50 modern fighters that would be world boxing champion in both the 60's and 70's?

sxt

The task is to try and find 50 modern fighters who would be undisputed World Champions in both the 1960's and 1970's.

This means that you think they would beat at least one undisputed champion from the 60's and one undisputed champion from the 70's . There are 12 undiisputed champions from that era

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heavyweight_boxing_champions

I think these guys would have the size ,power , skill and durability to do quite well in that era, and notch up victories in both decades

David Tua , Ike Ibeabuch

Maravilla33

Nice concept. When I first read it I thought there aint gonna be many and I think 50 is very ambitious. This is the golden generation you're matching up against a mediocre one (sorry Cowzerp..) However, i guess Floyd Patterson and Leon Spinks are gonna be the 2 weak links and are very beatable.

First thoughts are Tua couldn't win a title in his own generation how can he do it in the most competitive one? Second thought is Leon Spinks so yeah I think he could beat him. I think him and Patterson is a toss up. Even though Floyd was a small and fragile heavy he was extremely brave and has the speed and skills to beat Tua provided he stays away from that left hook..

I agree with Ike. He had the tools to be competitive in most eras. Had the size, power, chin and was relentless. He beats both of the above for me. The Tua Vs Ike fight was amazing.

I'll try think of a few in work tomorrow. Is there a cut off date that determines a modern fighter?

cowzerp

Vitali is 1 that could for starters.

RiseToTheTop

sxt wrote: »

I think these guys would have the size ,power , skill and durability to do quite well in that era, and notch up victories in both decades

Can't forget the "superior technique" of modern boxers :rolleyes:

cowzerp

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

Can't forget the "superior technique" of modern boxers :rolleyes:

Overall I think it's fair to say that modern boxers have better technique, like most pre 1960 fighters looked like they just stepped off the street to fight-of course there was exceptions to this.

Then technique started to improve and now even the reasonably journey men have ok technique in most cases.

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

Overall I think it's fair to say that modern boxers have better technique, like most pre 1960 fighters looked like they just stepped off the street to fight-of course there was exceptions to this.

Then technique started to improve and now even the reasonably journey men have ok technique in most cases.

Have to disagree with you again. Here is a link to the IBRO's 25 greatest fighters of all time. 30 esteemed boxing historians compiled this list so its not just one or two people's opinions. It was published in 2006 so fairly modern.

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=8921&more=1

Of the 25 on the list 22 started their careers before 1960. Most well in advance of this date. The majority of them had great fundamentals and technique and guys like SRR, Benny Leonard, Willie Pep, Joe Gans, Ezzard Charles, Eder Jofre, Archie Moore, Jack Johnson, Joe Louis and Gene Tunney are still well known for their technique.

Here's the list but if you've time read the full article there's a nice summary of each of their careers.

1. Sugar Ray Robinson

2. Harry Greb

3. Henry Armstrong

4. Muhammad Ali

5. Joe Louis

6. Sam Langford

7. Roberto Duran

8. Benny Leonard

9. Willie Pep

10. Bob Fitzsimmons

11. Joe Gans

12. Ezzard Charles

13. Ray Leonard

14. Jimmy Wilde

15. Eder Jofre

16. Mickey Walker

17. Archie Moore

18. Jack Dempsey

19. Jack Johnson

20. Gene Tunney

21. Stanley Ketchel

22. Joe Walcott

23. Rocky Marciano

24. Tony Canzoneri

25. Barney Ross

cowzerp

The most modern fighters on that list are Duran and Leonard, it's hardly a non biased piece!! List of voters most be all ancient as its a stupid list if it was done when you say it was.

No Mayweather or RJJ, for example!

Completely biased tripe

Maravilla33

I think its a great but not perfect list but the fact that there were 30 of them voting makes it very unlikely to be biased. These guys make their living out of researching, watching and writing about boxing and have no reason not to be objective.

Mayweather will easily make the list when he retires just a matter of how far up it he ends up. RJJ not as clear cut. Duran and Leonard are the most modern but there really aren't many that should make that list. I'd have no problem with Salvador Sanchez, Hagler or Chavez making it as well as Mayweather. Anyone else?

walshb

Roy Jones to many lacked raw fundamental technique. He was quite an unorthodox technician. His amazing natural speed and reflexes is what allowed him to do what he did. Much like Ali. I think the list is mainly listing text book techniques and skills.

I would have the likes of SRL, Duran, Orlando Canizales, Oscar, Mosely, Nunn, McCallum, Hearns, Toney as examples of modern fighters with text book skills.

Maravilla33

I don't think the question is a fair reflection of each era. With Patterson and Spinks being so beatable I think there's a few who could win a title. Not many would manage to hold onto it though with the level of competition around back then.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Roy Jones to many lacked raw fundamental technique. He was quite an unorthodox technician. His amazing natural speed and reflexes is what allowed him to do what he did. Much like Ali. I think the list is mainly listing text book techniques and skills.

