Modern weight (category), All time great.

[HuskySamoan]

But would Kubrat Pulev?

I think you'd be surprised how guys like Pulev, Povetkin, Chagaev etc would do vs Marciano/Louis/Foreman/Ali etc I'd like to see it.

 

[Boxer]

These older boxers would lose, what the fuck are you guys talking about? Andre Ward would clown Marciano at 168 or 175. Henry Armstrong is arguably the greatest boxer of all time but he'd get humiliated by Lomachenko or Garcia.

Boxers in terms of skill, athleticism and access to knowledge, science, nutrition, training methods etc are much better now than they ever were in general of any era, with few exceptions. Anthony Joshua would destroy Muhammad Ali, Holyfield would box Frazier up too.

Are you guys having comic book nerd talk where we take a hypothetical Muhammad Ali/Marciano etc as if they came up training in modern times too? Or do you really think a 1970 Joe Frazier walks through a time portal and destroys every Cruiserweight?

No I mean as they were.

Yes I think a 1970's Joe Frazier would beat every CW with a few exceptions giving him a hard time like Lebedev but overall I think he beats all of them.

Your respect for older gen fighters is disturbing and misguided.

You act like they didn't have two hands and two feet?

They used to box 15 rounds and you question their athleticism?

George Foreman when asked said HW's of today (when he made his come back) were nothing on the 70's HW's he fought, he said with the exception of Holyfield ...... I'll take a two time HW champs opinion over yours.

............ then he tops it off with Joshua would beat Ali after he's fought one top pro, get out!

 

[JayE]

I think you'd be surprised how guys like Pulev, Povetkin, Chagaev etc would do vs Marciano/Lewis/Foreman/Ali etc I'd like to see it.

Lewis? As in Lennox Lewis? As in the guy who is barely 10 years older than the aforementioned (and drastically better)?

 

[HuskySamoan]

No I mean as they were.

Yes I think a 1970's Joe Frazier would beat every CW with a few exceptions giving him a hard time like Lebedev but overall I think he beats all of them.

Your respect for older gen fighters is disturbing and misguided.

You act like they didn't have two hands and two feet?

They used to box 15 rounds and you question their athleticism?

George Foreman when asked said HW's of today (when he made his come back) were nothing on the 70's HW's he fought, he said with the exception of Holyfield ...... I'll take a two time HW champs opinion over yours.

............ then he tops it off with Joshua would beat Ali after he's fought one top pro, get out!

There's so much wrong with this post on a logical level. I don't think you understand my point at all.

I'm not questioning all time greats athleticism as much as I am stating a reality that athletes have gotten better with time, this is unequivocal. To me when comparing greats the only rational way to do so is by viewing them relative to their own eras.

Foreman gave an opinion that made him and his career look good, that's not surprising. I'm trying to take opinions out of the equation and look at it As logically as possible.

More people compete in boxing today than 40-50 years ago. Nutrition has gotten better. Training methods have gotten better. The sport in general has gotten more competitive. The ability to heal injuries and recover has gotten better. PEDs have gotten better (which most top boxers are on). Based off these realities it only seems logical that boxers of today in general are better than those of 50 years ago.

 

[HuskySamoan]

Lewis? As in Lennox Lewis? As in the guy who is barely 10 years older than the aforementioned (and drastically better)?

I got my spellings mixed up. I meant Joe Louis.

 

[Seano]

Tbf is Holyfield anymore of a handful than prime Ali? chin wise, speed wise, reach wise? because Holyfield is similar in height and stature (Ali is obviously heavier) and Frazier was 1-2 with Ali.

I mention those in particular because they pretty much all went the distance showing Frazier can go into deep water and achieve a win on points.

Holyfield would be lighter and well ..... he's not Ali.

Me personally Frazier vs Holyfield at CW would be the division dream fight.

As a footnote, James Toney took Holyfield out (albeit at age 40) and was a quality shorter fighter, Frazier hits harder and more often than Toney.

The version of Holyfield that Toney beat was not he same guy as the Holyfield who dominated cruiser.

