Quote Originally Posted by oakleyno1 View Post
I cant really think how to phrase this but with nutritional advances, diet technicians, all of these NEWER things being introduced to the sport at what point in history does it become unfair and null to compare fighters in an actual fight -

for example Joe Louis - was new physical conditioning, training methods, legal supplements etc so advanced by the time of Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton, Hell even Liston came along that they would likely have all beaten him if they had put the two fighters in the ring at their peak with Louis training 30's style and the others 70's and subsequently if we put any of them in with lewis, klitscho etc would they be disadvanatged massively by the subsequent advances in techniques, supplements etc

Also where does the line cross!?. I.e. an 84 holmes or an 88 tyson who are somewhere in the middle -

A badly written post but hard to frame and explain my question!
Interesting question/topic. I always look at the fighter before I think about how much better he would have been with today's advantages. Was he a puncher, boxer puncher, aggressive or counter puncher, hand speed, footwork, emotional or calm and positioning-- that kind of thing.
There is no doubt that the old timers would have all been better with today's training methods, but everything hinges on the man. It takes a certain type of person to get in the ring and then to keep getting in the ring.
Conditioning coaches, training methods, diet (supplements), generally better trainers and corner men, all add up to better fighters with a longer ring life. You still have to have that man or woman who is willing to get in the ring, for whatever reason, and keep getting in the ring.
I admire anybody who gets in the ring, it takes a certain mindset, dedication and an unbelievable amount or hard work to be successful, in my opinion.