Why do people rate old fighters so much?

[dempseyfire]

Look at how fast track stars were in the 30s and how fast they are today

Are the modern track stars running in leather shoes on cinder tracks?

Check out the winning times in the Kentucky Derby. The 1931 winner, "Twenty Grand", was faster than last year's winner, "Giacomo", despite all of the advances equine medicine and training PLUS selective breeding specifically for speed. You go to a modern racing horse training facility and it looks straight out of Ivan Drago's high-tech gym in "Rocky 4".

EXACTLY. People always bring up track records but that is pointless because

A) The # of people running track, esp. on a global level, is MUCH more then the number of people running in the 1920s, for example. A greater number of participants would ensure better racing times. NOT TRUE with boxing, esp. the heavyweights.
B) Even with the increase in the talent field, the times don't tell the tale. Do people realize what CRAP Owens and the like were wearing for track shoes? Or the surface of the track itself? Put them in on a modern track with the best Nike spikes and you'll see their times drop, probably shockingly.
With boxing, as far as I can tell it's still two guys in a ring with gloves. Not nearly the fundamental changes you've seen with track and field.

[theone]

however in boxing look at the heavies today and tell me they are better than in the 50's,40's,30's,20's

You're absolutely right, their not. Great fighters the likes of Dempsey and Tunney, would have been competitive in any future era.

or even fitz and corbett.lol

Fritz and Corbett however, as the fought in their time, would not crack the top ten today.

[dalek]

i know that fitz etc boxed when people think it was primitive.however i'd still take him to beat ruiz.

[sharkeysboy]

Of course, today's heavyweight division is the worse bunch in history. I have several theories why but the 90's had Holyfield, Bowe, Tyson and Lewis. All four guys would have beat most of the pre Joe Louis champs easily. And thanks guys for proving my "golden age" theory so conclusively by your responses.

[sharkeysboy]

Look at how fast track stars were in the 30s and how fast they are today

Are the modern track stars running in leather shoes on cinder tracks?

Check out the winning times in the Kentucky Derby. The 1931 winner, "Twenty Grand", was faster than last year's winner, "Giacomo", despite all of the advances equine medicine and training PLUS selective breeding specifically for speed. You go to a modern racing horse training facility and it looks straight out of Ivan Drago's high-tech gym in "Rocky 4".

I think you're a little confused in your logic here, oh, evil one. If you want to use the track times to show Twenty Grand was faster than todays horses I can use track times to prove today's track guys are faster than athletes in the 30's. Which of course they were. And by the way, horses and human beings are different species.

[UpWithEvil]

I think you're a little confused in your logic here, oh, evil one. If you want to use the track times to show Twenty Grand was faster than todays horses I can use track times to prove today's track guys are faster than athletes in the 30's.

But the conditions of the track at Churchill Downs haven't changed. As I asked earlier, do today's track stars race in leather shoes on cinder tracks, as Jesse Owens did? The only significant changes to the dirt track at Churchill Downs was the addition of lighting.

And by the way, horses and human beings are different species.

That's what Katherine the Great told me.

But again, I'm highlighting the fact that advances in nutrition, medicine, training methods, and even selective breeding don't appear to have made much of a difference in the speed of horses when the conditions of the track have remained essentially the same. Humans have had all of these same advantages sans the selective breeding, with the addition of improved equipment. I believe that the equipment deserves much of the credit for the improved times we see in track times and offered the Derby winners as evidence. Not an indeal comparison, but of course, nobody runs in leather shoes on cinder tracks anymore.

[Jaclem]

..i saw professor mike donovan fight...many times and usually from ringside, and i knew daniel mendoza well...(in fact i did publicity for him..). each of them could easily beat any heavyweights from the past 70 years easily, with the exception of ezzard charles and joe louis.

end of story.

[Controversial]

I think you're a little confused in your logic here, oh, evil one. If you want to use the track times to show Twenty Grand was faster than todays horses I can use track times to prove today's track guys are faster than athletes in the 30's.

But the conditions of the track at Churchill Downs haven't changed. As I asked earlier, do today's track stars race in leather shoes on cinder tracks, as Jesse Owens did? The only significant changes to the dirt track at Churchill Downs was the addition of lighting.

And by the way, horses and human beings are different species.

That's what Katherine the Great told me.