I don't see Holyfield being outfought by anyone similar in size. Holyfield had a granite chin at cruiser. He had more tools that Frazier.

And while I have tremendous respect for Ali, I hate the way fans seem to remember him as being more than he was. I don't think he would have had a walk in the park with prime Holyfield.

 

[Seano]

I think you'd be surprised how guys like Pulev, Povetkin, Chagaev etc would do vs Marciano/Louis/Foreman/Ali etc I'd like to see it.

I agree with this in a way. People seem to think if you took a fighter out of the post Ali boxing world and put them in with the old timers, that the old timers would just throw a few combos and that would be it.

Ali and Foreman went life and death with Ron Lyle. That guy was nothing special at all. Guys like Tex Cobb were able to be legitimate contenders when Holmes was on top. Ken Norton beat Ali.

People think the old timers had magical powers or something.
------
Check this out. Tell me I'm wrong here.
"He beat a few past their best fighters, a former light heavy, and a couple of past prime champs."

Who? Rocky Marciano? He's one of the greatest. Fought great fighters like Joe Louis and Ezzard Charles.

Oh you meant Tyson? Overrated. Probably not top 10, who'd he beat, a blown up light heavy weight Mike Spinks and Larry Holmes?

 

[Boxer]

There's so much wrong with this post on a logical level. I don't think you understand my point at all.

I'm not questioning all time greats athleticism as much as I am stating a reality that athletes have gotten better with time, this is unequivocal. To me when comparing greats the only rational way to do so is by viewing them relative to their own eras.

Foreman gave an opinion that made him and his career look good, that's not surprising. I'm trying to take opinions out of the equation and look at it As logically as possible.

More people compete in boxing today than 40-50 years ago. Nutrition has gotten better. Training methods have gotten better. The sport in general has gotten more competitive. The ability to heal injuries and recover has gotten better. PEDs have gotten better (which most top boxers are on). Based off these realities it only seems logical that boxers of today in general are better than those of 50 years ago.

Nobody is questioning modern "nutrition" or PED's, we're not here to judge juice we're he're to judge how tough, skilled etc one man was at punching another in the face.

It was you who threw logic out the window when you said Anthony (barely fought anybody) Joshua would beat who a lot of people would judge as the greatest HW of all time.
Ali would pulverise Joshua's face with combo's and movement, Joshua would barely land a glove of prime Ali.
Foreman at age 40 came back and Ko'ed almost everyone to a world title and went the distance with Holyfield who was one of the best of his time.

Just because they were around 20 years ago doesn't mean they didn't punch hard, had no skills, or couldn't fight well enough just because they weren't on Kale smoothies.

Training methods lol, oh dear.

Weights, running, punch bag, sparring, speed bag.

What is so different now? because they have hired personal trainers telling them when to down their egg yoke?
You've been sold to, yes there are obviously advancements, but the basics are the same and that still doesn't improve their punching power or general toughness and heart which I give hands down to the older gen fighters.

 

[makedansure]

There's so much wrong with this post on a logical level. I don't think you understand my point at all.

I'm not questioning all time greats athleticism as much as I am stating a reality that athletes have gotten better with time, this is unequivocal. To me when comparing greats the only rational way to do so is by viewing them relative to their own eras.

Foreman gave an opinion that made him and his career look good, that's not surprising. I'm trying to take opinions out of the equation and look at it As logically as possible.

More people compete in boxing today than 40-50 years ago. Nutrition has gotten better. Training methods have gotten better. The sport in general has gotten more competitive. The ability to heal injuries and recover has gotten better. PEDs have gotten better (which most top boxers are on). Based off these realities it only seems logical that boxers of today in general are better than those of 50 years ago.

Ironically, there is so much wrong with your post on many levels. Training methods have not gotten better. I have no idea how you can even begin to argue that. I really don't know that more people compete in boxing today than 40-50 years ago. I mean just in the US, it's evident that boxing has taken a backseat (3rd row even?) and that the skill and talent that is produced and emerges is nowhere near levels in the past.

Apply your logic to the lower weight classes. can you say that the middleweights of today are that much better than the middleweights 30-40 years ago?

