Greats of the past Vs Modern heavies.

[hellfire508]

Most champs of the past would dominate today. Not all though.

Ali, Liston, Louis, Tyson, Foreman, Holmes, Frazier, Lewis, Bowe would all dominate.

Marciano, Dempsey, Johnson would be the champ, but may have a few difficult encounters, perhaps a loss here or there.

Schmelling, Walcott, Norton, Charles among others, would all be great contenders, maybe belt holders, but wouldn't be THE champ.

[RockyMarcianofan00]

i believe if Tyson were to come out of retirement now and have the drive he had in the 80's he could have comeback better then Foreman, because lets face it if Tyson had the drive he had in the 80's then very few of todays Heavy's would be able to challenge him.

I'm not talking 80's version of Tyson vs todays Heavy's I'm talking about today's Tyson with motivation vs Today's heavy's.

[Heckler]

The fighters used to be very offensive minded: They had their style, they went with it, and lost matches when the styles contradicted one another. Today, the fighters are very cautious, and usually wait for counterpunching opportunities. It makes for fights that are less entertaining, less flashy, and rather lackluster. That doesn't mean that the fighters of today are any less amazing than the fighters of old, but it does make it more difficult for an icon to emerge without some sort of signature style to be attracted to.

They used the style that suited their physical attributes. No matter which style Joe Frazier used he would've lost against George Foreman. The fighters of old had great trainers that would mould and develop a fighters style around their strengths and minimize the ability of an opponent to exploit weaknesses. Break the fighters down individually, look at their strengths and weaknesses, skill level etc. Could you say in all honesty that the current crop are on par with the fighters from the seventies? Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman?

[THE REAL NINJA]

Most champs of the past would dominate today. Not all though.

Ali, Liston, Louis, Tyson, Foreman, Holmes, Frazier, Lewis, Bowe would all dominate.

Marciano, Dempsey, Johnson would be the champ, but may have a few difficult encounters, perhaps a loss here or there.

Schmelling, Walcott, Norton, Charles among others, would all be great contenders, maybe belt holders, but wouldn't be THE champ.

I agree the thing about Era Vs Era is that some people under think it there will always be a bump in the road for every fighter . I see a lot of people claim that because Ali is thought of as the greatest that makes it a simple fact that he would beat every other fighter in history. In truth, No fighter in boxing has ever reached that level [IMO], but Ali would be part of a very small group i would give a chance to run the gauntlet of heavyweight greats. At the same time where does legand and reality separate ? Marciano for one as great as he was would not have been undefeted in most other era's but yet because of his legend we find a way for him to win against insurmountable odds. People say that love is blind and because of the love we have for these greats we are some times blinded of the truth that they are beatable

[Frazier's 15th round]

Sonny Liston would crush anybody today.

[tjmoney]

Now I would say that The Modern heavies of today would have the advantage. This however is because i have a different definition of the "modern era" than most apparently. I think the modern era began with the likes of Joe Louis, Max Schmeling, Max Baer and the like. I believe the modern era began when the fights were limited to 15 rounds, instead of the 20+ round fights of the guys before them. With these fighters sports medicine and medicine overall began to improve, training methods began to improve, technique became a major part of the game. Guys were developing gameplans rather than going in and just doing what they did in every fight. To me the "old timers" are the ones from the Jack Johnson era. These are the fighter that fought without the advantages of sports medicine and in depth gameplanning These are the guys that lacked the use of fight footage and style definitions that the modern era fighters enjoyed. And because of these things they are clearly at a disadvantage. I mean imagine a slow sloppy fighter (by todays standards) like jack johnson fighting Wlad Klitschko who's much stronger, more accurate, taller, and understands the luxuries of a good jab (which he obviously has). I mean that has lights out written all over it.

[QueensburyRules]

They used the style that suited their physical attributes. No matter which style Joe Frazier used he would've lost against George Foreman. The fighters of old had great trainers that would mould and develop a fighters style around their strengths and minimize the ability of an opponent to exploit weaknesses. Break the fighters down individually, look at their strengths and weaknesses, skill level etc. Could you say in all honesty that the current crop are on par with the fighters from the seventies? Larry Holmes, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman?

- -In 08 those guys were making their chops, but noticeably Ali had slipped to #2 by Ibro and now with the Ks unheard of dominance, all but Foreman will slip some more.

A prob is this newer era is vastly different rules and more international with 20x the lefty sluggers as the first 120 years of gloved boxing.

In short, a new category needs to be created to acknowledge those differences, the early 3rd millennium era.

[Rusty Tromboni]

- -In 08 those guys were making their chops, but noticeably Ali had slipped to #2 by Ibro and now with the Ks unheard of dominance, all but Foreman will slip some more.

A prob is this newer era is vastly different rules and more international with 20x the lefty sluggers as the first 120 years of gloved boxing.

In short, a new category needs to be created to acknowledge those differences, the early 3rd millennium era.

The same could be said of them when comparing them to those that came before.

So many people want to compare Marciano to Ali, forgetting that Marciano was closer in size to Hagler than to Ali. Obviously, it's Maricano's nut-huggers (the worst in sports?) who often initiate.

But how do you compare Dempsey of the Willard fight (closer in size to Robinson) to Norton?

Because they're Heavyweights there's parity. I actually don't doubt that Dempsey puts Ken* away quicker than Wlad does. But Wlad probably has about as much difficulty with Dempsey as he had with Byrd - if that. Even though, if they were the same size and from the same era, Dempsey would starch him in the first round.


Going strictly off hard evidence, the division hasn't seen a greater natural talent than fit and focused Dempsey, and there hasn't been anyone who can beat fit and focused Fury. Filling in the dots from there is challenging; whether you see challenges as fun or as a chore is up to you.



*Interesting thing about Ken Norton: most people assume "Ken" is short for "Kenneth" as is the case 99.9999999% of the time. But in Mr. Norton's case it's short for "KenIFinallyQuitNow?". Clearly his parents doomed him from the start.

[TonyGe]

The same could be said of them when comparing them to those that came before.

So many people want to compare Marciano to Ali, forgetting that Marciano was closer in size to Hagler than to Ali. Obviously, it's Maricano's nut-huggers (the worst in sports?) who often initiate.

But how do you compare Dempsey of the Willard fight (closer in size to Robinson) to Norton?

Because they're Heavyweights there's parity. I actually don't doubt that Dempsey puts Ken* away quicker than Wlad does. But Wlad probably has about as much difficulty with Dempsey as he had with Byrd - if that. Even though, if they were the same size and from the same era, Dempsey would starch him in the first round.


Going strictly off hard evidence, the division hasn't seen a greater natural talent than fit and focused Dempsey, and there hasn't been anyone who can beat fit and focused Fury. Filling in the dots from there is challenging; whether you see challenges as fun or as a chore is up to you.

Hi

*Interesting thing about Ken Norton: most people assume "Ken" is short for "Kenneth" as is the case 99.9999999% of the time. But in Mr. Norton's case it's short for "KenIFinallyQuitNow?". Clearly his parents doomed him from the start.

KenIFinallyQuitNow?? What is that supposed to mean.

[Rusty Tromboni]

KenIFinallyQuitNow?? What is that supposed to mean.

It's about Ken Norton - the guy who bailed out anytime he faced someone with a punch.

The guy who was used as a punching bag w/ legs by Quarry in sparring. But willing took a fight w/ Quarry, and went wild when he faced that faded hero many years after he should have retired.

The guy who gave up whenever someone pushed back.

Living proof that steroids shrink your balls.

He was the prototype for Lennox Lewis.

Look him up. Very famous fighter. Had some epic, epic matches.