Oldest fighter you're SURE would do well today...

[cross_trainer]

Who is the earliest fighter you can think of who you're SURE would be just as dominant today in his weightclass as he was in his own time period?

[McGrain]

Do you mean entirely without any modifications to his style?

[rydersonthestorm]

Without style change i think ray robinson.

[janitor]

How well is well?

I think that a great fighter from any era with a deep talent pool would be sucesfull up to a point. Try Dutch Sam.

[mr. magoo]

Do you mean entirely without any modifications to his style?

That would be my pick. I think Sugar Ray Robinson would seriously have an outstanding chance of beeting today's welterweights, middleweights and even some lightheavyweights.

[McGrain]

Sure is such a strong word.

Peter Jackson would probably have more success these days what with the colour bar being down. I'd pick him to be more successful than he was at Heavy.

Jack Dempsey the MW. He'd clean house I bet.

Langford at peak would clean up any one of five divisions. These are some possible answers.

[Manassa]

Jack Dempsey the MW. He'd clean house I bet.

How can you be sure of this?

[McGrain]

How can you be sure of this?

I'm not sure. But I bet.

[Manassa]

I'm not sure. But I bet.

We haven't even seen film of him.

[McGrain]

We haven't even seen film of him.

I have.

[Manassa]

I have.

Please elaborate.

[McGrain]

Please elaborate.

:D

What I understand of Jack is that he was two-fisted, tough, very very quick and had ko power in the right. But more than any of that he was a comsumate box-puncher who could fight any which way he needed to. This hints at great adaptability which is a real bonus if your just talking about picking them up and dropping them into a title fight. I guess a lot of guys will look to pick scientific fighters, but I would go for an adaptable fighter every time.

You are right when you say i've seen no film. Nor have I seen film of Jackson for that matter - but you read reports and stories about these guys and you form a vision and an opinion. My opinion is that Dempsey was better in terms of raw tools, than any of the currenc crop of Middles - that combined with his appartant adaptability makes him a good pick for this question.

Of course, he might fight at 154 in this moder era.

[Manassa]

The problem with forming opinions and visions based on written accounts is that when you do eventually see the fighter on film, he fights nothing like what you imagined. It's usually a disappointment, particularly with pre-'20 fighters.

[McGrain]

The problem with forming opinions and visions based on written accounts is that when you do eventually see the fighter on film, he fights nothing like what you imagined. It's usually a disappointment, particularly with pre-'20 fighters.

I accept that - sometimes you will be right, sometimes you will be wrong.

What about you? Do you think that Dempsey is a particularly bad choice for some reason?

Which fighter would you pick?

[Manassa]

I accept that - sometimes you will be right, sometimes you will be wrong.

What about you? Do you think that Dempsey is a particularly bad choice for some reason?

Which fighter would you pick?

I won't say Dempsey is a bad choice because the question asked 'who is the oldest fighter who would do well...' And Dempsey was prehistoric by modern boxing standards. But I could never be certain on someone I'd seen little to no footage of. My answer to this question is Benny Leonard.

[Vockerman]

McGrain might just be on to something there...

What I read about John Edward Kelly is almost word for word what people are saying about Floyd Mayweather now - the skill, speed, reflexes, footwork - How he would dominate higher weight class if he were only just "a little bigger" its uncanny to see how close the descriptions are.

He was so good and so dominant that there was serious talk of arranging a match between the 154 lbs Kelly and the - then Heavyweight champion of the world John L. Sullivan!

Is anyone, even the nuthuggers, talking smack about PBF going head to head with Wlad?

PBF vs 'the original' Jack Dempsey would be a heck of a match up and I honestly don't know who should be the favorite.

But I suspect historians won't be talking about PBF in 100 years and I think they WILL still be bringing up the “Nonpareil” - so Jack Dempsey UD PBF!

I imagine that pick will be like sloshing gas on an open fire in the general forum! But like they said in the movie 'Bookdock Saints' when talking of mayhem- "I'm strangely comfortable with it."

