What constitutes an "expert" to you? Many of us box, have boxed, train boxing, watch boxing, know boxing and analyse it all the time so aren't we the "experts".

It pisses me off when guys like you turn away from true facts to bring up a statement issued by a guy in a position of authority to support your argument when that statement in the first place was not backed up with anything solid to start.

At the end of the day perspectives are perspectives. But facts are also facts.
Where do you live? I know that nobody in their right bloody mind around any of the gyms in Adelaide SA thinks that Joe Louis would be anything but a punch bag in the modern HW division. They call him as I do a great champion in his day, who might do alright at CW today if he was modern trained.

It is easy to point out on film how lacking Louis is really compared to Haye. If I hadn't done this already many times I wouldn't be so confident about it.

And here you go again, comparing Galento to Arreola! Why cause Arreola was a bit fat too? He was never as fat as Galento and Galento not only didn't train, he drank a gallon of grog before his fights. Arreola is considered a top fighter because he IS a great fighter. Galento was pathetic, just fat and strong and nothing else and the fact that he was a top fighter in the 30's is ABSOLUTE PROOF AGAIN that the Louis era was a vey weak era!

Basically today, you are unable to be a bum and sub200lbs are forbidden..

The further you go back in time, the lighter the opponents get and the more bums are prevalent.

The 70's was about the point where the division was about half HW and half CW. And half the guys were bums.

Previous eras to that like Louis's were cruiser divisions MAINLY and were riddled with bums mainly!

And this can be shown statistically in the records. Is becoming the general consensus abroad. And in my opinion is supported by the film evidence (empirical) as well as the other forms. It is a fact!