BoxRec

candyslim wrote:My trouble is I have about 25 top ten heavyweights

It's hard enough to say whether Larry Holmes is better than Lennox Lewis, never mind trying to factor in fighters of 100 years ago. I'm prepared to accept that Jack Johnson was an amazing heavyweight back in the day, but how do you possibly compare him with say Floyd Patterson never mind some 6' 6" behemoth like those around today? (I'm not saying Johnson would beat Patterson or vice-versa I mean that literally ... how do you compare?) I cannot conceive of how Sam Langford goes about tackling Wladimir Klitschko (to give a topical example) even if I can imagine him making a monkey out of another 2 metre fighter in Jess Willard.

Rocky Marciano was a hell of a fighter but can you imagine him at 185lbs overpowering the likes of Mike Tyson or Joe Frazier? I certainly can't. At least comparing say for example Mickey Walker and Nino Benvenuti they at least weighed about the same being both Middleweights, but a typical Heavyweight of the early 1900s would be conceding weight to a modern Cruiserweight. It makes more sense to consider Marciano against Usyk not that I'd want to stick my neck out on that match up either.

It's fun to speculate but no one should take these kinds of ratings that seriously, and certainly no reason to attack anyone for their choices.

Andrew Kearney wrote:Yes, Wlad is definitely a top-10 heavyweight, arguably top-5 and higher.

In terms of the length of his reign (which was just over 10 years where he was champ and undefeated before losing to Fury), it's extremely impressive. In terms of # of consecutive championship defenses, he is #2 behind Joe Louis for all-time record. There is also truth to the comment that boxing today is more globally and internationally competitive than at any time in previous history. It's important to remember that many of the Greats of The Past such as Louis and Ali, had it easy in the sense that boxing was much more of a North American sport at that time, with some Western Euros (Brits, Germans, but not many). They weren't really "world champions" in the sense that the actual world was competing. Many Ukrainians, Russians, and Cubans in those times were not able to turn pro and properly compete with Americans. Had they done so, many of the old American greats possibly would have lost and never been great. Maybe not a popular opinion but its the truth.

Wlad Klitschko was a decade-long, dominant champion who rarely lost a round in his 10 years. He scored some scintilating KO's of some very decent opponents at the time, he also had a knack for KOing undefeated challengers. So, yes, he's absolutely top-10, probably top-5 as well. It seems the "consensus" viewpoint puts him in the top-10.

Unfortunately, you can ruin your legacy by continuing to fight after you become old. Roy Jones Jr, was fantastic in his day, but many fans will remember him in his final years as a journeyman and forget how great and special he used to be. It takes away from his legacy. Bernard getting KTFO of ring also takes away from his legacy. Same could happen to Wlad if he continues.

Chippo wrote:

Loki wrote:

candyslim wrote:My trouble is I have about 25 top ten heavyweights

It's hard enough to say whether Larry Holmes is better than Lennox Lewis, never mind trying to factor in fighters of 100 years ago. I'm prepared to accept that Jack Johnson was an amazing heavyweight back in the day, but how do you possibly compare him with say Floyd Patterson never mind some 6' 6" behemoth like those around today? (I'm not saying Johnson would beat Patterson or vice-versa I mean that literally ... how do you compare?) I cannot conceive of how Sam Langford goes about tackling Wladimir Klitschko (to give a topical example) even if I can imagine him making a monkey out of another 2 metre fighter in Jess Willard.

Rocky Marciano was a hell of a fighter but can you imagine him at 185lbs overpowering the likes of Mike Tyson or Joe Frazier? I certainly can't. At least comparing say for example Mickey Walker and Nino Benvenuti they at least weighed about the same being both Middleweights, but a typical Heavyweight of the early 1900s would be conceding weight to a modern Cruiserweight. It makes more sense to consider Marciano against Usyk not that I'd want to stick my neck out on that match up either.

It's fun to speculate but no one should take these kinds of ratings that seriously, and certainly no reason to attack anyone for their choices.

Excellent post. I hate people comparing era against era, there are just too many variables. I will say one thing, like it or not, athletes get better as time goes on. Better training, knowledge, faster, bigger and stronger.

Yes, Muhammad Ali with his primitive, 50 year old skills. Not a patch on a modern artist like Deontay Wilder. If only Muhammad had had better training and "knowledge", he could perhaps have improved on his speed to catch up to modern fighters like Tyson Fury.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Loki wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

What are you laughing at?

