Pre-1960 and Post-1960 boxers

[sonnyboyx2]

If we can't accept Jim Jeffries, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Harry Grebb and the other great fighters from the first quarter of the last century, as being great fighters compared to fighters of the last 50yrs. Then how can we accept fighters like Froch, Golovkin, Floyd, Pacquiao, Wlad and their style of fighting as being better, and them being All Time Great Fighters..Should pre-1960 boxers be deemed inferior to post-1960 boxers ?

[The Old LefHook]

If we can't accept Jim Jeffries, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey, Harry Grebb and the other great fighters from the first quarter of the last century, as being great fighters compared to fighters of the last 50yrs. Then how can we accept fighters like Froch, Golovkin, Floyd, Pacquiao, Wlad and their style of fighting as being better, and them being All Time Great Fighters..Should pre-1960 boxers be deemed inferior to post-1960 boxers ?

Most of the problem lies in the heavyweights, as I see it. Most heavyweight greats before 1960 would be today's cruiserweights. Let's make that simple substitution, then. Marciano, Louis, Dempsey and Tunney suddenly look awfully powerful against those in the cruiserweight range from 1960 onward. At least to me they do. I cannot imagine any of them losing to the likes of Jirov or Toney. Holyfield stands there with them, as good as they were, perhaps, or perhaps better. But so what? One counter example does not defeat a trend.

The concealed question is a well trampled one. Could yesterday's heavyweight greats deal with the extra weight and muscle mass their modern counterparts would bring to bear against them?

We have hashed it out to my satisfaction that actual innovations in boxing techniuque are extraordinarily rare. Men have been fighting hand to hand since there were at least two men to fight. Boxing culture is not as deep now as it was pre-1960. With twice the world population I am willing to bet there are fewer boxing gyms now. Reading about boxing may be more convenient with the internet, but the physical culture is spread thinner. It is still my belief that boxing technique has lost some of its depth over the years. Ali's eschewing of many tradtional concepts was fulfilled by his many imitators as actual disdain, or at least indifference, for tradition. The evolution that many speak of in the sport, I see as devolving, degenerating from the sport's height.

For me there is no question at all that yesterday's middleweights and lightweights, etc., will do just fine against today's pugilists. The only unanswered question for me is whether yesterday's heavies (actual cruiserweigths) could deal with today's mammoth men.

[sonnyboyx2]

Most of the problem lies in the heavyweights, as I see it. Most heavyweight greats before 1960 would be today's cruiserweights. Let's make that simple substitution, then. Marciano, Louis, Dempsey and Tunney suddenly look awfully powerful against those in the cruiserweight range from 1960 onward. At least to me they do. I cannot imagine any of them losing to the likes of Jirov or Toney. Holyfield stands there with them, as good as they were, perhaps, or perhaps better. But so what? One counter example does not defeat a trend.

The concealed question is a well trampled one. Could yesterday's heavyweight greats deal with the extra weight and muscle mass their modern counterparts would bring to bear against them?

We have hashed it out to my satisfaction that actual innovations in boxing techniuque are extraordinarily rare. Men have been fighting hand to hand since there were at least two men to fight. Boxing culture is not as deep now as it was pre-1960. With twice the world population I am willing to bet there are fewer boxing gyms now. Reading about boxing may be more convenient with the internet, but the physical culture is spread thinner. It is still my belief that boxing technique has lost some of its depth over the years. Ali's eschewing of many tradtional concepts was fulfilled by his many imitators as actual disdain, or at least indifference, for tradition. The evolution that many speak of in the sport, I see as devolving, degenerating from the sport's height.

For me there is no question at all that yesterday's middleweights and lightweights, etc., will do just fine against today's pugilists. The only unanswered question for me is whether yesterday's heavies (actual cruiserweigths) could deal with today's mammoth men.

What you have done here is, "Take the easy route" by claiming them to be Cruiserweights or not the weight class they excelled in... Tyson Fury made a very interesting point recently, saying when interviewed, "If Wlad was not taking the stuff he is taking and also working out every single day, He would only be weighing around 13st."....
We have had 6ft.6in and above fighters since boxing was first ever invented. If you take a close look at any fight of Primo Carnera you will be amazed at how agile on his feet he is, compared to today's big men. Lewis, Wlad, Vitali, Briggs etc This is because today's fighters are in reality exactly like fighters from 100yrs ago if they are denied the use of PEDs. Lennox Lewis, Wlad & Vitali Klitschko, Shannon Briggs would all weigh around 195-205lbs regardless of their height...Protein Powders, Creatine etc are all used to gain weight and improve strength training. But they cannot improve "Boxing Ability".. Primo Carnera was considered "The Worst" Heavyweight Champion of All Time, by most boxing writers from 1935-1990 Yet watching film of him today, we can actually see him to be better than Wlad, Lennox, Vitali, Valuev etc. by better i mean, better agility, better boxing skills, better footwork, better stamina..So comparing fighters from 100yrs ago against those fighters of the last 40yrs. We must take into account, the conditions of today and apply those conditions of today, for fighters from 100yrs ago... If we are to do that, then today's fighters would not stand a chance against fighters from pre-1960.

