BoxRec

funso banjo baby wrote:evander holyfield versus Batman ?

Holyfield definitely used the latest available technology in sports to beef up his conditioning. But, so did Batman... I mean, look how undefined the masked one was back when he first appeared on the TV scene. And now, he's ripped as shit! And I think Batman's reflexes are a bit faster too and certainly, he would equal Holyfield in his ability to recover from being dazed... hanging upside down all day will help you with that. But one huge advantage that Batman would have is his ability to hear the punches coming. With that sonar ability, he could whip Holy with his eyes closed...

james toney versus bilbo baggins

Now, here's a matchup made for the underworld. Toney wouldn't have felt one bit uncomfortable fighting in Middle Earth. Plus, he woulda had great sparring with them Orks. But Bilbo had the magic ring. And Toney, no doubt, would have tried to snatch it away from him. And y'all know what a badass MF'er Bilbo can be when you mess with that ring.... tossup.

raylawpc wrote:There was quite a bit of different in equipment between fighters circa 1890-1910 and today:

1. No mouthpieces.
2. Handwrapping was in its infancy, with no regulations. Some, like Jeffries, didn't wrap their hands; others, like Kid McCoy, used gauze covered with hard electrician's tape.
3. Gloves ranged anywhere from skin tight to five ounces - the later required in NY under the Horton Law. (Those guys sparred in 8 ounce gloves). The gloves were primitively made out of leather, horsehair and cloth. No form rubber, etc.
4. Many important fights were held in eight post rings. "Postless" rings (i.e. four posts with ropes suspended by turnbuckles) were rare. Sullivan and Corbett fought on turf, in an eight post ring, and both wore cleets!
5. The cup was little more than a tin thing you wore under your shorts to protect your penis and testicles.

Ray,

Of course these changes have taken place. But if anything they have made boxing less challenging now than they were in the "olden days". Each of the items you have listed would make a fight harder, not easier. Banjo's tennis racket is a clear example of modern technology making the sport easier.

Or played at a much faster pace.

Knucklez wrote:

raylawpc wrote:There was quite a bit of different in equipment between fighters circa 1890-1910 and today:

1. No mouthpieces.
2. Handwrapping was in its infancy, with no regulations. Some, like Jeffries, didn't wrap their hands; others, like Kid McCoy, used gauze covered with hard electrician's tape.
3. Gloves ranged anywhere from skin tight to five ounces - the later required in NY under the Horton Law. (Those guys sparred in 8 ounce gloves). The gloves were primitively made out of leather, horsehair and cloth. No form rubber, etc.
4. Many important fights were held in eight post rings. "Postless" rings (i.e. four posts with ropes suspended by turnbuckles) were rare. Sullivan and Corbett fought on turf, in an eight post ring, and both wore cleets!
5. The cup was little more than a tin thing you wore under your shorts to protect your penis and testicles.

Ray,

Of course these changes have taken place. But if anything they have made boxing less challenging now than they were in the "olden days". Each of the items you have listed would make a fight harder, not easier. Banjo's tennis racket is a clear example of modern technology making the sport easier.

I wasn't passing judgment either way. Many people say "boxing is boxing." Well, its not. The game has changed a lot. Equipment has changed, styles have changed, rules have changed. That's why I personally think its silly to compare a guy from 1910 to a guy from 1970.

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:Am I All Wet?

No, but your mom is.

You did not...

Indeed I did.

You did what?

You know what I did.

raylawpc wrote:

Knucklez wrote:

raylawpc wrote:There was quite a bit of different in equipment between fighters circa 1890-1910 and today:

1. No mouthpieces.
2. Handwrapping was in its infancy, with no regulations. Some, like Jeffries, didn't wrap their hands; others, like Kid McCoy, used gauze covered with hard electrician's tape.
3. Gloves ranged anywhere from skin tight to five ounces - the later required in NY under the Horton Law. (Those guys sparred in 8 ounce gloves). The gloves were primitively made out of leather, horsehair and cloth. No form rubber, etc.
4. Many important fights were held in eight post rings. "Postless" rings (i.e. four posts with ropes suspended by turnbuckles) were rare. Sullivan and Corbett fought on turf, in an eight post ring, and both wore cleets!
5. The cup was little more than a tin thing you wore under your shorts to protect your penis and testicles.

