Quote Originally Posted by X View Post
I don't know, Fenster .....

I think a decent journeyman is likely the same back then as now - experienced, will go a few rounds, knows enough to not get hurt but probably not win.

I think the fringe contenders are weaker now. A bit more hyped, not many fights or experience at all. I think it's easier to climb the ranks now than then, generally speaking.

I'd be interested to know how many rounds the currently ranked numbers 5-15 heavyweights have, compared to those in Lewis' rise, then again in Tyson's rise, then again in Ali's rise, then again in (say) Joe Loius' rise.

My comments were specifically about the level of competition faced after 20 fights, nothing to do with which era was stronger.

I disagree that one era was superior to another, I believe journeymen, fringe contenders and "champions" time-warped into different eras would have the same/similar existence. The smaller guys would be bigger and the bigger guys leaner/slicker etc.

There's more opportunity to be called champion today, so in turn it makes long standing challengers and champions from the past look stronger and today's crop appear weaker. You offer IBF "champion" Charles Martin as a representive of this weak era yet Glenn McCrory proudly dines out on being "world" champion, he won a vacant IBF title against an 8-2 Patrick Lumumba, he was matched with Lewis specifically because he was former "world" champion.

It's easy to highlight the flaws of modern fighters as we know EVERTHING about their lives, we get to watch all their fights, it takes seconds to produce their records. Training camps, sparring partners, press conferences, weigh-ins, we see everything.

We don't have to rely on stories, opinions and biases of other men.