Great insight on old vs new school fighers
Posted: 07 Jul 2018, 11:28
https://www.BS.com/daily-bread ... re--129748
know you’re a historian and you rate old school fighters over current fighters. I’m curious at to what you’re reasons are. What makes the old school better than the new school? I’m actually torn on this topic and I would like for you to shed light on this in detail.
Bread’s Response: For the record I assess fighters individually. I don’t pick every old school guy over every new school guy. That’s ridiculous.
I have this conversation once a week, literally. Last week a trainer a truly respect by the name of Asim Beyah asked me about Felix Trinidad vs Errol Spence. We discussed the fight in length. We talked about old school training and the new stuff. We talked about diets, boxrec, recovery you name it.
Here is my take. Most people will have a generational bias. Most people respect the fighters they came up watching more. I try to be as objective as I can and I do notice a difference in the eras.
I do believe that current athletes are more advanced because of modern science. But for some reason that doesn’t always translate to boxing and baseball. I think it’s because in boxing and baseball the athletes rely on skill as much as athleticism. In baseball the athletes have not evolved to a point where they are throwing 112mph on the regular. A good 98mph fastball is still about the standard. And without PEDs 45 homeruns will still get you a homerun title. Also we still don’t have baseball players hitting .400 on the regular. So it hasn’t evolved from a skills stand point.
I always preface my the topic with baseball to show skills are skills. In boxing I still believe Joe Louis is the best puncher to ever live. All things considered, punching power, punch delivery, technique, two fisted leverage and accuracy. I still believe George Foreman is the most powerful man to ever step in a boxing ring and his peak weight was 217 not 250 like today’s heavyweights. I still believe Muhammad Ali is the best heavyweight ever and I still believe Sugar Ray Robinson is the best fighter ever. I don’t know if I’m old school or if I’m a realist.
Here are some things that I have noticed. I won’t go back too far but I will go back to the 70’s, 80’s , 90’s up until now. More top fighters from those times can compete and be champions in this CURRENT era than fighters of this era could back then. I don’t know how anyone could argue that. Let’s pick some divisions.
Boxing’s glamour division is 147. Most of the biggest stars in boxing make their bones at welterweight. Let’s look at the welterweight landscape. Right now we have two special fighters at welterweight in Errol Spence and Terence Crawford. Before clearing out the division both of these guys are viewed as the best in the division. Most experts recognize them as the cream of the crop.
Ok so lets go back about 20 years. There was a time when Oscar De La Hoya, Felix Trinidad, Ike Quartey, Pernell Whitaker, Oba Carr, Jose Lopez, James Page, Vernon Forest, Shane Mosley and a young Antonio Margarito were all at welterweight at the same time. I will excuse Terence Crawford because he just moved up a few weeks ago. But do you guys really think Errol Spence would be asking for smoke and not getting any at 147 if he was around in 1999? I’m not saying he wouldn’t hold his own because I believe he would, but I am saying he would get fights. Real fights where the winner would not be predetermined. Most of you guys have probably never heard of Jose Luis Lopez or James Page. But I would actually pick both of them to beat everyone at 147 today except for Spence and Crawford.
The biggest difference in the eras in my opinion is the perception and how fighters respond to losses. I actually had a fighter tell me that Vasyl Lomachenko can not be P4P #1 because he has a loss. I didn’t even comment because I knew he was too ignorant to grasp what he said. But I thought to myself that here lies the problem. A loss in 2014 in his 2nd pro fight somehow disqualifies Lomachenko from being the best fighter in 2018 after 10 more title fights. Yeah ok.
Let’s look back. Who were the two best fighters of the 70’s. Universally most experts would say #1 Duran and #2 Monzon. Duran had 1 loss as a young champion in a non title fight and Monzon had 3 losses. Yet they were the best fighters of the 70s. Let’s look at the best fighters of the 80s. The three best fighters of the 80s voted by Ring Magazine were #1 Ray Leonard, #2 Marvin Hagler and #3 Salvador Sanchez. Leonard lost in his 2st title defense vs Duran, Hagler had 2 losses and 2 draws before he ever won a belt and Sanchez had a loss and draw before he won his belt. To add to this list, Manny Pacquiao had 2 losses and 2 draws during his run as the P4P king, Bernard Hopkins had 2 losses and draw during his time as the P4P king. The mentality of this era is crippling.
