Comparisons & Rankings From Eras

[Hawkins]

When making comparisons and rankings amongst different eras which is the better way to do it?

Is it better to take a fighter straight up and comapre them? Example - 1939 Joe Louis vs. 1991 Evander Holyfield. Or is it better to match them up comparatively based on skills as if they are of the same era?

Personally, I think it's more fair to imagine the match-ups in this day and age. If Joe Louis were fighting today surely he would benefit from the advanced training methods, nutrition and medicine and be bigger,stronger and faster.

How do you do it?

[hhascup]

When making comparisons and rankings amongst different eras which is the better way to do it?

Is it better to take a fighter straight up and comapre them? Example - 1939 Joe Louis vs. 1991 Evander Holyfield. Or is it better to match them up comparatively based on skills as if they are of the same era?

Personally, I think it's more fair to imagine the match-ups in this day and age. If Joe Louis were fighting today surely he would benefit from the advanced training methods, nutrition and medicine and be bigger,stronger and faster.

How do you do it?

I agree 100%

[them_apples]

I would agree, but that's still a wishy-washy way of comparing it, you can't say a Joe Louis would automatically be great if he matched up in size and training, he may not have been capable of that you never know, but theres also the chance that he could have...

But all I know is you can't match older 185 lb heavies up against guys like Lennox lewis or Tyson, they just wouldn't last. watching replays of them they only demon straight skills against fighters there size, and still sometimes struggle.

Punching power does not depend on size only, also technique, but a 240 lbs fighter with great technique will definentely hit harder than a 185 lb guy with great technique.

[hhascup]

I would agree, but that's still a wishy-washy way of comparing it, you can't say a Joe Louis would automatically be great if he matched up in size and training, he may not have been capable of that you never know, but theres also the chance that he could have...

But all I know is you can't match older 185 lb heavies up against guys like Lennox lewis or Tyson, they just wouldn't last. watching replays of them they only demon straight skills against fighters there size, and still sometimes struggle.

Punching power does not depend on size only, also technique, but a 240 lbs fighter with great technique will definentely hit harder than a 185 lb guy with great technique.

All I am saying is that the benefit from the advanced training methods, nutrition and medicine and would make them bigger, stronger and faster. If they stayed the same weight, height and strengh, then they would have a very hard time going against the BIG heavyweights of today.

[Peder]

When making comparisons and rankings amongst different eras which is the better way to do it?

Is it better to take a fighter straight up and comapre them? Example - 1939 Joe Louis vs. 1991 Evander Holyfield. Or is it better to match them up comparatively based on skills as if they are of the same era?

Personally, I think it's more fair to imagine the match-ups in this day and age. If Joe Louis were fighting today surely he would benefit from the advanced training methods, nutrition and medicine and be bigger,stronger and faster.

How do you do it?

I agree 100%
These fantasy matches will always be based on a personal viewpoint. But if you'd want to give it some credibility, you'd have to take all the modern measures in to count. At that time, you hardly knew as much about your opposition, video wasn't an option; the smart versatile fighter wouldn't be able to form his strategy the same way. Of course this goes for the training measures as well. Maybe today’s big money would motivate some to perform

[Hawkins]

Bert Sugar doesn't believe in putting fighters in a face to face fantasy match to determine who may have the upperhand. He judges them on their accomplishments and opposition of the time.

Personally, I'd rather put both fighters on an even keel and imagine the fight based on skills.

[QueensburyRules]

When making comparisons and rankings amongst different eras which is the better way to do it?

Is it better to take a fighter straight up and comapre them? Example - 1939 Joe Louis vs. 1991 Evander Holyfield. Or is it better to match them up comparatively based on skills as if they are of the same era?

Personally, I think it's more fair to imagine the match-ups in this day and age. If Joe Louis were fighting today surely he would benefit from the advanced training methods, nutrition and medicine and be bigger,stronger and faster.

How do you do it?

- -Any version of Louis beats Evan as they progress thru their timelines fighting in 8oz gloves for 13 rds, ie better boxer, more power, bigger/stronger in that Louis never weighed in at 176 lb as a mature adult. Louis schedule of development far more ambitious in he went straight in for the former champs

Now, once Evan gets on the vitamins to go to 215, Joe would be 225-230.

[DeeMoney]

I ve always been against the argument of 'judge them if they had modern training advantages.'

If modern training advantages make modern fighters better, then so be it; they are better because of it. We are judging them on what they were, all taken into account as a final product. Not as some form of judgement where we take the human being in their 'natural state' then evaluate them (which would be impossible).

Otherwise, we'd have to eliminate all other variables that contributed to their success- Ali never gets his bike stolen as a kid and gets into training (etc.)