James Toney did not benefit from modern training methods, or nutrition. He has apparently used PEDs, but he was a super middleweight that rose up in classes. He was a throwback fighter (he is called this by Manny Steward and many others during Toney's fighting days). And he caused a lot of problems at every weight class he competed in.

I do agree that nutrition is better. The sport has gotten more competitive? I really don't think so. PEDs, ability, you can have those. All in all, I do believe that the freaks of today would pose a very great challenge to guys like Louis, Ali, Marciano. But these guys were killers, and though they may not fare well in the superheavyweight era of today, you can't just count them out. Who the hell are you to be the judge of that?

You guys put way too much importance on the size of these superheavyweights.

 

[Sunfish]

I don't see the people that moved up as much as say, ezzard charles making waves with the big heavyweights, but Botha flattened wlad. He wasn't Godzilla or something.

 

[JayE]

I think you'd be surprised how guys like Pulev, Povetkin, Chagaev etc would do vs Marciano/Louis/Foreman/Ali etc I'd like to see it.

I mean, Ali at his best beats those three without much of any issue. Marciano is a bit different because of his size and style. Marciano would still be dominant at LHW and CW, but there elite big men would be an issue for him (not that there are many elite big men out there). I think Louis does just fine in this era, although, his sometimes questionable defense might prove a bigger issue against some of the bigger HWs. Foreman likely KOs all of them. The whole HW era comparison has been done many, many times on here and I don't feel like rehashing it, but we have enough era crossover with the 70s, 80s, and 90s (and I don't think anyone disputes the 90s era was far superior to anything we've seen in the last 15 years in the HW division) to have a pretty good idea that the elite from the 70s would be elite nowadays.

 

[HuskySamoan]

I mean, Ali at his best beats those three without much of any issue. Marciano is a bit different because of his size and style. Marciano would still be dominant at LHW and CW, but there elite big men would be an issue for him (not that there are many elite big men out there). I think Louis does just fine in this era, although, his sometimes questionable defense might prove a bigger issue against some of the bigger HWs. Foreman likely KOs all of them. The whole HW era comparison has been done many, many times on here and I don't feel like rehashing it, but we have enough era crossover with the 70s, 80s, and 90s (and I don't think anyone disputes the 90s era was far superior to anything we've seen in the last 15 years in the HW division) to have a pretty good idea that the elite from the 70s would be elite nowadays.

We don't need to rehearse it, I understand your point and still disagree with it respectively. I gave fairly sound reasoning as to why.

 

[Boxer]

We don't need to rehearse it, I understand your point and still disagree with it respectively. I gave fairly sound reasoning as to why.

You are entitled to your opinion and I don't want to bash you for it.

But the reason you came up with was that fighters today have better methods of training and nutrition and that = producing better fighters.

But your removing the man from that equation and also thinking the training is that much different, if you do road work in a Nike track suit does that mean your road work is any more significant than someone who did it in 1950's long johns?

Joe Frazier for e.g was CW size and beating HW's, his skills, bobbing and weaving, Cross guard, ability to get on the inside and most of all the pressure he was able to put on people coupled with his punch power and aggression, I don't see any CW bar Holyfield or Toney giving him trouble and I don't see how that can be disputed ......... just because he fought in the 70's?

 

[JayE]

You are entitled to your opinion and I don't want to bash you for it.

But the reason you came up with was that fighters today have better methods of training and nutrition and that = producing better fighters.

But your removing the man from that equation and also thinking the training is that much different, if you do road work in a Nike track suit does that mean your road work is any more significant than someone who did it in 1950's long johns?

Joe Frazier for e.g was CW size and beating HW's, his skills, bobbing and weaving, Cross guard, ability to get on the inside and most of all the pressure he was able to put on people coupled with his punch power and aggression, I don't see any CW bar Holyfield or Toney giving him trouble and I don't see how that can be disputed ......... just because he fought in the 70's?