The promoters, networks, media, fans and fighters are all the culprits. Fighters will not continue to test themselves because of the overall mentality of “if that guy had won’t fight killers, neither will I”. Here is the example. Tommy Hearns went on his best career run after he was stopped by Ray Leonard in 1981. He didn’t shy away from competition he fought harder and kept challenging himself. Because of his mentality he got to fight in other big fights vs Benitez, Duran and Hagler. He won some and lost some but he didn’t stop taking tough fights. Hearns is in the HOF and he made a boat load of money.
Terry Norris gets kod bad in his 1st title try by Julian Jackson. Norris regrouped and went after another puncher in John Mugabi and won. He went on to have a better career than Jackson and make the HOF.
Speaking of Julian Jackson he was kod by Mike McCallum in his 1st title try. He regrouped and went on to have one of the most feared runs ever at 154lbs.
Gerald McClellan, Marco Antonio Barrera, Lennox Lewis and Marquez Brothers all took tough losses early in their careers or as young champions, each one came back a better fighter.
Say what you want about Oscar De La Hoya but he was a real fighter. Forget about him winning titles from 130-140. In his 1st fight at 147 he takes on Pernell Whitaker who was a stylistic nightmare for him. Less than 2 years later he fights Ike Quartey, Oba Carr and Felix Trinidad all in the same year. And in the very next year he fights a prime Shane Mosley. After that he moves up to 154 and fights Fernando Vargas and Mosley again. After that he moves to 160 and fights Bernard Hopkins. After that he fights a prime Mayweather and a prime Pacquiao. Are you kidding me! I know most of you guys say bad stuff about Oscar but that resume is insane. No fighter from this particular era has challenged himself like that. Don’t say Manny Pacquiao because he’s not from this era, he turned pro in 1995.
The promoters treat you different after a loss. The networks act funny and the fighters feel it’s not worth the risk. And it’s a shame because the mentality of this era is just counter productive to past greatness. It really sucks. Besides Abner Mares, Amir Khan, Badou Jack, George Groves ,Jorge Linares and Kell Brook I can’t think of any other big name or A side fighters of this era that have challenged themselves after a ko defeat. If I forgot anyone I apologize. But you know what I mean by challenge themselves.
I’ve seen fighters take off 2 and 3 years after getting stopped. Are you kidding me again? I’ve seen guys take a loss in this era and literally take 6 or 7 years worth of tune ups. I’ve seen a champion win a controversial fight and not take another fight where he wasn’t the favorite in for 5 years. I don’t like to name fighters in negative comments because I respect boxing too much. But this era the weakest era in the history of boxing from that particular stand point. “They” will say If you lose you sucked anyway. If you get stopped you’re chinny and you’re done. If you take a beating for more than 6 or 7 rounds you’re damaged goods. It’s so sickening I don’t like discussing boxing with anyone who is from this era. Azumah Nelson lost to Salvador Sanchez by tko in the 14th round. He took a beating and was stopped late he was 13-0. Nelson never lost at featherweight again and will go down as a top 10 great in the division history and top 75 fighters ever. That tko loss sure didn’t ruin him. It’s absurd the line of thinking that goes along with this era. We wouldn’t have any of the legends of boxing if they adopted this era’s mentality.
All it will take is one top fighter to break the trend and win some big fights. I see Austin Trout trying but he’s not getting the wins. But I do respect him for challenging himself after a loss. But Trout is not the A side in his fights. A side fighters set trends because they don’t have to take certain fights in order to get paid. Guys like Oscar De La Hoya was a trend setter. If you notice Shane Mosley of the same era took his 1st loss vs Vernon Forest. He ran it right back. He lost again but so what he wanted to get it back. Forest in turn took his 1st loss to Ricardo Mayorga. What did he do he ran it right back? This happened because it was the “mentality” and trend of the time. I’ve actually seen fighters who lose once and instead of continuing their careers, they would rather personal train young kids and charge them $20/workout!