But again, I'm highlighting the fact that advances in nutrition, medicine, training methods, and even selective breeding don't appear to have made much of a difference in the speed of horses when the conditions of the track have remained essentially the same. Humans have had all of these same advantages sans the selective breeding, with the addition of improved equipment. I believe that the equipment deserves much of the credit for the improved times we see in track times and offered the Derby winners as evidence. Not an indeal comparison, but of course, nobody runs in leather shoes on cinder tracks anymore.

Thats a ludicrous argument. Thats like saying a flee can jump the same today than they did 1000 years ago, so humans must be the same today as they were a 1000 years ago!!!! Science proves that as a race, humans are constantly developing, physically and mentally.

Yes training methods and nutrition do make a difference but comparing the average male today to the average male 60 years ago theres a big difference in physical strength and size.

[Sherlock]

Who had a hell of alot more skill than Sullivan had.
Oh, you never actually saw Sullivan fight.

Hell of a contradiction if I ever saw one. How of the hell do you know Sullivan was not skilled if you never saw him either?

You're the one saying that Sullivan was skilled. It's up to you to prove that point. If someone came up to you and said, "there are purple tigers living on Mars," you'd probably reply that there is no proof of that assertion, to which your companion might say, "well, you can't prove that there aren't purple tigers living on Mars."

Read the fight reports, thats proof enough. But you don't think fight reports are legimate. So there is no proof you would accept.

[UpWithEvil]

I think you're a little confused in your logic here, oh, evil one. If you want to use the track times to show Twenty Grand was faster than todays horses I can use track times to prove today's track guys are faster than athletes in the 30's.

But the conditions of the track at Churchill Downs haven't changed. As I asked earlier, do today's track stars race in leather shoes on cinder tracks, as Jesse Owens did? The only significant changes to the dirt track at Churchill Downs was the addition of lighting.

And by the way, horses and human beings are different species.

That's what Katherine the Great told me.

But again, I'm highlighting the fact that advances in nutrition, medicine, training methods, and even selective breeding don't appear to have made much of a difference in the speed of horses when the conditions of the track have remained essentially the same. Humans have had all of these same advantages sans the selective breeding, with the addition of improved equipment. I believe that the equipment deserves much of the credit for the improved times we see in track times and offered the Derby winners as evidence. Not an indeal comparison, but of course, nobody runs in leather shoes on cinder tracks anymore.

Thats a ludicrous argument. Thats like saying a flee can jump the same today than they did 1000 years ago, so humans must be the same today as they were a 1000 years ago!!!! Science proves that as a race, humans are constantly developing, physically and mentally.

"A flee"?

Tell me more about what "science proves" on this issue.

[Sherlock]

Fight reports are innacurate. Look at what people were saying about Mark Breland and Shane Mosley.

Alrighty then, lets put this in a hypothetical situation. Cameras and films weren't invented until 1980, only fights of Ali filmed are his loss are to Holmes and Berbick, all his great fights are not filmed and all you can find out about the fights are from reports or from the live audicence. For the purposes of this, you are there for all his great fights:Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Quarry, etc. You have a son in 1980. Fast forward to 2005, films are available from Vitali and Lennox Lewis.

He claims Holmes, Vitali, Tyson, and Lennox are the greatest heavyweights ever. You say Ali. He says Ali was an oldtimer and struggled to beat a 5'10 guy, was knocked down by a blokes named Cooper and Banks, and won controversially over Norton, and lost to a novice named Spinks. He says Holmes made 20 defenses, Lennox beat everyone he fought, and Vitali only lost by an injury and a cut. You say Ali was very talented and was the fastest heavy ever. Your son shrugs you off and says your delirous, and asks where's your proof. You say I saw him fight. He says your just saying that because he fought in your era. You say read the fight write-ups. He says the fight reports embelish his speed and are outdated, that the writers never saw the skills of Holmes, etc, he's really no faster than the average heavy and would be no match for the modern skills, height, and power of Holmes, Lewis, Tyson, and Klitschko.

Now do you see where I'm coming from.

[dempseyfire]

I think you're a little confused in your logic here, oh, evil one. If you want to use the track times to show Twenty Grand was faster than todays horses I can use track times to prove today's track guys are faster than athletes in the 30's.

But the conditions of the track at Churchill Downs haven't changed. As I asked earlier, do today's track stars race in leather shoes on cinder tracks, as Jesse Owens did? The only significant changes to the dirt track at Churchill Downs was the addition of lighting.

And by the way, horses and human beings are different species.

