We've done this before of course and this isn't aimed at 'us' as such, but more so 'the other' boxing fans. You know the one's, Facebook, Twitter and all that lark. We're smarter than them I know we're not going to get any definitive answers but we rarely do on anything so why let that stop us?
The inability to give present day fighters a hope in hell against their counterparts from eras past. Why is that? Genuine belief that past fighters were better? A desire to sound knowledgeable about past fighters? A complete inability to think for ones self so go with the status quo?
Probably a bit of all three right?
I got no problem with someone thinking a fighter from the past beats a present day one. I'll use the example I used in another thread. Joshua V Lewis. No issue at all with anyone saying Lewis wipes the floor with Joshua. Probably go along with that. But this idea that Lewis operated on an entirely different level to Joshua, Fury, Wilder etc... That's the nonsense part. What's even more nonsensical is the idea that that he had to operate on a different level because they all were back then. Crazy talk.
As an aside. Hagler V Golovkin. Comes up all the time. You'll see them swarm all over Facebook and Twitter. Hagler eats Golovkin alive!!!!!! Get fucked! All the love in the World for Marvin. But ain't no way anyone is eating Golovkin alive. Beats him on points in a war of biblical proportions? I'm ok with that. But fuck off with this beats him easily or inside the distance.
When looking at this I never look at A versus B. That's not the question being asked and besides that, we've already covered it by consensus. Lewis would beat Joshua. Done, easy. I look at A versus who B fought.
The question is could Joshua, Fury, Wilder etc....have competed in Lewis's era. The answer is an easy yes. Replace Lennox Lewis with Anthony Joshua throughout Lewis's career. How different is it? Maybe loses the Klitschko fight? Maybe Holyfield? Aside from those two I don't see there being a whole lot of difference if any at all.
The deck is always loaded against the contemporary fighter. Half a career stacked up against an illustrious, all time great fighters complete career, hardly fair is it? To compound it more, a serious set of rose tinted glasses are generally used to look at the past fighters record. Rank average fighters become good solid contenders. In this particular example we'll hear how good Bruno was, how tough Mercer was, how murderous a puncher Ruddock was.
How would Joshua, Fury, Wilder, Whyte fair against Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe, Tyson? You might get a generous to the new boys 3-1 score line. More likely a 4-0 sweep for the old boys. Again, the deck is loaded for the old boys, we're immediately seeing a peak (even though he was far from) Mike Tyson rampaging through the four of them on the same night.
Stick the contemporary fighters into the mix in the late 90's early 00's. Would they dominate? No. Would they be out of their depth because the era back then was so good? Fuck off!
Bookmarks