I’m not suggesting rush things or piss your career away and damage yourself. I’m not suggesting go 13-5 to start your career. It’s nothing wrong with being an undefeated prospect or wanting to retire undefeated. But the majority of these fighters in this era don’t want to challenge themselves at all. And if they do they only want to do it if they stay undefeated. After they lose, they lose their mentality and spirit of competition. Very rarely do we a see a fighter do what Lomachenko did and it’s the reason why I respect him so much. He took a risk after a loss and it paid off.
The problem in this era is simple. You can’t hit the lottery if you don’t play. The lottery actually hits you if you play enough. You can’t hit a homerun if you don’t swing at the ball. You can’t make the game winning shot if you don’t take it. The fighters of this era have to realize you won’t beat a great fighter unless you get in the ring with them.
I was born in the 70s but I’m no fool. I know there are special and capable fighters in this era who can hang with the top dogs of any era and either win a title or be a top 3 type of force. I will give them their props and name them by the divisions.
Roman Gonzalez could hang with anybody in history in any era at 105 and 108. He would do just fine with Ricardo Lopez and Michael Carbajal era. Gonzalez also challenged himself and he will go down in history as one of the top 10 or 15 fighters ever who campaigned under bantamweight because of it.
SSR and Juan Estrada would hang with the top dogs at 112-115 in any era. I don’t know if they would win titles but they would hang.
Monster Inoue would be a monster at 115-118 in any era.
Nonito Donaire would hold his won from 112-118 with anyone in history. He’s that good. He’s one of the better fighters ever 118 on down. Donaire also consistently challenged himself.
Guillermo Rigondeaux would be a champion or top 3 fighter in any era 122lbs. He’s that good.
Featherweight is tough historically and I don’t know if the top featherweights of today would translate well 20+ years ago. I can’t see anyone today breaking through on Morales, Marquez, Barrera, Hamed or Pacquiao. Or Nelson, Sanchez and Pedroza eras.
Vasyl Lomachenko could break through at 130lbs in any era, he’s special. I’m not sure about 135 I have to see more.
Mikey Garcia would be a force at 135 in any era.
Amir Khan would be a force at 140 in any era. He may get clipped a few times but his pedigree and hand speed would be tough for any of the better champions at 140. The great welterweights of the past would be too much. He would have to stay at 140.
Danny Garcia would be a solid top 10 guy at 140 in any era. He could possibly when a title but he would definitely be a player. Not sure about 147.
Terence Crawford would find a way to win a title at 135 and 140 in any era. I don’t know enough about him at 147 yet.
Errol Spence has the size and mentality to be a force at welterweight in any era. But his book is still being written.
Hurd, Charlo and Lara would be top 10 guys at 154 in any era but I don’t know if they would be champions it would depend on the era. I would have loved to see them in the McCallum-Hearns era or Tito-Wright-Vargas era.
GGG would be a major force in any era at 160 in his prime. I would have loved to see him in the Toney, Eubank, McClellan, Jones, Bhop, Benn and Nunn era. He would have had his hands full but he would have held his own. I don’t believe he would have 20 defenses in the early 90’s but I do think he would win a belt with 4 available.
There is no one at 168 currently who stands out because the champions are too young to tell. Benavidez and the Uzi look very good as of now. I don’t think Ramirez would be champion 20 years ago. Groves would be a solid contender.
Andre Ward was an all time great fighter at 168. I think he would be a great fighter at 168 in any era and still make the HOF. I think he holds his own at 175 in any and could be a champion depending on what era. I would have loved to see how he would have fared in the Spinks-Qawi-Muhammad era or the Jones-Tarver eras.
Sergey Kovalev would be a tough out for any light heavyweight you can think of on his best night. Kovalev can go he just came along at the same time as Ward so he may get overlooked historically but he’s a great fighter.
The cruiserweights of this era are very good and because the division does not have a lot of history this could be one of the better cruiserweight eras ever.
At heavyweight it’s really hard to tell because I see a drop off in skill. The top skill guys from the 70s, 80s, and 90’s are visibly more polished than the 2 best heavyweights of today in Joshua and Wilder. I mean no disrespect to those great champions but from a skill stand point, they are just not as developed at Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe or Lewis. Maybe it’s because of the amateur pedigree. I don’t know why, but there is a considerable difference in skillset. But Joshua and Wilder are both big punchers with plenty of heart. So when you have that you can match up well vs anyone. So giving the eye ball test I say they could be top contenders. They could even clip a top guy if they caught them right. But as of now I wouldn’t pick them to beat the better guys in history but I do think they would beat the 2nd tier guys who littered every era, like the Greg Page’s, Trevor Berbick’s, Bone Crusher Smith, Tommy Morrison, Ron Lyle type of fighters.