[billeau2]

What you have done here is, "Take the easy route" by claiming them to be Cruiserweights or not the weight class they excelled in... Tyson Fury made a very interesting point recently, saying when interviewed, "If Wlad was not taking the stuff he is taking and also working out every single day, He would only be weighing around 13st."....
We have had 6ft.6in and above fighters since boxing was first ever invented. If you take a close look at any fight of Primo Carnera you will be amazed at how agile on his feet he is, compared to today's big men. Lewis, Wlad, Vitali, Briggs etc This is because today's fighters are in reality exactly like fighters from 100yrs ago if they are denied the use of PEDs. Lennox Lewis, Wlad & Vitali Klitschko, Shannon Briggs would all weigh around 195-205lbs regardless of their height...Protein Powders, Creatine etc are all used to gain weight and improve strength training. But they cannot improve "Boxing Ability".. Primo Carnera was considered "The Worst" Heavyweight Champion of All Time, by most boxing writers from 1935-1990 Yet watching film of him today, we can actually see him to be better than Wlad, Lennox, Vitali, Valuev etc. by better i mean, better agility, better boxing skills, better footwork, better stamina..So comparing fighters from 100yrs ago against those fighters of the last 40yrs. We must take into account, the conditions of today and apply those conditions of today, for fighters from 100yrs ago... If we are to do that, then today's fighters would not stand a chance against fighters from pre-1960.

I agree with this Sonny. Also great post on Darcey.

I would add that many people see a trend where none exists in that while there are perhaps more big men today, there is no trend of big men dominating the heavy weight division. It is often assumed that because lewis and then the Klitschkos came along, all champions are bigger heavyweights and this is not true.

From 1950 on through to liston you had Ezzerd Charles, Marciano and patterson as champs, these guys were combined all relatively small in stature....

Then between Holyfield and Tyson, neither guy a gigantic heavyweight, one a former cruiser, the heavyweights were not bigger than before, and then Lewis and Klitschko, among others.....this does not suggest a trend. So if we want to say what about Bowe? for example, well what about Herbie Hyde? or what about an aged Foreman, then what about Moorer who was alas another renegade Cruiser....again the point being there is no trend towards biger men ruling the roost.

[The Old LefHook]

What you have done here is, "Take the easy route" by claiming them to be Cruiserweights or not the weight class they excelled in... Tyson Fury made a very interesting point recently, saying when interviewed, "If Wlad was not taking the stuff he is taking and also working out every single day, He would only be weighing around 13st."....
We have had 6ft.6in and above fighters since boxing was first ever invented. If you take a close look at any fight of Primo Carnera you will be amazed at how agile on his feet he is, compared to today's big men. Lewis, Wlad, Vitali, Briggs etc This is because today's fighters are in reality exactly like fighters from 100yrs ago if they are denied the use of PEDs. Lennox Lewis, Wlad & Vitali Klitschko, Shannon Briggs would all weigh around 195-205lbs regardless of their height...Protein Powders, Creatine etc are all used to gain weight and improve strength training. But they cannot improve "Boxing Ability".. Primo Carnera was considered "The Worst" Heavyweight Champion of All Time, by most boxing writers from 1935-1990 Yet watching film of him today, we can actually see him to be better than Wlad, Lennox, Vitali, Valuev etc. by better i mean, better agility, better boxing skills, better footwork, better stamina..So comparing fighters from 100yrs ago against those fighters of the last 40yrs. We must take into account, the conditions of today and apply those conditions of today, for fighters from 100yrs ago... If we are to do that, then today's fighters would not stand a chance against fighters from pre-1960.

It seems you know more 6'6"-6'8" men who weigh 182 (13 stone) than anyone else in the world.

I did not take an easy route. Since there is no question regarding the lower weight fighters, the only question revolves around those called heavyweights. How much would the extra size and muscle mass matter? I do not dispute that these guys are all on juices, but that is still what Marciano and Dempsey et all would have to deal with.

Don't act like you are springing new ideas on me. I have stated many times that I believe the fighters of yester year were superior. It is I who have stated Dempsey would destroy Vlad the grabber. It is I who have called these modern gorillas scrubs.

And by the way, I do not consider Carnera superior to anyone. Jess Wiillard would beat him up.