BTW - I also think very highly of Benny Leonard and believe he would clean out the current lightweight division. He lead my list of most intelligent fighters posted a while back...

[janitor]

I am satisfied that Joe Gans could be sucesfull in todays lightweight division.

I think some earlier fighters like Young Griffo probably would as well though it is hard to judge without film.

In short the master boxers would be more sucesfull than any other types.

[rydersonthestorm]

I accpet that earlier fighters than robinson might have been able to dominate but i think robinson is the only one i am 100% sure about as though i respect the older guys without film etc i find it hard to say for sure.

[janitor]

I accpet that earlier fighters than robinson might have been able to dominate but i think robinson is the only one i am 100% sure about as though i respect the older guys without film etc i find it hard to say for sure.

Henry Armstrong?

Mickey Walker?

Kid Chocolate?

Gene Tunney?

Benny Leonard?

Terry McGovern?

[rydersonthestorm]

i think some of the might have dominated but it says sure, and i am sure robinson would have and only think some of those guys such as walker, leonard and armstrong would do.

[Vockerman]

I am satisfied that Joe Gans could be sucesfull in todays lightweight division.

I think some earlier fighters like Young Griffo probably would as well though it is hard to judge without film.

In short the master boxers would be more sucesfull than any other types.

That is also an excellent pick IMO.

The Old Master won 130 fights and only lost one by decision so if you can't KO him (and very few could, 4-5 perhaps out of all those fights) you were pretty much toast :smoke

I also had Gans in my top 10 list of most intelligent/adaptable fighters - LOL

Gans is often rated in the best of the old time welters - You have him at a lightweight and I believe he could go as low as 130 easily and perhaps 126.

If I could bring up another point - for most of boxings early history there were only eight weight classes. Why is it we always seem to impose modern standards on earlier fighters? Why not take away the modern fighters weight classes every 2 lbs and 'one week before the fight' weigh ins and diuretics and steroids and diet suppliments and elliptical machines and just have them friggin fight in a real weight class for 15 rounds with gloves that aren't pillows?

Why is it we always move the ancients "up" to today - why dont we move the modern fighter "back" and rate them accordingly?

I have a strong feeling that you couldn't get MOST (not all) modern ASC (Alphabet Soup Champs) anywhere near a boxing ring under the conditions and circumstances the 'ancients' fought in....

Just my 2.3391812 ¥

[Saltzy]

Willie Pep :good

[rydersonthestorm]

That is a stupid statement why wouldn't the modern champs go near a boxing ring in the times the ancients fought. I hate the way people make points and only use one view point, if they grew up in those times why would they have not adapted to the style, why would they not have been as tough. Alot of those ancient boxers where only that tough becuase of the lives they lived, why would modern boxers be soft if they grew up in the same conditions.

[JohnBKelly]

Cribb would certainly be tougher than any modern heavy.

[Chaney]

Langford.

[achillesthegreat]

Dempsey and Tunney at 175, 200 and heavy. The rounds were less but it had become common and I believe their style became more modern because of it. It differed from Willard and Johnson.

[Blacc Jesus]

That is a stupid statement why wouldn't the modern champs go near a boxing ring in the times the ancients fought. I hate the way people make points and only use one view point, if they grew up in those times why would they have not adapted to the style, why would they not have been as tough. Alot of those ancient boxers where only that tough becuase of the lives they lived, why would modern boxers be soft if they grew up in the same conditions.
Hotti, did you get banned from Sherdog too?

[Drew101]

I sure as hell wouldn't rule out Stanley Ketchel's chances against the likes of Pavlik, Miranda, and Taylor...based solely upon his power alone.

Les Darcy would probably be my pick, based on his fighting style (hands high pressure fighter with two-fisted power).

[Vockerman]

That is a stupid statement why wouldn't the modern champs go near a boxing ring in the times the ancients fought.