Ray,

Of course these changes have taken place. But if anything they have made boxing less challenging now than they were in the "olden days". Each of the items you have listed would make a fight harder, not easier. Banjo's tennis racket is a clear example of modern technology making the sport easier.

I wasn't passing judgment either way. Many people say "boxing is boxing." Well, its not. The game has changed a lot. Equipment has changed, styles have changed, rules have changed. That's why I personally think its silly to compare a guy from 1910 to a guy from 1970.

Disagree. You can still compare someone's skills, career and achievements across eras.

its never usually that though is it ?

its who would win out of stanley ketchel and nicolay valuev ????????

its silly

I guessed I missed it when someone compared Stanley Ketchel to Valuev.

The original question was comparing particular heavyweights from the 1960's and 1970's to Mike Tyson, who began his career in the 1980's. Wow, that's just crazy.

Yes you can compare fighters from the same weight class that fought in different eras. However it does require that you actually think. You have to look at the strengths and weaknesses of each fighter. The same as you would do between two current fighters who have never fought each other.
Some of the rules may have changed, but most of the rules are the same. Even in the same era, different states, state commissions,governing bodies have different rules and fighters have had to adapt to them from one fight to the next. Most fighters, particularly the good ones, can adapt.
Yes it's easy to point out differences. However, most things are similar. Most of the the basic and most important rules have been the same for over 100 years. The good fighters would adapt to the rules that are different.

Comparing fighters from different era's is part of the fun of boxing.
Sure in the past things were alot harder for the prize fighters and
conditions less than desireable for some...some parts of the world
are still like this for some pugs.

Nothing is fair....so what....people still make do because they have to
and if we had some magic machine where we could abduct every said
fighter at their peaks and forced them to fight...they would have to
and it is with this imagination that we play our boxing fan game :)

Knucklez wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Knucklez wrote:
Ray,

Of course these changes have taken place. But if anything they have made boxing less challenging now than they were in the "olden days". Each of the items you have listed would make a fight harder, not easier. Banjo's tennis racket is a clear example of modern technology making the sport easier.

I wasn't passing judgment either way. Many people say "boxing is boxing." Well, its not. The game has changed a lot. Equipment has changed, styles have changed, rules have changed. That's why I personally think its silly to compare a guy from 1910 to a guy from 1970.

Disagree. You can still compare someone's skills, career and achievements across eras.

I don't disagree with that at all, knucklez. Those with whom I disagree are those that speculate how John L. Sullivan would have done with, say, Floyd Patterson in a head-to-head match-up.

Patterson TKO 6 Sullivan.

Ambling Alp wrote:The good fighters would adapt to the rules that are different.

One good fighter that couldn't adapt was Jorge Luis Gonzalez...

He couldn't quite adapt to fighting over three rounds and without headgears...

[quote="Ambling Alp"]I guessed I missed it when someone compared Stanley Ketchel to Valuev.



You know someone has at some point


ok.. a recent one was George Foreman versus Rocky Marciano at their peaks.

i think everyone was universal in saying Big george big Ko


Lennox lewis Ko Rocky as well

their just too big...its unfair to compare

Nothing is fair in life....and well these are heavyweights under
the original rules...175lbs and up.

Robinson wrote:Nothing is fair in life....and well these are heavyweights under
the original rules...175lbs and up.

what ur proposing is legalised fantasy slaughter.

and i will not be party to it

Did some one not say 'I do what a clear conscience what other
men desire to do with a guitly one..'

:)

Robinson wrote:Patterson TKO 6 Sullivan.

I honestly don't think it would have taken Patterson that long.

Agreed.

theone wrote:

Robinson wrote:Patterson TKO 6 Sullivan.

I honestly don't think it would have taken Patterson that long.

But, what if we were to say that, by a stretch of the imagination, Patterson were to be born in the same year as Sullivan was and grew up fighting in that era's style. Would he still have KO'd Sullivan in six or less? Or might his fragile chin have been exposed to Sullivan's booming right cross. Or, might he have even been psyched shitless after hearing the Boston Strongboy proclaim, "i can lick any sob in the house..."

I mean, if Ingemar Johanssen could lick Patterson with modern era styles...

Imagine Jack Johnson being born two-and-a-half decades ago and peaking right about now. First, he'd be a 230 lb'er with lightning reflexes, blazing handspeed, crunching power and infuriating defense.

Floyd Mayweather with knockout power and banging every single white lady within reach!!!