On the sole fact that everything was different in each era, with different factors at play. You can’t just line up stats in your head because there are way too many factors to consider.
1) psychology. first of all who's the champ? Who's the underdog? This matters so much in a fight, one fighter will almost always get the edge sometimes before the fight sometimes during, sometimes even after (victories that involved the victor taking a severe beating). If Lennox is fighting Joe Louis in the late 30s is he the champ and Louis is trying to take his title? Is lennox a nobody? You can’t go and say “all things equal” as that won’t work, a fighters mentality is often their best talent altogether (Duran? Foreman? Ali? Etc) so someone has to win this war of the mind - outside factors can effect this.
if everyone was terrified of Sonny Liston, can we be certain Wilder or Fury wouldn't be either?
2)
conditioning. We don’t actually know which era has better conditioning for certain. I have my opinions on it - but there is no fight to fight data. Whenever there was a boxer with old training habits vs a boxer with modern training habits, it seemed to make very little difference, physically. Never was a puncher created in the gym, never was a chin hardened in the gym and only relaxed fighters can fight for 12 rounds. Doesn't matter if you run 12 miles every day. (See Jermain Taylor).
in this case though, a matchup has to be made either with modern training and rules or old training and rules. You can’t just teleport the fighter in with his modern day attributes even if they help or not, reason being there are a whole other slew of things that should be included. For example 6 oz gloves and grappling. Its like a wrestler fighting a boxer but telling the boxer to wear gloves, ok so the wrestler seemingly has no disadvantages, but the boxer must pad his fists?
3) records.
this part will ruin it for most, but comparing records from different eras is almost completely pointless. The tangents for judging are totally different. Fighters had much less career management, they had to fight everyone and catching losses was inevitable. They had shorter careers. 1 belt not 5. No in between weight classes. (Is Canelo a middleweight or lhw?)
15 rounds. Prior to the 20s - 6 oz gloves and no neutral corner. Same day weigh ins. Rubber matches were very common (fighters figure eachother out). Rounds were scored much more decidedly, any close rounds were draw rounds - eliminating Floyd Mayweather vegas rounds where he lands 1 jab and the other guys lands 0.
you look at fights like Holmes vs Shavers and Foreman vs Lyle and wonder if they would have been stopped prematurely.
won more belts? Means absolutely nothing when your era has 5x more belts. Never lost a fight? Means absolutely nothing when you don't ever have to fight anyone capable of beating you because you are a private contractor now. Promoters no longer steal all the money and make fights with the public in mind at the expense of hungry but poor and uneducated fighters.
really, a record is more like a portfolio - its a body of work, a resume. You can't numerically compare them when every feature changes over the decade.
ok so how can you judge a fighters accomplishment? By what they were capable of in their respective era! Greatness shows its face in many different ways. Overcoming odds should be the ultimate deciding factor.
1) psychology. first of all who's the champ? Who's the underdog? This matters so much in a fight, one fighter will almost always get the edge sometimes before the fight sometimes during, sometimes even after (victories that involved the victor taking a severe beating). If Lennox is fighting Joe Louis in the late 30s is he the champ and Louis is trying to take his title? Is lennox a nobody? You can’t go and say “all things equal” as that won’t work, a fighters mentality is often their best talent altogether (Duran? Foreman? Ali? Etc) so someone has to win this war of the mind - outside factors can effect this.
if everyone was terrified of Sonny Liston, can we be certain Wilder or Fury wouldn't be either?
2)
conditioning. We don’t actually know which era has better conditioning for certain. I have my opinions on it - but there is no fight to fight data. Whenever there was a boxer with old training habits vs a boxer with modern training habits, it seemed to make very little difference, physically. Never was a puncher created in the gym, never was a chin hardened in the gym and only relaxed fighters can fight for 12 rounds. Doesn't matter if you run 12 miles every day. (See Jermain Taylor).
in this case though, a matchup has to be made either with modern training and rules or old training and rules. You can’t just teleport the fighter in with his modern day attributes even if they help or not, reason being there are a whole other slew of things that should be included. For example 6 oz gloves and grappling. Its like a wrestler fighting a boxer but telling the boxer to wear gloves, ok so the wrestler seemingly has no disadvantages, but the boxer must pad his fists?
3) records.
this part will ruin it for most, but comparing records from different eras is almost completely pointless. The tangents for judging are totally different. Fighters had much less career management, they had to fight everyone and catching losses was inevitable. They had shorter careers. 1 belt not 5. No in between weight classes. (Is Canelo a middleweight or lhw?)
15 rounds. Prior to the 20s - 6 oz gloves and no neutral corner. Same day weigh ins. Rubber matches were very common (fighters figure eachother out). Rounds were scored much more decidedly, any close rounds were draw rounds - eliminating Floyd Mayweather vegas rounds where he lands 1 jab and the other guys lands 0.
you look at fights like Holmes vs Shavers and Foreman vs Lyle and wonder if they would have been stopped prematurely.
won more belts? Means absolutely nothing when your era has 5x more belts. Never lost a fight? Means absolutely nothing when you don't ever have to fight anyone capable of beating you because you are a private contractor now. Promoters no longer steal all the money and make fights with the public in mind at the expense of hungry but poor and uneducated fighters.
really, a record is more like a portfolio - its a body of work, a resume. You can't numerically compare them when every feature changes over the decade.
ok so how can you judge a fighters accomplishment? By what they were capable of in their respective era! Greatness shows its face in many different ways. Overcoming odds should be the ultimate deciding factor.
billeau2
Comment