Hi Hottie,

Thanks for attacking my statement rather than me personally, that is unusual on ESB these days and shows a lot of class! Please feel free to come after my ideas and arguments! I think a free, open and honest debate is the best way to learn. I'd like to go point by point on this and if you think I'm saying something else stupid, please point it out to me!

I hate the way people make points and only use one view point.

AH! First point of agreement! Yes indeed I think that most views expressed are from the point of view of the person expressing it and that point of view alone. With a few notable exceptions I see mostly personal opinion and emotion rather than fact and reason. When confronted with nothing but an opinion I tend to give a little back "with attitude" from 180 degrees off.
I do this to make the point that you can't find common ground if all one side is saying is "YEAAA" and the other is saying "BOOOO". The very definition of irony is when the literal meaning is the opposite of the current meaning...
I believe I was asking people to examine a view different than the prevailing one!

If they grew up in those times why would they have not adapted to the style, why would they not have been as tough.

I agree with you again, sir, since it is so obvious that works going backward why don't more people think of these things going foreward and say wow! - with modern advantages Bob Fitzsimmonds would be dominating the SuperMiddleweight division? A division that didn't exist when he fought and seems made for him.

A lot of those ancient boxers where only that tough becuase of the lives they lived, why would modern boxers be soft if they grew up in the same conditions.

Again I agree with you that some modern boxers look soft compared to the ancients. I'm sure most of them would toughen up considerably (some are already tough) if raised in the dire conditions of the West Virginia coal mines - or in an era of tremendous discrimination. And since we agree that some modern boxers look soft compared to the ancients why is it hard to believe that they might hesitate TODAY to get into a ring with fewer called fouls, 6 oz gloves, 15+ round fights, and very few TKO stoppages and without an attending physician, enswell, modern coagulants, modern training methods, modern dietary advantages, modern antibodics or cat scans at one of the traditional weights with a weigh in the same day of the fight?
That is pretty hard and a softer man might turn it down - maybe?
If the game changed to that TODAY don't you think a few would simply 'retire' tomorrow? Especially the champs, most of whom have their money already...

Since we seem to agree on almost every point - what was it I said that seemed stupid?

best regards,

Vockerman

[brownpimp88]

Henry Armstrong?

Mickey Walker?

Kid Chocolate?

Gene Tunney?

Benny Leonard?

Terry McGovern?
I've seen film of benny, pernell whitaker clearly looks better.

[rydersonthestorm]

I did get banned from sherdog this is true, i don't like two of the mods they tried to insut me numerous times and thought themselves superior so i insulted them back only alot harsher than they allowed. I am glad i am on east side as i find it a much better site with far more discusion about boxing, rather than 3 posts a day which sherdog seemed to be.
In regards to saying your point was stupid my point was that if you only look at it from the older boys perspective then it is going against what you had implied you where against.
I am pretty sure some boxer's from the modern era would get into the ring in any conditions, corrales (rip), hatton, barrera etc are guys i am pretty sure would fight in any era (not saying they would be the best or anything like that) but they would fight.
In regards to the old guys if they had alot of money and didn't have to work so hard, like in today's era would they have become soft i am pretty sure they wouldn't be as tough as they would have been in their own days.
In regards to heavyweight boxer's i had a discussion with a poster about sherdog on this, he was saying how the current heavyweight crop where flabby and soft etc, but if you compare the likes of dempsey,johnson and louis to modern boxer's they equate more to the likes of haye, mormeck etc in build rather than the giant superheavyweights of today. The likes of haye and other cruiserweights look in peak shape compared to most top heavyweights who look flabby and out of shape.
I am glad you responded in a sensible way and stated your point's, i am always happy to discuss boxing with people who are sensible.

[C. M. Clay II]

Joe Gans:good

[Blacc Jesus]

I did get banned from sherdog this is true, i don't like two of the mods they tried to insut me numerous times and thought themselves superior so i insulted them back only alot harsher than they allowed. I am glad i am on east side as i find it a much better site with far more discusion about boxing, rather than 3 posts a day which sherdog seemed to be.