That's what Katherine the Great told me.

But again, I'm highlighting the fact that advances in nutrition, medicine, training methods, and even selective breeding don't appear to have made much of a difference in the speed of horses when the conditions of the track have remained essentially the same. Humans have had all of these same advantages sans the selective breeding, with the addition of improved equipment. I believe that the equipment deserves much of the credit for the improved times we see in track times and offered the Derby winners as evidence. Not an indeal comparison, but of course, nobody runs in leather shoes on cinder tracks anymore.

Thats a ludicrous argument. Thats like saying a flee can jump the same today than they did 1000 years ago, so humans must be the same today as they were a 1000 years ago!!!! Science proves that as a race, humans are constantly developing, physically and mentally.

Yes training methods and nutrition do make a difference but comparing the average male today to the average male 60 years ago theres a big difference in physical strength and size.

That's simply not true. 60 years on the evolutionary timelime is NOTHING. People are not bigger and stronger from 60 years ago, that's not even one lifeline! You mean your children and their peers are going to be noticeably bigger and stronger then you and your generation? that's ridiculous . . if anything the advances of medicine (for better or worse keeping weaker genes alive in the common pool) and the huge transition of humans in the developed world from manual labor to sit-down jobs has made people on a whole WEAKER.

[Sherlock]

Fight reports are innacurate. Look at what people were saying about Mark Breland and Shane Mosley.

Alrighty then, lets put this in a hypothetical situation. Cameras and films weren't invented until 1980, only fights of Ali filmed are his loss are to Holmes and Berbick, all his great fights are not filmed and all you can find out about the fights are from reports or from the live audicence. For the purposes of this, you are there for all his great fights:Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Quarry, etc. You have a son in 1980. Fast forward to 2005, films are available from Vitali and Lennox Lewis.

He claims Holmes, Vitali, Tyson, and Lennox are the greatest heavyweights ever. You say Ali. He says Ali was an oldtimer and struggled to beat a 5'10 guy, was knocked down by a blokes named Cooper and Banks, and won controversially over Norton, and lost to a novice named Spinks. He says Holmes made 20 defenses, Lennox beat everyone he fought, and Vitali only lost by an injury and a cut. You say Ali was very talented and was the fastest heavy ever. Your son shrugs you off and says your delirous, and asks where's your proof. You say I saw him fight. He says your just saying that because he fought in your era. You say read the fight write-ups. He says the fight reports embelish his speed and are outdated, that the writers never saw the skills of Holmes, etc, he's really no faster than the average heavy and would be no match for the modern skills, height, and power of Holmes, Lewis, Tyson, and Klitschko.

Now do you see where I'm coming from.

Um, film was invented in 1888, three years after Sullivan won the title.

There's a possibility that Sullivan was a great fighter - just as there's a possibility that there are purple tigers living on Mars - but I don't find either very probable given the lack of evidence.

I explicitly said hypothetical situation, but I guess you don't understand.[/b]

[Controversial]

But the conditions of the track at Churchill Downs haven't changed. As I asked earlier, do today's track stars race in leather shoes on cinder tracks, as Jesse Owens did? The only significant changes to the dirt track at Churchill Downs was the addition of lighting.
That's what Katherine the Great told me.

But again, I'm highlighting the fact that advances in nutrition, medicine, training methods, and even selective breeding don't appear to have made much of a difference in the speed of horses when the conditions of the track have remained essentially the same. Humans have had all of these same advantages sans the selective breeding, with the addition of improved equipment. I believe that the equipment deserves much of the credit for the improved times we see in track times and offered the Derby winners as evidence. Not an indeal comparison, but of course, nobody runs in leather shoes on cinder tracks anymore.

Thats a ludicrous argument. Thats like saying a flee can jump the same today than they did 1000 years ago, so humans must be the same today as they were a 1000 years ago!!!! Science proves that as a race, humans are constantly developing, physically and mentally.

"A flee"?

Tell me more about what "science proves" on this issue.

I was being sarcastic. You cannot compare the running times of a horse with a human being. You are trying to say that horses ran just as fast years ago than horses today, even though we have better training today so that must mean humans haven't progressed either. Ridiculous.
That has absoluletly nothing to do with how humans have, and will continue to get bigger.

Have a look at the times swimmers finish races compared to 50 years ago, they are much much faster today.

Why were javellins changed in athletics? Because they were getting thrown out of arenas as the years went on and athletes got stronger.