[The Old LefHook]

I agree with this Sonny. Also great post on Darcey.

I would add that many people see a trend where none exists in that while there are perhaps more big men today, there is no trend of big men dominating the heavy weight division. It is often assumed that because lewis and then the Klitschkos came along, all champions are bigger heavyweights and this is not true.

From 1950 on through to liston you had Ezzerd Charles, Marciano and patterson as champs, these guys were combined all relatively small in stature....

Then between Holyfield and Tyson, neither guy a gigantic heavyweight, one a former cruiser, the heavyweights were not bigger than before, and then Lewis and Klitschko, among others.....this does not suggest a trend. So if we want to say what about Bowe? for example, well what about Herbie Hyde? or what about an aged Foreman, then what about Moorer who was alas another renegade Cruiser....again the point being there is no trend towards biger men ruling the roost.

It is not my fault you cannot see a trend in front of your face. All dominant heavyweights of the last 10-15 years have been giants, but you are comfortable with no trend. What, are you afraid of trends or something, Bilbo? I did not say it is over for smaller heavyweights. That would not be a trend. What is going on right now and for the last decade in the heavyweight division is a trend to bigger men, with exclusively very big men installed at the top. I don't know how that is not a trend. You and Sonny must think it is a freak accident, just normal traffic queing.

I have also stated previously that I believe the ideal size for heavyweights is 6'2"-6'3" and 200--220 lbs.

I hate it when people throw my own stated ideas back at me to count coup. Sonny is now saying exactly what I said months ago about the Burley phenomenon--that it was journalists 20 years after the fact that created all the controversey. If people are going to count coup, they should use their own stick.

[Ray Corso]

Technically speaking there is no weight determining a Heavyweight!
it has been and remains an "open weight class" and thats the beauty of the division.
A welter is not supposed to exceed 147 he doesn't have to weigh 143 he could weigh 135.
A heavyweight has no limit and no prescribed weight!

Get off the height and weight train its all BS!

The division is being controlled by size now because the this heavyweight era is void of talent at any height or weight!!!!

Stop the Wlad BS the guy is a good basic boxer who can't fight!
He was taught to use his height on offense with long range jabs and rights and to continue it until his opponents stand in front and then step in with shorter shots. He uses his height to lean away and his best defensive move is to reach out and grab!

Talent & technique will always over ride sized opponents. I'm not saying its easy but you also need some "heart" in the mix!
Two Ton Galento knocked Joe Louis on his butt then got KO'd.
Take a look at Tonys record and see some of the men who had alot more talent than he did who didn't get up!!! He beat some very good men and
no one was signing up to fight him either. He us4e hois weight and guts to
go much further than talent would take him.

I think Wlad & Lennox and Vitali are all pretty good boxers and they were able to be the front runners of this era. Your opponents talents have alot to do with grading them but I evaluate on techniques and I exam their Methodology!
Carnera isn't better than the current men but after all these years you'd think the differences would be astonomical, there not!
Joe Louis is easily the superior techniques king over any of the current crop.
Does that mean Joe could handle a 6'6" 240 man?? Well first it depends who?
The fact that Two Ton put Joe on his can can have relivance I guess. What happens to Wlad when Galento crashes his left hook on his jaw?
I don't know but I do know that Tony used a style that suited his skill set. Wlad was taught who to front run and be safe by Manny. Joe Louis was taught great technique by a boxing genuis in Mr. Blackburn.
Who weighs what means NOTHING if Galento earns the right he fights who ever regardless of sizes!
Please get over this size BS! The Heavyweight division is an OPEN weight class that how Ketchell, jumped in, that how the great Light Heavies give the bigger boys a try. Theres been 190lb men KOing 250lb men forever and vice versa.
Every weight class has a number you can't SUCCEED the Heavyweights don't!
Makes no difference what you weigh come on down! ring the damn bell...
nite boys Ray.

[billeau2]

It is not my fault you cannot see a trend in front of your face. All dominant heavyweights of the last 10-15 years have been giants, but you are comfortable with no trend. What, are you afraid of trends or something, Bilbo? I did not say it is over for smaller heavyweights. That would not be a trend. What is going on right now and for the last decade in the heavyweight division is a trend to bigger men, with exclusively very big men installed at the top. I don't know how that is not a trend. You and Sonny must think it is a freak accident, just normal traffic queing.

I have also stated previously that I believe the ideal size for heavyweights is 6'2"-6'3" and 200--220 lbs.