I agree. Fuck Sherdog. The mods over there are pussies.

[rydersonthestorm]

War blacc jesus, fucking kk and brooklyn can suck a dick.

[Blacc Jesus]

War blacc jesus, fucking kk and brooklyn can suck a dick.
Damn right. I hate those mod-nazis.

[Black Eyes To You]

Sonny Liston

[JimboDs]

I assume that you mean under modern rules. In which case, it's difficult to go back too far for several reasons.

Most importantly, like any other sport, boxing has evolved. Modern judges don't emphasize the same factors as past judges. As a result, strategies and styles are different.

There are other factors as well. For example: Smaller gloves meant more body punching and less deflected punches.

So, if you were to warp a fighter through time and right into a modern ring with no time to adjust, I think you would have to choose a fairly recent boxer/puncher like Robinson, though I think Joe Louis would terrorize the HW division. That is, if you could force these paper champions to fight him.

Given time to adjust, any past great would do well. However, I think that the further you go back, the closer you get to comparing two different sports.

[Jack]

How well is well?

I think that a great fighter from any era with a deep talent pool would be sucesfull up to a point. Try Dutch Sam.
I find it interesting that you don't think boxing has moved on. I can't begin to understand where you are coming from, in saying that a guy from the early 1800's would have some success now.

I'd probably imagine him to be around, 150th in the world right now at lightweight. That's just based on his physical attributes. Someone like David Diaz, who I don't rate at all, would slaughter him. Katsidis would too. I doubt Sam would an entire round against someone like Juan Diaz.

It's a totally different sport. Boxing has changed dramatically in the last 80 years, and there is a big difference in between the 1920's and very early 1900's. The contrast in styles between now and then is immense.

Boxing in the 1800's resembled fencing more than the sport as we know it in 2007. If Dutch Sam was around today, I'd honestly expect him to get further in fencing than boxing.



Anyway, I'd nominate Gene Tunney, just not as a heavyweight.

[cross_trainer]

I find it interesting that you don't think boxing has moved on. I can't begin to understand where you are coming from, in saying that a guy from the early 1800's would have some success now.

I'd probably imagine him to be around, 150th in the world right now at lightweight. That's just based on his physical attributes. Someone like David Diaz, who I don't rate at all, would slaughter him. Katsidis would too. I doubt Sam would an entire round against someone like Juan Diaz.

It's a totally different sport. Boxing has changed dramatically in the last 80 years, and there is a big difference in between the 1920's and very early 1900's. The contrast in styles between now and then is immense.

Boxing in the 1800's resembled fencing more than the sport as we know it in 2007. If Dutch Sam was around today, I'd honestly expect him to get further in fencing than boxing.



Anyway, I'd nominate Gene Tunney, just not as a heavyweight.

As an interesting sidenote re: Dutch Sam, the methods of boxing in the early 1800's were closer to modern ones than the refined London Prize Ring style that came afterwards.

[Blacc Jesus]

Kabuki never did me wrong, but I hate the mods on Sherdog for the most part, and I especially hate Wamrage's gay faggot ass. But I just fucking hate Sherdog in general.
Agreed. They banned me for no reason at all. I didn't violate any rules, but when somebody DOES violate the rules, nothing happens. They suck.

[Jbuz]

Without style change i think ray robinson.

Agreed. He would carve up the rankings today. Would be champ from 147 to 175.

[BoppaZoo]

Les Darcy

Because the Middleweight division is shocking and Darcy was strong as Bull could KO anyone and could never be dropped.

Darcy would wreck Pavlik or Taylor for that matter.

[young griffo]

Les Darcy

Because the Middleweight division is shocking and Darcy was strong as Bull could KO anyone and could never be dropped.

Darcy would wreck Pavlik or Taylor for that matter.
I remember reading an article in a boxing mag where they were talking to fight historians about the merits of the old fighters on film.