What was the average weight of a top 10 heavyweight in 1950? At a guess I'd say 13-14 stone, maybe slightly higher, maybe not.

What is the average weight of a top 10 heavyweight today? At a guess about 16-17 stone, maybe slightly higher, maybe not.

So what does that tell you then? People today are naturally bigger. OK that doesn't necessarily mean better but bigger we are, and we are living longer.

Here is a quote from the US Government website about this very subject. This was comparing the average height and weight from 1960-2002 of Americans.

"Average adult Americans are about one inch taller, but nearly a whopping 25 pounds heavier than they were in 1960, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The bad news, says CDC is that average BMI (body mass index, a weight-for-height formula used to measure obesity) has increased among adults from approximately 25 in 1960 to 28 in 2002."

[TheRiverCityHippy]

the american 200 / 400 sprint king michael johnson recently did a thoughtful sports documentary on british television regarding the `fastest man on the planet`. it was a through the ages look at sprinting and the 100m title.
he said since harold ahbrams (chariots of fire) won the 100m in 1924 the record has dropped about half a second. he said even without modern training if you stuck a pair of my (johnsons) spikes on harold and let him run on these modern `fast` tracks ( they ran on cinders in those days)with starting blocks he would be pretty close to that anyway.
johnson was interested in why people thought that the modern training was better, he said the difference in times could easily be explained by the use of starting blocks alone, never mind footwear and track surfaces.
he discussed with alan wells who never trained with weights, that just because the sprinters walk around like mini arnold schwartzenegger`s these days doesnt mean they are better sprinters because years ago they trained for the sprinting not weightlifting.
i think its similar with boxing. maybe the modern heavy`s are getting so much bigger than their predecessors that size must become a factor but i dont necessarily think a guy at 140 these days has more natural strength than a guy at 140 70 years ago.

[Controversial]

the american 200 / 400 sprint king michael johnson recently did a thoughtful sports documentary on british television regarding the `fastest man on the planet`. it was a through the ages look at sprinting and the 100m title.
he said since harold ahbrams (chariots of fire) won the 100m in 1924 the record has dropped about half a second. he said even without modern training if you stuck a pair of my (johnsons) spikes on harold and let him run on these modern `fast` tracks ( they ran on cinders in those days)with starting blocks he would be pretty close to that anyway.
johnson was interested in why people thought that the modern training was better, he said the difference in times could easily be explained by the use of starting blocks alone, never mind footwear and track surfaces.
he discussed with alan wells who never trained with weights, that just because the sprinters walk around like mini arnold schwartzenegger`s these days doesnt mean they are better sprinters because years ago they trained for the sprinting not weightlifting.
i think its similar with boxing. maybe the modern heavy`s are getting so much bigger than their predecessors that size must become a factor but i dont necessarily think a guy at 140 these days has more strength than a guy at 140 70 years ago.

However you look at it all athletic times or distances gradually get improved on as the years go on. Thats a fact, maybe not smashed year in year out but they get improved on.

My point was about heavyweights not the lighter weights. The facts remain heavyweigths today are huge compared to guys from the 1940-1950s. Like I said that doesn't mean better but bigger they are. And in my opinion a good modern heavyweight will always have a huge advantage over a good smaller heavyweight from the past.

[The Great John L]

Regardless of what has happened in any other sport, it is pretty humorous to think that training for boxers has improved from 50 or even 100 years ago. Boxing is no longer a major sport, it's popularity is a small fraction of what it was in years gone by. Today there are very few boxing trainers, and except for larger cities it's very difficult to even find a gym where boxers can train. If there are fewer trainers and fewer gyms, how can "modern" boxers be better trained than their predecessors?

[Controversial]

Regardless of what has happened in any other sport, it is pretty humorous to think that training for boxers has improved from 50 or even 100 years ago. Boxing is no longer a major sport, it's popularity is a small fraction of what it was in years gone by. Today there are very few boxing trainers, and except for larger cities it's very difficult to even find a gym where boxers can train. If there are fewer trainers and fewer gyms, how can "modern" boxers be better trained than their predecessors?

So using your argument you don't think any of the modern greats would have been comptetive 50 years ago?