One more thing I want to point out. Deontay Wilder weighed 214 for his toughest fight vs Luis Ortiz. While Ortiz was about 240. The new era guy modern science guys claim that the smaller heavyweight could not compete against the giants. I have never believed that to be true. Some will say Wilder is tall but boxing does not have height divisions, it has weight divisions. Wilder has a quickness advantage over all of his opponents. Their minds simply can’t process his 1-2 fast enough. It’s just that simple. They become big targets for him. They also can’t get their 2nd wind quick enough in the deep waters of the fight. The more mass and muscle you have the more oxygen it takes to fuel it. Ortiz had Wilder he was just too tired to recover. Wilder recovers quicker than nay other heavyweight for his 2nd wind.
Now in the new school era, we have 214lb man that is the most feared fighter on the planet and no one can explain why. But I can. The best heavyweight ever was 6’3 and 215lbs and that was Muhammad Ali. Once you reach a certain weight then the extra size slows you down. If size and weight was the end all then surely we would see a 6’7 300lbs defensive tackle just come in boxing and be the heavyweight champion. But I will tell you he wouldn’t have the stamina or reaction time to compete. What proves my point even more is the one heavyweight that we do have around 300lbs who can actually fight. Tyson Fury relies on skill and not brawn. Do you think it’s a coincidence that he does not have bulky muscle and he actually boxes and wins with skills. Fury is not a BIG puncher. He’s a skill guy. The 214lbs Wilder is actually a bigger and better puncher. Punching power is not always about weight.
WORDS OF ENCOURAGEMENT
The young fighters of this era can do it. All they need is encouragement, self esteem and confidence. They can’t let characters with no identity on social media define what they are. If they can get over the fear of failure they can be just as good as any era. They have the resources they just have to break the trend of always taking the road of least resistance and just be FIGHTERS.
I hope I shed light on this never ending debate.
know you’re a historian and you rate old school fighters over current fighters. I’m curious at to what you’re reasons are. What makes the old school better than the new school? I’m actually torn on this topic and I would like for you to shed light on this in detail.
Bread’s Response: For the record I assess fighters individually. I don’t pick every old school guy over every new school guy. That’s ridiculous.
I have this conversation once a week, literally. Last week a trainer a truly respect by the name of Asim Beyah asked me about Felix Trinidad vs Errol Spence. We discussed the fight in length. We talked about old school training and the new stuff. We talked about diets, boxrec, recovery you name it.
Here is my take. Most people will have a generational bias. Most people respect the fighters they came up watching more. I try to be as objective as I can and I do notice a difference in the eras.
I do believe that current athletes are more advanced because of modern science. But for some reason that doesn’t always translate to boxing and baseball. I think it’s because in boxing and baseball the athletes rely on skill as much as athleticism. In baseball the athletes have not evolved to a point where they are throwing 112mph on the regular. A good 98mph fastball is still about the standard. And without PEDs 45 homeruns will still get you a homerun title. Also we still don’t have baseball players hitting .400 on the regular. So it hasn’t evolved from a skills stand point.
I always preface my the topic with baseball to show skills are skills. In boxing I still believe Joe Louis is the best puncher to ever live. All things considered, punching power, punch delivery, technique, two fisted leverage and accuracy. I still believe George Foreman is the most powerful man to ever step in a boxing ring and his peak weight was 217 not 250 like today’s heavyweights. I still believe Muhammad Ali is the best heavyweight ever and I still believe Sugar Ray Robinson is the best fighter ever. I don’t know if I’m old school or if I’m a realist.
Here are some things that I have noticed. I won’t go back too far but I will go back to the 70’s, 80’s , 90’s up until now. More top fighters from those times can compete and be champions in this CURRENT era than fighters of this era could back then. I don’t know how anyone could argue that. Let’s pick some divisions.