One of the historians was quite dismissive of a lot of the legends (Stanley Ketchel in particular),but Les Darcy and Ted Lewis were two fighters he rated as phenom's who were ahead of their time.

So I reckon those two would still be very formidable today.

[China_hand_Joe]

Duran at 135.

[mr. magoo]

Henry Armstrong?

Mickey Walker?

Kid Chocolate?

Gene Tunney?

Benny Leonard?

Terry McGovern?

All of the above names are good suggestions. The one who stands out most for me is probably Henry Armstrong. What I find to be most impressive about Armstrong, was his extraordinary work rate. I don't know exactly how many punches he averaged per round, but I think it was one of the higher numbers in the history of the game ( don't know for sure ). His ring activity was remarkable as well, compiling 180 fights in just 14 years. That's a higher frequency than either Sugar Ray Robinson who fought 200 times 25 years and Willie Pep who accumulated 241 bouts in 26 years. At one point, I believe he fought in some 23 title fights in like just two years or there abouts. Also, for whatever it's worth, he was only stopped on two occasions in his 180 outings.

Although I'm not big on head to head matchups across eras, I think I'd feel safe putting my money on a prime Armstrong over the likes of today's welterweight champs in Shane Mosley, Antonio Margarito, Kermit Cintron, and Demetrius Hopkins.

These would be good fights though in my opinion.

[Minotauro]

Joe Gans great defence, quick, very ring smart, crazy cardio and two fisted knockout power.

[janitor]

[quote=Jack]I find it interesting that you don't think boxing has moved on. I can't begin to understand where you are coming from, in saying that a guy from the early 1800's would have some success now.


Whatever changes there have been there are always going to be some traits that carry across. A 1800s fighter with good power incredible reflexes and good ring smarts is still going to be a handfull.

I'd probably imagine him to be around, 150th in the world right now at lightweight. That's just based on his physical attributes. Someone like David Diaz, who I don't rate at all, would slaughter him. Katsidis would too. I doubt Sam would an entire round against someone like Juan Diaz.

Dificult to say with no film of him. I think it is safe to say that he would be one of the hardest hiters of his weight in any era.


Boxing in the 1800's resembled fencing more than the sport as we know it in 2007. If Dutch Sam was around today, I'd honestly expect him to get further in fencing than boxing.


In the 1700s perhaps it was like fencing but by the 1800s it was prety developed. In terms of the rule set of the day it was about as refined as it was ever going to get.

[janitor]

I've seen film of benny, pernell whitaker clearly looks better.

Well he aint going to have to fight Whitaker here now is he.

[janitor]

All of the above names are good suggestions. The one who stands out most for me is probably Henry Armstrong.

Just imagine-

Armstrong Paquiao
Armstrong Mayweather
Armstrong Hatton
Armstrong DelaHoya

They could be huge fights

[mr. magoo]

Just imagine-

Armstrong Paquiao
Armstrong Mayweather
Armstrong Hatton
Armstrong DelaHoya

They could be huge fights

And possibly all victories for Armstrong.

What else can you tell me about Armstrong? I'm very interested in doing a little research about his history. Perhaps sometime in the next week you and I can jointly host a thread devoted to him.

[apollack]

I think Joe Louis would murder the heavys of today.

[janitor]

And possibly all victories for Armstrong.

What else can you tell me about Armstrong? I'm very interested in doing a little research about his history. Perhaps sometime in the next week you and I can jointly host a thread devoted to him.

I am up for that.

I will try to dig you out some articles.

[mr. magoo]

I am up for that.

I will try to dig you out some articles.

I'll try and see what I can do myself.

Perhaps we can even get Cross Trainer to join us. Armstrong is not discussed enough on this forum in my opinion. I think its high time we get him involved.

[Bad_Intentions]

I have.:rofl right.

[The Whaler]

I think Joe Louis would murder the heavys of today.

I agree. In fact, I think a lot of past Heavyweight greats would dominate the current crop.