If its about text book skills then Rocky is a ridiculous addition to the list, i think its just a list made up of old timers who picked all there own era's people.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

If its about text book skills then Rocky is a ridiculous addition to the list, i think its just a list made up of old timers who picked all there own era's people.

The list is greatest fighters, I see. Well, in this case, Rocky makes the top 5 for me. A skill list would be very very subjective.

Roy wasn't text book either, would you agree?

Maravilla33

cowzerp wrote: »

If its about text book skills then Rocky is a ridiculous addition to the list, i think its just a list made up of old timers who picked all there own era's people.

That's a very blinkered view. The IBRO publish some great articles and clearly know their stuff. Most of those names are automatic for a top 25 spot. Their list names their 25 greatest boxers ever not technicians. I used it simply to show that there were a lot of great boxers pre 1960. I agree with you on Marciano and hes one of the few I would omit. Care to share your own top 25 list?

Edit - Top 25 may be a bit of work. Top 10 even.

cowzerp

Maravilla33 wrote: »

That's a very blinkered view. The IBRO publish some great articles and clearly know their stuff. Most of those names are automatic for a top 25 spot. Their list names their 25 greatest boxers ever not technicians. I used it simply to show that there were a lot of great boxers pre 1960. I agree with you on Marciano and hes one of the few I would omit. Care to share your own top 25 list?

Edit - Top 25 may be a bit of work. Top 10 even.

Top 10 ever!

ok, off top of my head-i always say this varies day to day for me-easy to omit lads.

Muhammad Ali
Sugar Ray Robinson
Sugar Ray Leonard
Thomas Hearns
Roy Jones JR
George Foreman
Evander Holyfield
Julio Cesar Chavez
Vitali Klitschko
Roberto Duran

Order open for change but off top of my head they're my 10 right now.

walshb

A list that could change every day

In no particular order:

Ali
Robinson
Duran
Toney (yes, Toney? A real throwback and one of the most natural boxer/fighters ever.
Marciano
Tyson
Pep
Ezzard Charles
SRL
Louis.

Almost: Holyfield, Foreman, Dempsey, Tunney, Hagler, Chavez, Whitaker, Sandy Saddler, Ike Williams, Jones Junior, Hearns, McCallum, Sal Sanchez, Nelson, Manny, Floyd, Orlando Canizales.

RiseToTheTop

It's hard to judge Patterson IMO. He beat Johannson twice, he beat Archie Moore when Archie was still good enough.

He was KO'd in the first round twice by Liston, but he was terrified both times, only landing 1 punch in the first fight. He didn't even fight if you will.

I have a feeling he wouldn't be a pushover, plus more than likely in this day and age he'd have added more muscle to his frame. I really doubt he'd be a whipping toy TBH.

Maravilla33

1. Ray Robinson
2. Muhammad Ali
3. Harry Greb
4. Henry Armstrong
5. Roberto Duran
6. Ezzard Charles
7. Ray Leonard
8. Joe Louis
9. Eder Jofre
10. Sam Langford

Names are usually the same. Order can change. Langford could be replaced depending on the mood. Chavez and Whitaker just miss out and Mayweather the only active fighter that comes close. Pretty tough task narrowing it down to 10.

Maravilla33

RiseToTheTop wrote: »

It's hard to judge Patterson IMO. He beat Johannson twice, he beat Archie Moore when Archie was still good enough.

He was KO'd in the first round twice by Liston, but he was terrified both times, only landing 1 punch in the first fight. He didn't even fight if you will.

I have a feeling he wouldn't be a pushover, plus more than likely in this day and age he'd have added more muscle to his frame. I really doubt he'd be a whipping toy TBH.

I rate Patterson but he was a small and fragile heavyweight who was knocked out several times. I dont fancy him against big punchers like Wlad, Vitali or Ike. Tua is a bit more one dimensional so would give Patterson a good chance of out boxing him. I think he could have been an all time great light heavyweight had he campaigned there but the riches were a lot bigger up at heavyweight and credit to him for mixing it with the big boys.

cowzerp

walshb wrote: »

Roy wasn't text book either, would you agree?

He wasn't text book-he was like Sugar Ray Robinson, Ali, SRL stylistically on a different text book but technically a perfect puncher and an artist in the ring.

walshb

cowzerp wrote: »

He wasn't text book-he was like Sugar Ray Robinson, Ali, SRL stylistically on a different text book but technically a perfect puncher and an artist in the ring.

I think Ray was noticeably more versatile in the punching sense. Jones was amazing at his best. Never my cup of tea, but at best he was amazing.

eagle eye

Love the video in the op. Imo Ike would have been a champion in the 2000s if he hadn't been such a headcase. He is the best prospect I ever seen that never got a title shot but thats nobodys fault only his own.