Would the great boxers of the past have an “obsolete” fighting style against more modern fighters?
No absolutely not.Their skill was highly underrated,and their knowledge has more likely been lost instead of evolved.The stances are different and the styles are somewhat different as well but these guys knew what they where doing.When the styles we associate with modern boxing were coming into effect in the late teens and early twenties the guys who fought in the older style gave the new guys all kinds of trouble.Boxers who started at the beginning of the century that had long careers that lasted into the twenties or even thirties did just fine.As a more modern example look at Archie Moore’s career.He started in the mid 30’s and for the first 12 years he had 19 losses and 8 draws.In the last fifteen he has 5 losses and 2 draws.In his prime years in a very talent rich era he accumulates 19 losses and 8 draws in 12 years,while being past his prime and in a less talented era he has 5 losses and 2 draws.That tells me the old guys where better.Many other good fighters that started their ca
“If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants.” – Isaac Newton What makes Jack Johnson, Sugar Ray Robinson, Ezzard Charles, Floyd Patterson, Joe Louis, Joe Gans, Harry Greb, Henry Armstrong, and so much more great old-school boxers were they were ahead of their time, probably 20 to 50 years or so. They were so ahead that they standout from many analyst on that perspective to not put them below of fighters who just acquired knowledge from the past, that’s like having a pedantic guy doing nothing for evolution. Larry Holmes was a very great boxer, no doubt, but his consistency was not quite out there with the top 20 or top 30.
