Boxers who would be great today?

Question

Name fighters (say from the 1950's back.) who you think could adapt the quickest to todays standards and fighters and be great or a champ. Any weight and why.

Answer 1

Joe Louis - Pound for Pound hardest hitting

Sugar Ray Robinson - Artist of the Pugilistic Palette -Most colorful punches.

Answer 2

ur mom

Answer 3

Mohmed Ali

he's quick as lighting

Answer 4

S.F. MISSION makes an excellent point.  Some of those guys back a long time ago would fight well over 100 fights and were as tough as nails.  Here are a few that come to mind:

Rocky Marciano.  He was a bull with boxing gloves and a fanatic for being in shape.  I know you answered a previous question of mine about his training regimen.  He intentionally weighed a chiseled 188 lbs and could have easily weighed over 200 lbs.  Still, he probably would have fought at cruiser most likely and would have devastated anyone that stood in his way and though the size advantage is huge between the Rock and the Super heavy's today, I still think he would have prevailed.  

Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott would have excelled in today's game too.  I believe at their very best, they were better than any of the guys fighting today.

Archie Moore would be great in any era and his clever style would have no doubt made him a champ.

Sugar Ray Robinson.  Easily the greatest pound for fighter ever!  He could do it all in the ring and was the most complete fighter ever.

I also believe that Jake LaMotta, Carmen Basillio, and gene Fullmer would have been really good fighters today if not champs.

Henry Armstrong was a buzzsaw.  The only question with him would have been how many weight classes would he have fought at.  He would have probably been a multiple weight class champ.  Willie Pep is one of the best fighters of all time and I have no doubt he would have been today's champion along with Sandy Saddler.  Joe Louis would have no doubt been the heavyweight champ today.  He may not beat Klitschko as easily as he did Carnera, but he would have knocked him out!  He would have cleaned up the division.  Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, would have been tough to handle in any era for anyone.  Jack Dempsey and Gene Tunney would have been smaller heavyweights or cruiserweights as well and both would have excelled with their talent.  I could go on and on with some other fighters that I believe would have been great or champions and these were the first to come to mind.  Thanks for the great quetion sir.

Answer 5

Hmmm, I'll say the best fighter of the past would have to be Sugar Ray Robinson! There wasn't anything sloppy about how he fought. The biggest thing he would be good at in todays standards would be speed! He could hit a guy 3-5 times before they knew he'd hit them.

Answer 6

  What U really need to do is reverse the question and ask which of todays fighters could hang back then and U will see a lot less from todays fighters up front than the reverse.

Answer 7

ROCKY MARCIANO, JIM BRADDOCK, MAX BAER, JOE LOUIS, JACK DEMPSEY,

Answer 8

or ur dad?

Answer 9

Ah, no offense, but from what I have seen on vids, boxers of eras past were much quicker than modern, especially when we are talking the heavies.  Watching Lewis and Holyfield fight all I could think "could this fight be any more boring, and could those punches be any slower...."  I was expecting the breathtaking speed of Muhamad Ali who was faster than some of today's middle weights.  I will admit though, Holyfield has pretty sharp technique, and to his credit he could probably kick most of rears of the posters here if he weighed only 110 lbs and stood at 5'2, if not all of us.

Hey, I can admit incompetence when its obvious; I think the likes of Tyson could hand me my rear if he was a featherweight.  Weight difference and all.  "Oh, he's just strong because he's big..." yeah, uh huh, sure.  I was thinking them working their rears off until when the training is over they could barely stand but, okay.  If I had to name someone, hands down, Sugar Ray Robinson or Jake Lamotta.

If you took a time machine and brought Lamotta to modern times he would be champ, and just steam roll over his weight division.  But then he'd hook up with a trashy modern day ring girl who would ruin his life, steal his millions and likely he'd end up a crack addict in a gutter somewhere.  And to think some washed up fighters think they have it bad.....

Lamotta's dangerous rival Robinson, it would be a no contest.  He was so skilled and strong he would probably be even able to beat all but the most skilled and smart heavies.  I agree that size can make a difference, however I do not agree that if you have, say, Sugar Ray Robinson, and a hulking bodybuilder who has never done ANY kind of combat sport in his life fight Robinson that Robinson would lose?  Come on now.....

It happens all the time, among whites racist against Mexicans.  There are a lot of white guys in California and Texas, who were football heroes, but they never took catch wrestling, who have egos on them, who harass tiny looking, "featherweight" size mexicans.  Because boxing has always thrived on poverty and crime, some of the "mojados" (wet*****) who cross the border have had boxing training you know.  How do you think he's going to use that when accosted by a racist border patrol officer?  Part of the reason some of them have rottweilers is because they don't want to get beat up.

Far as I know the only martial art designed to take on canines is a Russian self defense system taught to the Spetznas or their equivalent of the secret service.

But if I had to name a boxer, probably Robinson, whom many say was at his peak as a welter.  Far as the heavies go, easily Marciano and Louis, also boxer Ezzard Charles, who was lightning fast, much faster than today's heavies.  In fact it was Charle's speed which gave Marciano such a hard time; he was one of only a very small handful of fighters who lost on points to him, and went the distance.

Everyone says champs of the past were "slower" because you are making the assumption the film they're using "makes everything move faster" when in fact, the film quality as far as frames per second achieved 60 frames a second in the 1930's.  Its the film footage PRIOR to the 30's that makes everything look faster than it is.

I don't mean to frighten you, but that was not speeded up footage; the champs of old really WERE that fast.

peace.