I hate it when people throw my own stated ideas back at me to count coup. Sonny is now saying exactly what I said months ago about the Burley phenomenon--that it was journalists 20 years after the fact that created all the controversey. If people are going to count coup, they should use their own stick.

lefty I just look at the data...If it seems I have any agenda its because I don't trust my knowledge, subsequently looked at the data, and formed my opinion. Two things the data tell is are: There is no correlation between size and power and, there has not been a trend towards larger men becoming champion. Just look at the list in my post, it is what it is and it comes from the list of heavyweight champions by and large. I not only took this list but even lesser known champion heavyweights (I don't do alphabet soup) are a trade off...for every giant Russian is a John Ruiz, for Bowe, a big man, there is Herbie Hyde...Tyson defeated Razor Ruddock, Bone Crusher Smith, etc...all bigger men.

I don't play favorites, I look and learn and if I thought heavyweights were bigger and stronger i would agree with Juggy...but the data says otherwise thats a fact.

[billeau2]

Technically speaking there is no weight determining a Heavyweight!
it has been and remains an "open weight class" and thats the beauty of the division.
A welter is not supposed to exceed 147 he doesn't have to weigh 143 he could weigh 135.
A heavyweight has no limit and no prescribed weight!

Get off the height and weight train its all BS!

The division is being controlled by size now because the this heavyweight era is void of talent at any height or weight!!!!

Stop the Wlad BS the guy is a good basic boxer who can't fight!
He was taught to use his height on offense with long range jabs and rights and to continue it until his opponents stand in front and then step in with shorter shots. He uses his height to lean away and his best defensive move is to reach out and grab!

Talent & technique will always over ride sized opponents. I'm not saying its easy but you also need some "heart" in the mix!
Two Ton Galento knocked Joe Louis on his butt then got KO'd.
Take a look at Tonys record and see some of the men who had alot more talent than he did who didn't get up!!! He beat some very good men and
no one was signing up to fight him either. He us4e hois weight and guts to
go much further than talent would take him.

I think Wlad & Lennox and Vitali are all pretty good boxers and they were able to be the front runners of this era. Your opponents talents have alot to do with grading them but I evaluate on techniques and I exam their Methodology!
Carnera isn't better than the current men but after all these years you'd think the differences would be astonomical, there not!
Joe Louis is easily the superior techniques king over any of the current crop.
Does that mean Joe could handle a 6'6" 240 man?? Well first it depends who?
The fact that Two Ton put Joe on his can can have relivance I guess. What happens to Wlad when Galento crashes his left hook on his jaw?
I don't know but I do know that Tony used a style that suited his skill set. Wlad was taught who to front run and be safe by Manny. Joe Louis was taught great technique by a boxing genuis in Mr. Blackburn.
Who weighs what means NOTHING if Galento earns the right he fights who ever regardless of sizes!
Please get over this size BS! The Heavyweight division is an OPEN weight class that how Ketchell, jumped in, that how the great Light Heavies give the bigger boys a try. Theres been 190lb men KOing 250lb men forever and vice versa.
Every weight class has a number you can't SUCCEED the Heavyweights don't!
Makes no difference what you weigh come on down! ring the damn bell...
nite boys Ray.

Thats what the numbers tell Ray. Otherwise how would men like Ezzerd Charles, Evander Holyfield, Michael Moore, ect become champions? Furthermore how could guys like David Haye fight guys like the Klits? I just don't get why Lefty thinks guys are getting progressively bigger, maybe I am missing something? One of the so called smallest periods of the heavyweight division was from Charles, Marciano to Patterson....BEFORE that you had guys like jeffries and Liston and others who were big men at heavyweight, sporadically ..... I know I am preaching to the choir here.

[billeau2]

It is not my fault you cannot see a trend in front of your face. All dominant heavyweights of the last 10-15 years have been giants, but you are comfortable with no trend. What, are you afraid of trends or something, Bilbo? I did not say it is over for smaller heavyweights. That would not be a trend. What is going on right now and for the last decade in the heavyweight division is a trend to bigger men, with exclusively very big men installed at the top. I don't know how that is not a trend. You and Sonny must think it is a freak accident, just normal traffic queing.

I have also stated previously that I believe the ideal size for heavyweights is 6'2"-6'3" and 200--220 lbs.

I hate it when people throw my own stated ideas back at me to count coup. Sonny is now saying exactly what I said months ago about the Burley phenomenon--that it was journalists 20 years after the fact that created all the controversey. If people are going to count coup, they should use their own stick.

Lefty heres another way to look at it....this is what I am seeing at least and again, I may be off but at least you will know what i am seeing...

Would we say heavyweights got marginally smaller when there was a trend where Charles to marciano to Patterson were consecutive champs?

Or would we say that when Foreman first became champ, heavyweight champs were bigger?

correction is I know Walcott was in that list of champs...Walcott was not remarkable in size or stature.