[The Great John L]

Regardless of what has happened in any other sport, it is pretty humorous to think that training for boxers has improved from 50 or even 100 years ago. Boxing is no longer a major sport, it's popularity is a small fraction of what it was in years gone by. Today there are very few boxing trainers, and except for larger cities it's very difficult to even find a gym where boxers can train. If there are fewer trainers and fewer gyms, how can "modern" boxers be better trained than their predecessors?

So using your argument you don't think any of the modern greats would have been comptetive 50 years ago?

What!!??

How could you possibly come to that conclusion from what I wrote? I didn't say ANYTHING about how modern "greats" would perform against fighters from the past. I was simply saying that

Far fewer trainers + Far fewer gyms = better trained fighters

Doesn't make ANY sense, and is in fact pretty indefensible.

[barry]

I'm curious...you guys that are trying to claim that fighters like Sullivan and before had little, to no science compared to fighters later on and I'm wondering...exactly what research do you base these theories on...what kind of research have you actually done that would prove what you say. I've read most of the history books and many, many biographies, but most importantly I have read through thousadns and thousands of newspaper reports of the time, and I have never heard anyone, that has really done the research, state the things that a couple of you cats do, so where exactly does your knowledge of these fighters come from?

[The Great John L]

I'm curious...you guys that are trying to claim that fighters like Sullivan and before had little, to no science compared to fighters later on and I'm wondering...exactly what research do you base these theories on...what kind of research have you actually done that would prove what you say. I've read most of the history books and many, many biographies, but most importantly I have read through thousadns and thousands of newspaper reports of the time, and I have never heard anyone, that has really done the research, state the things that a couple of you cats do, so where exactly does your knowledge of these fighters come from?

barry, you and I both know that you wan't get any response. They believe what they want and will put no effort into supporting their beliefs. In fact, a few of these posters are simply baiting. Better to simply ignore them.

[Controversial]

Regardless of what has happened in any other sport, it is pretty humorous to think that training for boxers has improved from 50 or even 100 years ago. Boxing is no longer a major sport, it's popularity is a small fraction of what it was in years gone by. Today there are very few boxing trainers, and except for larger cities it's very difficult to even find a gym where boxers can train. If there are fewer trainers and fewer gyms, how can "modern" boxers be better trained than their predecessors?

So using your argument you don't think any of the modern greats would have been comptetive 50 years ago?

What!!??

How could you possibly come to that conclusion from what I wrote? I didn't say ANYTHING about how modern "greats" would perform against fighters from the past. I was simply saying that

Far fewer trainers + Far fewer gyms = better trained fighters

Doesn't make ANY sense, and is in fact pretty indefensible.

Your point is older fighters were better trained than todays fighters because there were more gyms and trainers.....is that what your saying?

Well if you are saying that logic dictates that if they are so much better trained in the past then they must be much better than todays fighters....right?

Well if todays fighters are inferior to the older fighters how can todays fighters be competitive?

[TheRiverCityHippy]

So using your argument you don't think any of the modern greats would have been comptetive 50 years ago?

What!!??

How could you possibly come to that conclusion from what I wrote? I didn't say ANYTHING about how modern "greats" would perform against fighters from the past. I was simply saying that

Far fewer trainers + Far fewer gyms = better trained fighters

Doesn't make ANY sense, and is in fact pretty indefensible.

Your point is older fighters were better trained than todays fighters because there were more gyms and trainers.....is that what your saying?

Well if you are saying that logic dictates that if they are so much better trained in the past then they must be much better than todays fighters....right?

Well if todays fighters are inferior to the older fighters how can todays fighters be competitive?

to be honest mate regarding the heavyweights i`m with you, i`m not saying they are neccesarily more skilled than the old timers but i think they`re is a point where sheer physicality plays a role - i think the boxing authorities realised this when they re-introduced the cruiserweight division.
i just think relatively modern heavy`s like lewis, foreman and even bowe would have given the pre wwII guys all they could handle and more.
in the lower weights i think its a bit different, i think they trained to be fighters and fighters alone years ago and because of the sheer number of contests they had i think they learned their trade on the job so to speak.
experience is the best school type of thing. though i`m sure fella`s like hagler, duran and tommy hearns would have given some of those old guys something to think about too.
thing is, no matter how much research you do or films you watch until they invent the time machine no one really knows.

[UpWithEvil]

I was being sarcastic. You cannot compare the running times of a horse with a human being.

