Weight comparison old/modern boxing

[likeamulekick]

Its always hard to match up old boxers to modern boxers because of the weight difference but watching the old fights, could be just the lighting but they all look VERY lean and solid, take the Walcott and Charles fight. Walcott looks naturally big. How well would these guys do with boxers from the 80s to the 00s? Could there better stamina also influence there tactics on taking on the bigger guys and could they be effective, coz I think these tough old boxers could really wear down some of the modern boxers or would they just get blown away in the early rounds?

[Sugarj]

Its always hard to match up old boxers to modern boxers because of the weight difference but watching the old fights, could be just the lighting but they all look VERY lean and solid, take the Walcott and Charles fight. Walcott looks naturally big. How well would these guys do with boxers from the 80s to the 00s? Could there better stamina also influence there tactics on taking on the bigger guys and could they be effective, coz I think these tough old boxers could really wear down some of the modern boxers or would they just get blown away in the early rounds?

We do have to accept that the heavyweights of the 50s such as Walcott and Charles would be lighter than today's cruiserweights on the evening of the fight......probably not much heavier in the ring than the current light heavyweights.

Its therefore no great surprise that they could maintain a greater pace and punch output than the average modern day heavyweight. That said, I don't doubt that they were in better shape and trained harder than the vast majority of today's fighters.....they fought more regularly too.

As for head to head. For all the skills of Charles and Walcott, would it really be fair to throw them in with the larger heavyweights of today with such a size and weight disparity? Both have superior skills in my opinion to either Klitschko, but I'd be surprised to see either win simply because of the size difference.....not by any means impossible, just unlikely.

[likeamulekick]

We do have to accept that the heavyweights of the 50s such as Walcott and Charles would be lighter than today's cruiserweights on the evening of the fight......probably not much heavier in the ring than the current light heavyweights.

Its therefore no great surprise that they could maintain a greater pace and punch output than the average modern day heavyweight. That said, I don't doubt that they were in better shape and trained harder than the vast majority of today's fighters.....they fought more regularly too.

As for head to head. For all the skills of Charles and Walcott, would it really be fair to throw them in with the larger heavyweights of today with such a size and weight disparity? Both have superior skills in my opinion to either Klitschko, but I'd be surprised to see either win simply because of the size difference.....not by any means impossible, just unlikely.

Klitchkos are big and lean and I think size in that fight would defntly be unfair, I was thinking more 80s boxers like tony tubbs, Michael dokes, pinklon Thomas, berbick, tucker NOT mike Tyson, the large average joes. Coz hws like Marciano look like heavyweights and im sure if Marciano was fighting today, he would be a strong 215-230 pound bomber.

[Sugarj]

Klitchkos are big and lean and I think size in that fight would defntly be unfair, I was thinking more 80s boxers like tony tubbs, Michael dokes, pinklon Thomas, berbick, tucker NOT mike Tyson, the large average joes. Coz hws like Marciano look like heavyweights and im sure if Marciano was fighting today, he would be a strong 215-230 pound bomber.

Ah in that case I'd take the finest version of Charles at heavyweight (perhaps when he met Joe Louis) and the best version of Walcott (Louis 1?) over any of the guys you mentioned (Tubbs/Dokes/Thomas/Berbick/Tucker). But the fights would be risky.

Berbick would be very unlikely to beat either at their best, but the other guys were pretty good at their very best and would certainly offer stern resistance at the very least. The finest versions of Pinklon Thomas or Tony Tucker might well sc**** wins.

[Scott9945]

Ah in that case I'd take the finest version of Charles at heavyweight (perhaps when he met Joe Louis) and the best version of Walcott (Louis 1?) over any of the guys you mentioned (Tubbs/Dokes/Thomas/Berbick/Tucker). But the fights would be risky.

Berbick would be very unlikely to beat either at their best, but the other guys were pretty good at their very best and would certainly offer stern resistance at the very least. The finest versions of Pinklon Thomas or Tony Tucker might well sc**** wins.

Tucker was a very big guy, about the same size as Lennox Lewis.

[Sugarj]

Tucker was a very big guy, about the same size as Lennox Lewis.

A very good fighter with a superb amateur record too. In one frame of mind it seems heresy to suggest that he could beat the best versions of Charles or Walcott at heavyweight.......but it may well be possible. His reach and handspeed alone would make the fights very difficult.

Skill for skill I'd go with the smaller guys, but head to head may well be a different story.