which is of poor quality yet IMO i feel that it would be difficult for Wilde in the modern era, yet i could be wrong we will never know

here is a link..

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=28620

[BennyST]

Listen,he's not the greatest Welsh fighter of all time,but he's in the top two.

He's just lucky he didn't fight in your era Joe.

[BennyST]

yes his achievements were unique for his era.. i have seen almost all the footage which is available on Jimmy Wilde which is of poor quality yet IMO i feel that it would be difficult for Wilde in the modern era, yet i could be wrong we will never know

here is a link..

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=28620

You still have to take everything into account. A champion from one era would be a champion in another era generally. A great champion in one would be great in another. Wilde dominated his era and would do so in most others too. If you take training differences etc into perspective, he would still be as good today as he was then.

Everyone trained the same back then and he beat them all. If he fought today he would train the same as everyone today. He would still have the same qualities over his opposition that he had back then. Things like that don't change because of the era. He was faster, more powerful, more determined etc etc, then his opponents and he would be so today too.

[JAB5239]

You still have to take everything into account. A champion from one era would be a champion in another era generally. A great champion in one would be great in another. Wilde dominated his era and would do so in most others too. If you take training differences etc into perspective, he would still be as good today as he was then.

Everyone trained the same back then and he beat them all. If he fought today he would train the same as everyone today. He would still have the same qualities over his opposition that he had back then. Things like that don't change because of the era. He was faster, more powerful, more determined etc etc, then his opponents and he would be so today too.

I have a hard time with anyone not thinking the fighters of yesteryear were not as fast or skilled. Does anyone think the fighters of the past were not as skilled as Darchinyan, who fought tonight? I just don't see it. Take into account the gloves, era, distance and how often they fought, plus the crappy video and I think they're just as good if not better. Jmo.

[BennyST]

It is interesting to note that due to video frames etc, the differences are greatly exaggerated. There are stylistic differences obviously but when you see some footage of the old guys in slow-mo, of which there is very little, they look as fluid, skilled and technically sound as anyone today.

The jump in frames per second means that you see very little of their actual motion, making them look jerky and uncoordinated, which is where most get their impressions from I guess. You only need to look at guys like Leonard, Pep etc to see they are as fluid as fighters today and when you then take into consideration the stylistic differences and account for them, there is very little difference.

Guys today have different skills than those of past eras. There is less emphasis on feinting, blocking, parrying, clinching, inside fighting etc etc today and more on anaerobic power etc etc.

What you see in fighters like Hopkins really was closer to the norm back then. That's how the majority of good fighters fought. With all the same 'tricks' and tactics. Punch numbers are another misnomer. Many think they didn't throw many punches back then and that has proven to be false. The numbers are the same.

I think you only have to look at what happened and then compare them in relation, all things considered. If a fighter from any great era was a fantastic champion, whether it was 1920 or 1970, he would be just as dominant. Things don't change just because of the era. If a guy was faster, stronger, harder to hit and more determined in 1920 and dominated his opposition, then he would do so later too. The opponents would all change, as he would, in relative terms. It's not as if everyone would suddenly get better while this one guy didn't.

With the same training as everyone else in relative eras he would still get faster, stronger, be as determined etc etc etc etc. It's all relative and that's how you have to look at it. There is no other way. It doesn't work by saying "Benny Leonard would get owned today. He was slower and didn't hit as hard and the guys today were much bigger and more powerful!" because if that were the case then he would be fighting at a smaller weight class with guys weighing the same as him....or, in relative terms, he would have also gotten slightly bigger and more explosive with the same training techniques, but he would also have all the little tricks he used back then.