Past greats good enough to beat modern goods?

[BenHistorian]

The great heavyweights from yesteryear were very special. There is no doubt about that. However, due to human evolution and physical development down the ages, is it now impossible to scrutinise about cross-era match-ups because of the disparity in weight? For example, Jack Dempsey will always be regarded as a true great but would he have definitely beaten Frank Bruno? Jack Johnson and Gene Tunney were masterclass tacticians but would they have got passed Donnovan Ruddock? Other weight divisions are easier to have a clear idea as to what may happen when comparing eras. Heavyweights?

[Ezzard]

Oh man, you’ve started the does size matter issue again…at least in Heavyweight boxing…

I believe it does matter but that it isn’t definitive.

You also have to accept that there are an awful lot of enhancers around that allow fighters to move up and down weights with a freedom never known before.

Holyfield was Dempsey-like in size…put on some muscle and came out of a great era in Heavyweight boxing as arguably the king of the hill.

[misterpunch]

i'm not buying it

[BoxBuzz]

Hey misterpunch....what is it you aint buyin?

[JC]

However, due to human evolution and physical development down the ages, is it now impossible to scrutinise about cross-era match-ups because

Putting gloves on in the days before opposable thumbs was a bitch I can tell you.

[misterpunch]

i'm not buying the idea that modern boxers are better than those from yesteryear because of training and diet etc.
good to talk to you again,buzz, i used to be HARRYGREB but havent been on this site for a number of years and "harrygreb" has retired following an illustrious career

[Controversial]

Its always a hard one to debate. I don't doubt for one second that sheer size and weight does play an advantage, however obviously not all all cases. A big punch from Dempsey would hurt any heavy no matter how big they were however having someone 2-3 heavier hitting you, laying on you in clinches, pushing you about has a big effect.

For example Tony Tucker was a decent heavyweight, big at 6'5" and 16 odd stone, good chin, decent power and decent ability and unlikely to be regarded as "great" but does that mean Jack Dempsey would blast him out or even beat him?

[dempseyfire]

People are NOT naturally bigger to evolution. People are heavier due to the modern diet and lifestyle.

I recommend searching through the forum archives this topic has been debated to death around here.

[ben geoghegan]

I'll never buy into cross-era debates ever again. Both sides make convincing cases. They are all great. It takes undefinable qualities for a man to rise to the top of his class in any era!

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Yes, Jack Dempsey would knock out Frank Bruno.

[BoxBuzz]

i'm not buying the idea that modern boxers are better than those from yesteryear because of training and diet etc.
good to talk to you again,buzz, i used to be HARRYGREB but havent been on this site for a number of years and "harrygreb" has retired following an illustrious career

welcome back HG.......now MP....

I think if anyone trained as hard as the old fighters..(remember the number of diversions back then were confined to...hmmm women, and women....and uh...oh yeah women, they would likely eclipse the field today. But now with modern day entertainment few fighters can wean themselves down to just training. However IF they could, they would have the advantage of todays knowledge regarding nutrition ....so if Dempsey returned, and he stayed away from the papparazzi and fame fanfare etc, he would likely up his game. IMHO.

[wsbuf]

The thread should be named...Modern greats good enough to beat past goods?

[misterpunch]

true and its probably an argument that we should all steer clear of

[jezzamundo]

People are NOT naturally bigger to evolution. People are heavier due to the modern diet and lifestyle.

I recommend searching through the forum archives this topic has been debated to death around here.

dempseyfire, while I agree with you that the main reason heavyweights in particular are heavier today is due to the so many of them are overweight and many are carry more muscle than is beneficial to boxing, I can't see why you argue that people are bigger (as in slightly taller and slightly heavier) today than they were, say in the 1940s, and I can't think of another word for this than evolution.

I have a 1953 yearbook (my mother's year of birth) which states that the average height of a British man in that year was 5'7", compared to today's average of 5'9". Average shoe size is also increasing across both genders. People are undeniably getting bigger - although not by as much as some people on this forum seem to think.

[Roars Like Me]

Yes, Jack Dempsey would knock out Frank Bruno.