Boxing’s glamour division is 147. Most of the biggest stars in boxing make their bones at welterweight. Let’s look at the welterweight landscape. Right now we have two special fighters at welterweight in Errol Spence and Terence Crawford. Before clearing out the division both of these guys are viewed as the best in the division. Most experts recognize them as the cream of the crop.
Ok so lets go back about 20 years. There was a time when Oscar De La Hoya, Felix Trinidad, Ike Quartey, Pernell Whitaker, Oba Carr, Jose Lopez, James Page, Vernon Forest, Shane Mosley and a young Antonio Margarito were all at welterweight at the same time. I will excuse Terence Crawford because he just moved up a few weeks ago. But do you guys really think Errol Spence would be asking for smoke and not getting any at 147 if he was around in 1999? I’m not saying he wouldn’t hold his own because I believe he would, but I am saying he would get fights. Real fights where the winner would not be predetermined. Most of you guys have probably never heard of Jose Luis Lopez or James Page. But I would actually pick both of them to beat everyone at 147 today except for Spence and Crawford.
The biggest difference in the eras in my opinion is the perception and how fighters respond to losses. I actually had a fighter tell me that Vasyl Lomachenko can not be P4P #1 because he has a loss. I didn’t even comment because I knew he was too ignorant to grasp what he said. But I thought to myself that here lies the problem. A loss in 2014 in his 2nd pro fight somehow disqualifies Lomachenko from being the best fighter in 2018 after 10 more title fights. Yeah ok.
Let’s look back. Who were the two best fighters of the 70’s. Universally most experts would say #1 Duran and #2 Monzon. Duran had 1 loss as a young champion in a non title fight and Monzon had 3 losses. Yet they were the best fighters of the 70s. Let’s look at the best fighters of the 80s. The three best fighters of the 80s voted by Ring Magazine were #1 Ray Leonard, #2 Marvin Hagler and #3 Salvador Sanchez. Leonard lost in his 2st title defense vs Duran, Hagler had 2 losses and 2 draws before he ever won a belt and Sanchez had a loss and draw before he won his belt. To add to this list, Manny Pacquiao had 2 losses and 2 draws during his run as the P4P king, Bernard Hopkins had 2 losses and draw during his time as the P4P king. The mentality of this era is crippling.
The promoters, networks, media, fans and fighters are all the culprits. Fighters will not continue to test themselves because of the overall mentality of “if that guy had won’t fight killers, neither will I”. Here is the example. Tommy Hearns went on his best career run after he was stopped by Ray Leonard in 1981. He didn’t shy away from competition he fought harder and kept challenging himself. Because of his mentality he got to fight in other big fights vs Benitez, Duran and Hagler. He won some and lost some but he didn’t stop taking tough fights. Hearns is in the HOF and he made a boat load of money.
Terry Norris gets kod bad in his 1st title try by Julian Jackson. Norris regrouped and went after another puncher in John Mugabi and won. He went on to have a better career than Jackson and make the HOF.
Speaking of Julian Jackson he was kod by Mike McCallum in his 1st title try. He regrouped and went on to have one of the most feared runs ever at 154lbs.
Gerald McClellan, Marco Antonio Barrera, Lennox Lewis and Marquez Brothers all took tough losses early in their careers or as young champions, each one came back a better fighter.
Say what you want about Oscar De La Hoya but he was a real fighter. Forget about him winning titles from 130-140. In his 1st fight at 147 he takes on Pernell Whitaker who was a stylistic nightmare for him. Less than 2 years later he fights Ike Quartey, Oba Carr and Felix Trinidad all in the same year. And in the very next year he fights a prime Shane Mosley. After that he moves up to 154 and fights Fernando Vargas and Mosley again. After that he moves to 160 and fights Bernard Hopkins. After that he fights a prime Mayweather and a prime Pacquiao. Are you kidding me! I know most of you guys say bad stuff about Oscar but that resume is insane. No fighter from this particular era has challenged himself like that. Don’t say Manny Pacquiao because he’s not from this era, he turned pro in 1995.
The promoters treat you different after a loss. The networks act funny and the fighters feel it’s not worth the risk. And it’s a shame because the mentality of this era is just counter productive to past greatness. It really sucks. Besides Abner Mares, Amir Khan, Badou Jack, George Groves ,Jorge Linares and Kell Brook I can’t think of any other big name or A side fighters of this era that have challenged themselves after a ko defeat. If I forgot anyone I apologize. But you know what I mean by challenge themselves.