It's interesting to think that people will generally agree that the 90s was no weaker an era than the current day (or, in the case of the HW division, drastically stronger), yet act like Ali and Frazier's day was something else entirely. The age difference between Frazier and Holyfield is about the same as that between Mayweather and Gervonta Davis. Even ignoring the many arguments that would suggest a decline in boxing the US (the loss of knowledge, lower participation, less general interest, etc.), it would be like imagining boxing has somehow drastically evolved (and there was already nearly the better part of a century's history of boxing in a recognizable modern form before Ali and Frazier started their careers) from when Mayweather was destroying Corrales until now.

 

[BoweryB'hoy]

These older boxers would lose, what the fuck are you guys talking about? Andre Ward would clown Marciano at 168 or 175. Henry Armstrong is arguably the greatest boxer of all time but he'd get humiliated by Lomachenko or Garcia.

Boxers in terms of skill, athleticism and access to knowledge, science, nutrition, training methods etc are much better now than they ever were in general of any era, with few exceptions. Anthony Joshua would destroy Muhammad Ali, Holyfield would box Frazier up too.

Are you guys having comic book nerd talk where we take a hypothetical Muhammad Ali/Marciano etc as if they came up training in modern times too? Or do you really think a 1970 Joe Frazier walks through a time portal and destroys every Cruiserweight?

Training / Diet / Knowledge is likely better now, but hard to argue that men in the past weren't made of sterner stuff. They were hard men compared to today's callous-free hands made for instagram and twitter.

 

[Boxer]

It's interesting to think that people will generally agree that the 90s was no weaker an era than the current day (or, in the case of the HW division, drastically stronger), yet act like Ali and Frazier's day was something else entirely. The age difference between Frazier and Holyfield is about the same as that between Mayweather and Gervonta Davis. Even ignoring the many arguments that would suggest a decline in boxing the US (the loss of knowledge, lower participation, less general interest, etc.), it would be like imagining boxing has somehow drastically evolved (and there was already nearly the better part of a century's history of boxing in a recognizable modern form before Ali and Frazier started their careers) from when Mayweather was destroying Corrales until now.

Top it off with your average boxer these days has 30-50 fights and done.

Sugar Ray Robinson, Sadler etc had 100's of fights.

Imagine all that extra fitness and experience, toughness to boot.

All you need to do is watch some of the wars they had and you can see these fighters weren't to be underestimated, people in general were tougher back then, more manual labor etc.

The only thing I readily admit is pre-1950's the quality of skill was definitely lower for your avge boxer but they made up for that with pure toughness but by the time the 60's had come along these guys were about as skilled as boxers today and were arguably tougher in general.

Hence why a 40 yr old Foreman smashed his way to a title in the modern era and took Holyfield to points, could you imagine if Foreman was in his prime?.

 

[Seano]

It's interesting to think that people will generally agree that the 90s was no weaker an era than the current day (or, in the case of the HW division, drastically stronger), yet act like Ali and Frazier's day was something else entirely. The age difference between Frazier and Holyfield is about the same as that between Mayweather and Gervonta Davis. Even ignoring the many arguments that would suggest a decline in boxing the US (the loss of knowledge, lower participation, less general interest, etc.), it would be like imagining boxing has somehow drastically evolved (and there was already nearly the better part of a century's history of boxing in a recognizable modern form before Ali and Frazier started their careers) from when Mayweather was destroying Corrales until now.

The Frazier era when Ali was exiled was shit, really.

 

[Sunfish]

The Frazier era when Ali was exiled was shit, really.

Shit? It wasn't exactly bum of the month club, certainly Fraziers resume wasn't.

 

[chiefwiggum]

Holyfield/Toney
Dempsey

 

[Boxer]

Dempsey, interesting choice.

Well I think the overall consensus is votes for .......

Toney / Holyfield / Frazier

All together i agree.

Marciano is interesting though, he is imo a wildcard, quite rudimentary so we all see the holes in his game but ........ he never lost.
Its almost hard to imagine him losing only because I've never seen it and he's so damn tough.

Its not like he beat nobodies either, Jersey Joe Walcott, Archie Moore a quite under rated but very difficult Ezzard Charles.
Not going to count Joe Louis (for obvs reasons).