Ooo but if Frank lands

[misterpunch]

frank would eventually land - after he'd come back down from the ceiling

[misterpunch]

great fact about humans getting 2" taller every 50 years!! - so that means in 500 years we'll all be 8 foot tall. hmmmm... so, readers, if you ever do a bit of time travelling bear these amazing stats in mind before you whizz off to the year 2512 for a look around.

[Roars Like Me]

frank would eventually land - after he'd come back down from the ceiling

Very funny but Dempsey has felt the canvas a few times himself. I'm just saying Frank hits hard and if he hits Jack he would be in trouble. Of course it's a pucnhers chance only we are talking about here as Jack would be too quick and to in Bruno's face for Frank to keep him off.

[dempseyfire]

People are NOT naturally bigger to evolution. People are heavier due to the modern diet and lifestyle.

I recommend searching through the forum archives this topic has been debated to death around here.

dempseyfire, while I agree with you that the main reason heavyweights in particular are heavier today is due to the so many of them are overweight and many are carry more muscle than is beneficial to boxing, I can't see why you argue that people are bigger (as in slightly taller and slightly heavier) today than they were, say in the 1940s, and I can't think of another word for this than evolution.

I have a 1953 yearbook (my mother's year of birth) which states that the average height of a British man in that year was 5'7", compared to today's average of 5'9". Average shoe size is also increasing across both genders. People are undeniably getting bigger - although not by as much as some people on this forum seem to think.

The problem is that looking at average height across generations doesn't suffice because of the numerous unknown variables due to other changes in the population, notably immigration. For example, I know the UK has many more East African immigrants within its borders than it did in 1940. East Africans are historically a tall people, thus they will bring the average up. US height has been going down, but its not because Americans of white European descent are shrinking . . its the influx of Latin American Hispanics, who trend shorter.

From what we know about evolution, is that it's a very SLOW process. The idea that my generation would be statistically significantly taller and bigger than my grandfather's generation due to evolution, simply doesn't make any scientific sense.

[scallum]

The thread should be named...Modern greats good enough to beat past goods?

Exactly what I was thinking , it would apply to all weights

[Controversial]

There are a lot of rose tinted glasses when it comes to the older fighters though. The problem is the massive lack of video footage of the older timers and people having to rely on newspaper articles or word of mouth.

With the TV generation, and more so in todays internet era of youtube etc.. fights get beamed across the globe, analysed in slow-mo, dissected in forums like this and can be re-watched at the click of a button so a fighters flaws get pointed out, a luxury we don't always have with the old fighters.

Of course there were many greats in the past (and many more fighters in general) but to always suggest they were always superior to modern fighters is also unfair.

[jezzamundo]

People are NOT naturally bigger to evolution. People are heavier due to the modern diet and lifestyle.

I recommend searching through the forum archives this topic has been debated to death around here.

dempseyfire, while I agree with you that the main reason heavyweights in particular are heavier today is due to the so many of them are overweight and many are carry more muscle than is beneficial to boxing, I can't see why you argue that people are bigger (as in slightly taller and slightly heavier) today than they were, say in the 1940s, and I can't think of another word for this than evolution.

I have a 1953 yearbook (my mother's year of birth) which states that the average height of a British man in that year was 5'7", compared to today's average of 5'9". Average shoe size is also increasing across both genders. People are undeniably getting bigger - although not by as much as some people on this forum seem to think.

The problem is that looking at average height across generations doesn't suffice because of the numerous unknown variables due to other changes in the population, notably immigration. For example, I know the UK has many more East African immigrants within its borders than it did in 1940. East Africans are historically a tall people, thus they will bring the average up. US height has been going down, but its not because Americans of white European descent are shrinking . . its the influx of Latin American Hispanics, who trend shorter.

From what we know about evolution, is that it's a very SLOW process. The idea that my generation would be statistically significantly taller and bigger than my grandfather's generation due to evolution, simply doesn't make any scientific sense.

Good response and some interesting points. Obviously improvements in standards of living and nutrition in many countries have also contributed to increases in average height and weight.

[polecateddy]

Unfortunately I have checked and Ali would have been outpointed by Johnny Nelson 8.5 times out of 10. :)

[jezzamundo]

I found this article on the subject of increasing human height, it makes interesting reading:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ing-taller

[man]

Yes, Jack Dempsey would knock out Frank Bruno.