Loki wrote:If you compare any athlete, nowadays they run faster, jump higher and last longer than 50 years ago. That is a fact.

man wrote:

Loki wrote:If you compare any athlete, nowadays they run faster, jump higher and last longer than 50 years ago. That is a fact.

i saw somebody doing a documentary
on sprinters. jesse owens ran 100m in
10.3 on ash, which is significantly slower
than modern tracks and he started out
of an inferior position compared to now
as well. there was more to that which i
cannot remember, but the essence was
that he would be quite in the mix today
if he ran under today's technical circum-
stance. or to put it the other way round,
usain bolt would not be much faster than
jesse if he ran today on ash, with these
starters and owens' shoes.

so indeed you can make your case, but
it is not as clear cut as you might assume
it is. regarding ali, well, you just need to
watch the tapes. no heavy before or after
moved like that, avoided punches and
danced so quickly and fluently in and out
of punching distance. he looked like a
welter.

plus he had this superhuman absorption
power. what george foreman landed on
him and his mid section in zaire was
insane and from what i know never seen
again. would he walk through wlad on
the latter's best night? probably not,
no one would against this giant. but
would the early version of ali dance in
and out of range driving wlad crazy?
well, i can see that.

man wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

Counter-puncher wrote:What people who focus on athletic improvement seem to neglect is that boxing is skills-based, and those skills are better the more they are practised.

Imagine today's golfers, with all their brilliant modern nutrition, if they only got to two tournaments a year.

Would they be better golfers, skill wise, if they were
actually plying their skills much less often than their forebears?

Is modern 'nutrition' so great that it makes up for the fact that modern fighters actually fight/prepare for so many fewer fights than they used to? (And spend a good deal of that preparation time focusing on things other than boxing skill anyway)

Loki wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:What people who focus on athletic improvement seem to neglect is that boxing is skills-based, and those skills are better the more they are practised.

Imagine today's golfers, with all their brilliant modern nutrition, if they only got to two tournaments a year.

Would they be better golfers, skill wise, if they were
actually plying their skills much less often than their forebears?

Is modern 'nutrition' so great that it makes up for the fact that modern fighters actually fight/prepare for so many fewer fights than they used to? (And spend a good deal of that preparation time focusing on things other than boxing skill anyway)

Interesting point. Did fighters from a earlier generation complete as much sparring as they do now? A lot of the reason why there are so few fights are because it's damage limitation. Nobody wants to end up like James Toney.

Loki wrote:

man wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

You're obviously a clever chap, man. But, interesting as that is, doesn't that prove my point.

Counter-puncher wrote:

Loki wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:What people who focus on athletic improvement seem to neglect is that boxing is skills-based, and those skills are better the more they are practised.

Imagine today's golfers, with all their brilliant modern nutrition, if they only got to two tournaments a year.

Would they be better golfers, skill wise, if they were
actually plying their skills much less often than their forebears?

Is modern 'nutrition' so great that it makes up for the fact that modern fighters actually fight/prepare for so many fewer fights than they used to? (And spend a good deal of that preparation time focusing on things other than boxing skill anyway)

Interesting point. Did fighters from a earlier generation complete as much sparring as they do now? A lot of the reason why there are so few fights are because it's damage limitation. Nobody wants to end up like James Toney.

The reason there are so few fights today has little or nothing to do with damage limitation.
It's because the fighters can get more money, so fight less often.
Fighters now spend less time in the ring and ultimately probably less time in the gym, and spend less of that time in the gym working on skills I imagine (more on 'strength and conditioning')

Counter-puncher wrote:What people who focus on athletic improvement seem to neglect is that boxing is skills-based, and those skills are better the more they are practised.

Imagine today's golfers, with all their brilliant modern nutrition, if they only got to two tournaments a year.

Would they be better golfers, skill wise, if they were
actually plying their skills much less often than their forebears?

Is modern 'nutrition' so great that it makes up for the fact that modern fighters actually fight/prepare for so many fewer fights than they used to? (And spend a good deal of that preparation time focusing on things other than boxing skill anyway)

Counter-puncher wrote:'Better' measured in what way?

man wrote:

Loki wrote:

man wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8COaMKbNrX0

You're obviously a clever chap, man. But, interesting as that is, doesn't that prove my point.

well, maybe i misunderstood your point.
i for one think muhammad ali would be
very, very competitive today.

crusader wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:What people who focus on athletic improvement seem to neglect is that boxing is skills-based, and those skills are better the more they are practised.

Imagine today's golfers, with all their brilliant modern nutrition, if they only got to two tournaments a year.

Would they be better golfers, skill wise, if they were
actually plying their skills much less often than their forebears?

Is modern 'nutrition' so great that it makes up for the fact that modern fighters actually fight/prepare for so many fewer fights than they used to? (And spend a good deal of that preparation time focusing on things other than boxing skill anyway)

Guys in the early 1900s fought all the time, but from much of the footage I've seen the technique was awful.

Also, I'm not sure that fighting so much is more of a benefit than a drain on the body.

Counter-puncher wrote:'Better' measured in what way?

crusader wrote:Which period?