How do we really compare different eras?

He only lost two fights and those were probably due to poor motivation and underestimating his opponents. He whupped both of them in rematches so I am guessing motivition was an issue sometimes. The shots that put him on his ass though would have put most heavyweights on their ass. The talk about him have a bad chin I think are overstated. He just got careless and prepared poorly against some guys who had enough crack to make him pay for a mistake.

Oh I know. Rahman he was too busy fucking about filming for Ocean's Eleven, and McCall I think he just took lightly. McCall in the rematch, fuck, he should never have been licensed, and Rahman? One of the best KOs I've ever seen. Sounded like a gunshot.

Mind, McCall winning led to Frank Bruno finally becoming world champion, so it wasn't all bad.
 
I'll put it like this, Lewis who was a shell of himself stopped Wlad, Wlad wouldn't beat prime Ali because we saw how Ali dominated vs endless greats. If you're talking pre-TV it's very hard, I consider Willie Pep better than Floyd or Marciano but I know Pep literally fought a guy with 6 wins 3 times.


If you took today's heaveweights, middleweights or welters in the golden eras they would be victims, I truly believe Wlad would have losses from Foreman, Ali, Frazier, Moore, Liston, Shavers and Holmes, based on who he has fought last 10 years.

The answer is look at who they fought.

wlad and vitali would beat the piss out of most of history's best HW's IMO
 
wlad and vitali would beat the piss out of most of history's best HW's IMO

interesting. especially the wlad part. Wlads chin is a little to suspect for me to pick him against a lot of the true great hw's
 
interesting. especially the wlad part. Wlads chin is a little to suspect for me to pick him against a lot of the true great hw's

What about Lewis' chin? Did he not get stopped twice? Only once less than Wlad?

Is Rahman THAT much better than Brewster?

Is McCall THAT much Better than Sanders?'


Was not Joe Louis stopped twice? The legendary Max Schmeling who he himself had 10 losses, 5 KOs


STOP THE PRESSES, NONE OF THE CAN BE TOP HWS ALL TIME. REWRITE DA BOOKS
 
Who beat the most great fighters and lost the least (also, who they lost to)

Also take into account that the boxing styles of the 1890's-1940's were extremely primitive and only a handful of fighters from that era would have a chance against fighters from the 60's-now. That said, it's not their fault they were only around back then so it's okay to judge them equally but keeping that in the back of your mind is key.
 
At the end of the day I think it's a case by case basis.

The reality is that boxing requires a synergy between the body and mind. While the body has benefited greatly from improvements in diet and the science behind the training, the mind is something else altogether. You can't tell me that a present day championship level boxer who fights maybe 2 times a year - a couple more at best on their way to a major title fight - has anywhere near the ability compared to the old-school guys who fought with far more regularity.

Keep in mind that from the 20's to the 50's there weren't seventeen weight classes (8 instead) and instead only one major title for each weight class. A title shot was a precious thing so fighters would be given ample experience at 4 rounders fighting all styles (pressure fighters, brawlers, boxers etc.), then 6 rounders, then 8 and so on. Each step up in rounds led to the same exposure to varying styles each time. Some guys would fight a couple times or even once a month and that led to a depth of experience that simply is not duplicated today.

A smarter fighter can offset the dietary and strength and conditioning advantages of today with technique and guile.

Am I saying that Rocky Marciano could beat Vitali Klitschko? No. Am I saying that Gene Tunney could beat most light heavyweights today? Yes. What about Carmen Basilio? He'd do alright too! Again, case by case basis.
 
it's very difficult to compare eras that's why the so called experts use lots of criteria but none of that is gonna change people's minds once they are a fan of someone. the Europeans are naturally gonna rank their own guys way above everyone else. Personally, I go with my gut and experience. When people said Canelo was going to give Mayweather a tough fight, I watched five minutes of highlights and knew the guy had nothing, I trust my instincts and judgment more than anyone else's.
 
interesting. especially the wlad part. Wlads chin is a little to suspect for me to pick him against a lot of the true great hw's

Pretty much all of the greats have been put down though. I think Wlad gets too much hate in that regard.
 
The Eye Test. Never fails.
 
Oh I know. Rahman he was too busy fucking about filming for Ocean's Eleven, and McCall I think he just took lightly.

.

I remember watching that fight with a friend and he commented 3 or 4 times that Lennox was fighting stupid and going to get knocked out.

Lennox simply thought he was just too good for Rahman and could do what he wanted there.
 
I remember watching that fight with a friend and he commented 3 or 4 times that Lennox was fighting stupid and going to get knocked out.

Lennox simply thought he was just too good for Rahman and could do what he wanted there.

Pretty much. I taped it and was rewinding the next day to watch it. I was getting a bit uneasy when I saw the BBC's pundit team (including Marvelous Marvin Hagler :D) discussing the bout well before it should have finished. They looked a little sombre, so I realised Lewis must have done fucked up.

He didn't bother acclimatising in Sefrica like Rahman did, so he couldn't breathe properly. He was stumbling about with his mouth wide open, just asking to be finished, and Rahman didn't need asking twice.
 
Back
Top