I’ve seen fighters take off 2 and 3 years after getting stopped. Are you kidding me again? I’ve seen guys take a loss in this era and literally take 6 or 7 years worth of tune ups. I’ve seen a champion win a controversial fight and not take another fight where he wasn’t the favorite in for 5 years. I don’t like to name fighters in negative comments because I respect boxing too much. But this era the weakest era in the history of boxing from that particular stand point. “They” will say If you lose you sucked anyway. If you get stopped you’re chinny and you’re done. If you take a beating for more than 6 or 7 rounds you’re damaged goods. It’s so sickening I don’t like discussing boxing with anyone who is from this era. Azumah Nelson lost to Salvador Sanchez by tko in the 14th round. He took a beating and was stopped late he was 13-0. Nelson never lost at featherweight again and will go down as a top 10 great in the division history and top 75 fighters ever. That tko loss sure didn’t ruin him. It’s absurd the line of thinking that goes along with this era. We wouldn’t have any of the legends of boxing if they adopted this era’s mentality.
All it will take is one top fighter to break the trend and win some big fights. I see Austin Trout trying but he’s not getting the wins. But I do respect him for challenging himself after a loss. But Trout is not the A side in his fights. A side fighters set trends because they don’t have to take certain fights in order to get paid. Guys like Oscar De La Hoya was a trend setter. If you notice Shane Mosley of the same era took his 1st loss vs Vernon Forest. He ran it right back. He lost again but so what he wanted to get it back. Forest in turn took his 1st loss to Ricardo Mayorga. What did he do he ran it right back? This happened because it was the “mentality” and trend of the time. I’ve actually seen fighters who lose once and instead of continuing their careers, they would rather personal train young kids and charge them $20/workout!
I’m not suggesting rush things or piss your career away and damage yourself. I’m not suggesting go 13-5 to start your career. It’s nothing wrong with being an undefeated prospect or wanting to retire undefeated. But the majority of these fighters in this era don’t want to challenge themselves at all. And if they do they only want to do it if they stay undefeated. After they lose, they lose their mentality and spirit of competition. Very rarely do we a see a fighter do what Lomachenko did and it’s the reason why I respect him so much. He took a risk after a loss and it paid off.
The problem in this era is simple. You can’t hit the lottery if you don’t play. The lottery actually hits you if you play enough. You can’t hit a homerun if you don’t swing at the ball. You can’t make the game winning shot if you don’t take it. The fighters of this era have to realize you won’t beat a great fighter unless you get in the ring with them.
I was born in the 70s but I’m no fool. I know there are special and capable fighters in this era who can hang with the top dogs of any era and either win a title or be a top 3 type of force. I will give them their props and name them by the divisions.
Roman Gonzalez could hang with anybody in history in any era at 105 and 108. He would do just fine with Ricardo Lopez and Michael Carbajal era. Gonzalez also challenged himself and he will go down in history as one of the top 10 or 15 fighters ever who campaigned under bantamweight because of it.
SSR and Juan Estrada would hang with the top dogs at 112-115 in any era. I don’t know if they would win titles but they would hang.
Monster Inoue would be a monster at 115-118 in any era.
Nonito Donaire would hold his won from 112-118 with anyone in history. He’s that good. He’s one of the better fighters ever 118 on down. Donaire also consistently challenged himself.
Guillermo Rigondeaux would be a champion or top 3 fighter in any era 122lbs. He’s that good.
Featherweight is tough historically and I don’t know if the top featherweights of today would translate well 20+ years ago. I can’t see anyone today breaking through on Morales, Marquez, Barrera, Hamed or Pacquiao. Or Nelson, Sanchez and Pedroza eras.
Vasyl Lomachenko could break through at 130lbs in any era, he’s special. I’m not sure about 135 I have to see more.
Mikey Garcia would be a force at 135 in any era.
Amir Khan would be a force at 140 in any era. He may get clipped a few times but his pedigree and hand speed would be tough for any of the better champions at 140. The great welterweights of the past would be too much. He would have to stay at 140.
