Thanks for engaging.
I've seen videos of fights from all the aforementioned decades. My own personal opinion is that technique and size have definitely changed throughout the years. Yes... if you compare a Joe Louis to everyone is his era... he's head and shoulders above. But size and technique changes definitely put him at a distinct disadvantage against many, more modern fighters. Going back even further, you've got Jack Dempsey, Max Schmeling, and Max Baer in the 20's and 30's. Decidedly robotic against today's standards... but the standard bearers of their time.
I agree that the 60's brought about the first significant jump in technique. Ali did the most to revolutionize the division with his speed and movement. His massacre of Cleveland Williams in 1966 made it look like Williams was standing still.
Most heavyweights were still plodders.
The 80's to me were a good decade. Holmes had speed, movement, and a great jab. Iron Mike was a wrecking machine. Holyfield was an indestructible force at heavyweight.
I see any of them sweeping the floor with competition from the 50's or earlier. Tyson with his speed, movement and punching power would've literally murdered any champion from the 50's and earlier.
Size advantages became super obvious in the 90's. Lennox was what... 6-5? Averaging 250 pounds? Way too big for any 60's and earlier champion. He was a tremendous boxer as well.
I think the last three decades have plateaued, though. Personally, I don't see a Joshua, a Wilder, or even a Fury having any automatic advantage over a Lennox Lewis, or even a motivated and trained Riddick Bowe.
It's all a matter of opinion, although it IS important to watch videos of old fights and take size and technique into account.
I watch American football... and similar comparisons and logic can be applied to comparisons in eras, also.


Thanks:
Likes:
Dislikes: 

Reply With Quote
🤣🤣🤣


Bookmarks