I think there's no dispelling the fact that boxers from the 20's and 30's were infinitely more static and robotic than their counterparts of today. Their greatness is based on comparisons within their own eras.

Lots of you don't follow baseball on here. But similar arguments are used when talking about guys like Babe Ruth, et al. Ruth was totally dominant in his time, and totally worthy of the admiration, lofty, and ATG status that has followed his memory throughout the years. But let's face it. Changes in the game... specialized relief pitching... higher pitching mounds... advances in pitch variations... and others... make it very likely that if you suddenly dropped Ruth into today's game... that just maybe he wouldn't be as "head and shoulders" above everyone else.

Like I've said before, boxing has evolved in size and technique. Heavyweight is easier to contrast "now vs then" because heavyweight has no upper limit. Heavyweights back then were smaller. Joe Louis was 6'2"... averaged 200 pounds. A cruiserweight by today's standards. Tough to go up against a 6'-9", 250-260 pound guy with more mobility and hand speed. It's a big ask.

Also, it's obvious watching tapes from old fights. Yes... movement at the waist was limited. There was more plodding. It was just the style back then. It's no slight on past champions. It's just the way it was.

Let's try basketball.

In the old days, nobody could dunk... and a preferred shot was the 2-handed set shot. Go into the NBA with something like that today, and you're likely to never score not even once in a real game. Yet the old champions are still revered. It's all part of the evolution of sports.