I never compared humans to horses. I compared horses from 1920 to horses today. Since we're talking about humans from that era and comparing them to today, I thought that would be a good place to start. After all, training methods have improved for humans and horses, and horses are specifically bred for speed while humans aren't specifically bred for much of anything. The Kentucky Derby is run on the same course today as it was in 1920, so again, I ask once more - how many of today's modern runners are running in leather shoes on cinder tracks, as Jesse Owens did?

You are trying to say that horses ran just as fast years ago than horses today

I'm not "trying" to say anything. The facts are the facts. "Old Rosebud", the 1914 winner, ran essentially the same time as "Giacomo" this year - half-a-second seperates them over 90 years of training and breeding.

That has absoluletly nothing to do with how humans have, and will continue to get bigger.

Explain to us why this is so. As dempseyfire noted, a few scant generations of haphazard breeding aren't enough for any evolutionary pressure on size to take effect.

Have a look at the times swimmers finish races compared to 50 years ago, they are much much faster today.

Indeed, I'm a former competative swimmer. What can you tell us about the swimming techniques practiced during, say, Johnny Weissmuller's era and today? The front crawl wasn't even a competition stroke until Jim Jeffries was heavyweight champion of the world, with the butterfly stroke first entering competition in 1936! Imagine that - the basic "dolphin kick" not even in practice during Joe Louis's early career! And you're surprised that these brand-new techniques were improved on soon after they debuted? Wowie!

What was the average weight of a top 10 heavyweight in 1950? At a guess I'd say 13-14 stone, maybe slightly higher, maybe not.

What is the average weight of a top 10 heavyweight today? At a guess about 16-17 stone, maybe slightly higher, maybe not.

Bigger doesn't equate to better. Bob Fitzsimmons was knocking out 6'6 brawlers when he weighed 160lbs. Do you think Mike Tyson at 240lb was a better fighter than Mike Tyson at 215? Was Fred Fulton at 6'4 and 220lbs a more dangerous fighter than Jack Dempsey at 6'1 and 187? If size conferred such an advantage you'd expect to see it most clearly when your average heavyweight was around 190lb, would you not?

So what does that tell you then? People today are naturally bigger.

"Naturally" has nothing to do with it. Better medicine and nutrition prevent diseases which stunt growth and bring up the overall average (seen anyone with rickets lately?) but I still don't see any evidence that this tiny increase in average size, which you yourself quote as being a mere INCH in height, improves the quality of a fighter.

"Average adult Americans are about one inch taller, but nearly a whopping 25 pounds heavier than they were in 1960, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The bad news, says CDC is that average BMI (body mass index, a weight-for-height formula used to measure obesity) has increased among adults from approximately 25 in 1960 to 28 in 2002."

People are fatter - that's your strongest evidence here. Of course many elite athletes are juiced to the gill with steroids, but that's another story for another thread. I'm pretty sure carrying around that extra bulk won't improve a fighter's ability to compete for a mere 15 rounds, to say nothing of the 20+ rounders of the early era.

[The Great John L]

So using your argument you don't think any of the modern greats would have been comptetive 50 years ago?

What!!??

How could you possibly come to that conclusion from what I wrote? I didn't say ANYTHING about how modern "greats" would perform against fighters from the past. I was simply saying that

Far fewer trainers + Far fewer gyms = better trained fighters

Doesn't make ANY sense, and is in fact pretty indefensible.

Your point is older fighters were better trained than todays fighters because there were more gyms and trainers.....is that what your saying?

Well if you are saying that logic dictates that if they are so much better trained in the past then they must be much better than todays fighters....right?

Well if todays fighters are inferior to the older fighters how can todays fighters be competitive?

You sure do get from A to Z rather quickly. You failed English Comp I'll bet? Or perhaps your emotions preclude you from reasonable comprehension?

I don't need to repeat what I've stated several times. You seem to want to read into it more than what is there, and I can't respond to that. There are fighters now who could beat top fighters from the past. And there are fighters from the past who could beat todays best. In general, there were vastly more capable fighters in the past than there are now, and that doesn't even seem to be contestable.

yes, todays HW's are bigger, and I've stated in the past that the size is hard to ignore. But they are also generally very poorly trained, and all seem to run out of steam after several decent rounds of fighting. The Klits, McCline, Goofi and all of the other giants of today are not an overly skilled lot. Lewis is just about the only really super size HW who has any legitimate claim to being highly skilled. The 70's greats are just that -- great. However, they all started fighting when boxing was still rather popular, and you could actually find a boxing gym in most mid size and larger towns.