Danny Garcia would be a solid top 10 guy at 140 in any era. He could possibly when a title but he would definitely be a player. Not sure about 147.
Terence Crawford would find a way to win a title at 135 and 140 in any era. I don’t know enough about him at 147 yet.
Errol Spence has the size and mentality to be a force at welterweight in any era. But his book is still being written.
Hurd, Charlo and Lara would be top 10 guys at 154 in any era but I don’t know if they would be champions it would depend on the era. I would have loved to see them in the McCallum-Hearns era or Tito-Wright-Vargas era.
GGG would be a major force in any era at 160 in his prime. I would have loved to see him in the Toney, Eubank, McClellan, Jones, Bhop, Benn and Nunn era. He would have had his hands full but he would have held his own. I don’t believe he would have 20 defenses in the early 90’s but I do think he would win a belt with 4 available.
There is no one at 168 currently who stands out because the champions are too young to tell. Benavidez and the Uzi look very good as of now. I don’t think Ramirez would be champion 20 years ago. Groves would be a solid contender.
Andre Ward was an all time great fighter at 168. I think he would be a great fighter at 168 in any era and still make the HOF. I think he holds his own at 175 in any and could be a champion depending on what era. I would have loved to see how he would have fared in the Spinks-Qawi-Muhammad era or the Jones-Tarver eras.
Sergey Kovalev would be a tough out for any light heavyweight you can think of on his best night. Kovalev can go he just came along at the same time as Ward so he may get overlooked historically but he’s a great fighter.
The cruiserweights of this era are very good and because the division does not have a lot of history this could be one of the better cruiserweight eras ever.
At heavyweight it’s really hard to tell because I see a drop off in skill. The top skill guys from the 70s, 80s, and 90’s are visibly more polished than the 2 best heavyweights of today in Joshua and Wilder. I mean no disrespect to those great champions but from a skill stand point, they are just not as developed at Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe or Lewis. Maybe it’s because of the amateur pedigree. I don’t know why, but there is a considerable difference in skillset. But Joshua and Wilder are both big punchers with plenty of heart. So when you have that you can match up well vs anyone. So giving the eye ball test I say they could be top contenders. They could even clip a top guy if they caught them right. But as of now I wouldn’t pick them to beat the better guys in history but I do think they would beat the 2nd tier guys who littered every era, like the Greg Page’s, Trevor Berbick’s, Bone Crusher Smith, Tommy Morrison, Ron Lyle type of fighters.
One more thing I want to point out. Deontay Wilder weighed 214 for his toughest fight vs Luis Ortiz. While Ortiz was about 240. The new era guy modern science guys claim that the smaller heavyweight could not compete against the giants. I have never believed that to be true. Some will say Wilder is tall but boxing does not have height divisions, it has weight divisions. Wilder has a quickness advantage over all of his opponents. Their minds simply can’t process his 1-2 fast enough. It’s just that simple. They become big targets for him. They also can’t get their 2nd wind quick enough in the deep waters of the fight. The more mass and muscle you have the more oxygen it takes to fuel it. Ortiz had Wilder he was just too tired to recover. Wilder recovers quicker than nay other heavyweight for his 2nd wind.
Now in the new school era, we have 214lb man that is the most feared fighter on the planet and no one can explain why. But I can. The best heavyweight ever was 6’3 and 215lbs and that was Muhammad Ali. Once you reach a certain weight then the extra size slows you down. If size and weight was the end all then surely we would see a 6’7 300lbs defensive tackle just come in boxing and be the heavyweight champion. But I will tell you he wouldn’t have the stamina or reaction time to compete. What proves my point even more is the one heavyweight that we do have around 300lbs who can actually fight. Tyson Fury relies on skill and not brawn. Do you think it’s a coincidence that he does not have bulky muscle and he actually boxes and wins with skills. Fury is not a BIG puncher. He’s a skill guy. The 214lbs Wilder is actually a bigger and better puncher. Punching power is not always about weight.
WORDS OF ENCOURAGEMENT
The young fighters of this era can do it. All they need is encouragement, self esteem and confidence. They can’t let characters with no identity on social media define what they are. If they can get over the fear of failure they can be just as good as any era. They have the resources they just have to break the trend of always taking the road of least resistance and just be FIGHTERS.
I hope I shed light on this never ending debate.