TRANSLATIONS [RECYCLED]

Boxing technique has gone through a couple of iterations in the last say 140 years. In the bare knuckle days wrestling skills were of great import, the straight left hand was the primary weapon, body punching was more important that it would ever be again and in fights to the finish stamina and overall fitness often drove outcomes. With the switch to gloved competition and Queensbury rules, punches too dangerous to throw barehanded, hooks, overhand rights and uppercuts became developed. Then around 1900 or so as fights often became shortened to 20 rounds or less enhanced footwork, combination punching and pace within a round all improved. By about 1920 the sport's techniques as we know them today were fully formed. What I mean by that is there isn't a single boxing technique employed in the last 20 years that I haven't found on film 80 or more years ago.

In my mind this begs a fun question. What fighters from the past translate best into the fight game today and why, and what fighter's translate the worst and why. I'm gonna go in 25 year segments and give you my choices.

PRE-1900

Best-Robert Fitzsimmons. Why? Ruby Robert had several qualities that would let him thrive today. First was his size. In today's day before weigh-ins, Fitz is a welterweight. A 6' tall welterweight who could probably out hit Tommy Hearns and was far more durable. Just an all-time banger. He hit hard enough to become heavyweight champion. His challenges? pacing. Of his 60 KO's, 47 came within 5 rounds. But he paced himself to fight 20+ rounds. That would have to change.

Worst-John L. Sullivan. Why? I hate saying anything against John L but in this kind of analysis his wrestling skills don't matter and he still used bare knuckle punching techniques. His stamina really doesn't come into play and at 5'11' and 200-225? His strength is only OK. Now folks might argue, yeah but if he ate today's diet he's 6'3 and 240. Maybe, but that's a bridge too far for me at least.

1900-1924

Best-Joe Gans. Why? The Old Master was a boxing phenom. Even though he fought around the turn of the century, he was one of the first to be fully formed technically. The rest of the sport took another two decades. Catlike quickness, combination punching and the shoulder roll among other techniques. In today's world Gans is 5'7, very long armed featherweight, at 71 inches. He had a huge punch with almost 100 career KO's. He fought 40 round fights so he had a bit of the same pacing question facing Fitzsimmons but he also fought and won a number of shorter fights so it probably isn't a big deal. he also went toe to toe with all-time great welters and light heavies. Gans would simply eat up today's 126's and 130's.

Worst- Barbados Joe Walcott. Why? Today? he is a 5'1 lightweight who could punch like a light heavyweight. Just an unbelievable punch. 60 KO's mostly over bigger men. And while I've seen guys like Dwight Muhammad Qawi and Ivan Calderon thrive despite their height? Walcott was a much more deliberate guy who was a reflection of an even earlier fighting era. I think the shorter fight distances hurt him due to the increased movement within a round and I don't know that he had the feet to close quickly enough. he'd turn out the lights if he hit guys, but I don't know how often he'd get there.

1925-1950

Best-Panama Al Brown. Why? 5'11 with a 76 inch reach Brown weighed in under 118 ON THE DAY OF HIS FIGHTS! Today he's certainly a 115 and heck, he might make 112 the day before. Who the heck is going to be able to deal with that? A good enough puncher that he KO'd 60 men while fighting at a championship level for over a decade. Brown fought to his height with a good jab and excellent movement. He was never KO'd in 150 professional fights. He'd simply be a monster today.

Worst-Gus Lesnevich. Why? A stocky 5'9 guy I'm not sure he makes it mcuh below light heavy once he's in his best years. Maybe he gets to 168. A rugged, tough, durable guy. Not a big puncher, not great technically. I just don't see him bringing a lot of advantages and while he was light heavy king in his own day, in today's world I think he's running into superior athletes in his divisions. I think guys like Chad Dawson and Lucian Bute handle him. I think he ends up like a Carl Froch or a Glen Johnson kind of guy.

1951-1974

Best-Bob Foster. Why? At 6'3 with a 79 inch reach it is conceivable this guy might make 168. But even if he couldn't? With his technique and otherworldy punching power? At 175 over the last decade or so Roy Jones, Joe Calzaghe, BHOP, Virgil Hill, Darius M, Chad Dawson, Antonio Tarver and the rest are just tombstones. James Toney might had had enough craft to go the distance, but he couldn't have defeated the Sherriff.

Worst-Rocky Marciano. Why? Two things. First, I am placing Marciano in the heavyweight division here for these purposes (hey's it's my post, sue me). Second I'm not saying Rocky would do poorly, merely that he'd be most disadvantaged. In his day, tough, experienced, durable men often outweighed him by 15-20 pounds and he gave up 2-3 inches in height. Today? Less tough men would outweigh him by 40-50 pounds and often more and he'd give up 5+ inches in height. With fights also only being twelve rounds, the Rock's legendary stamina becomes less important and he has to get to guys more quickly. Just a tough combination of factors for him.

1975-2000

Best-Marvin Hagler. Why? The abysmal quality of the middleweight division over the past ten years. The Marvelous one just eats it up and spits it out. He'd probably have done the same at the fledgling 168 division. Other than Hopkins there just isn't any threat at all at 160 (and I don't think BHOP matches up well) and at 168 only Roy Jones is even worth the briefest of conversations and that only because we don't really know what Marvin looks like with a guy who can weigh 175 pounds in the ring. Marvin would have Kelly Pavlik in the fetal position mumbling "double jab, Jack said double jab" inside of three rounds.

Worst-Naseem Hamed. Why? The exceptional quality of the featherweight division over the last decade. We saw how outclassed Hamed was by Marco Antonio Barrera and how that loss forever seemed to buckle his spirit. Is there any real reason to believe he belongs in the ring with Erik Morales and Juan Manuel Marquez and Manny Pacquiao. Given Manny's technical flaws at 126 that fight would have been fun though.

Where am I wrong and who did I leave out?

I can't really argue with the post, but what qualities do you value in making the translations? It seems like height/length and punching power are the two keys that translate in any era.

I'm not sure who I'd use to make my case, but I would look for guys with extreme boxing skills and IQ. I think that is much harder for a fighter to deal with than a physical freak. 1. It's easier to underestimate a guy who you don't think is physically overwhelming. 2. It's easier to judge and train for a guy with great speed or great power or great size when you can pinpoint their advantages (unless they are such a freak that you can't prepare for them no matter what you do). A multi-talented guy who doesn't overwhelm in any area can be trickier because it's harder to pinpoint what he does well.

I like Ray Leonard in any era though...

Gumby wrote:I can't really argue with the post, but what qualities do you value in making the translations? It seems like height/length and punching power are the two keys that translate in any era.I'm not sure who I'd use to make my case, but I would look for guys with extreme boxing skills and IQ. I think that is much harder for a fighter to deal with than a physical freak. 1. It's easier to underestimate a guy who you don't think is physically overwhelming. 2. It's easier to judge and train for a guy with great speed or great power or great size when you can pinpoint their advantages (unless they are such a freak that you can't prepare for them no matter what you do). A multi-talented guy who doesn't overwhelm in any area can be trickier because it's harder to pinpoint what he does well.

I like Ray Leonard in any era though...

Nice post. With regard to bold one I think the ability to fioght at the pace required to win 12 round fights matters a great deal and I think having a specific overwhelming advantage matters.

My question with Leonard would be why would you think a guy whose body betrayed him after only 25 fights could excel in a time where one typically had 50+ fights before one even got into a title conversation? Now looking at it the other way, if we just dropped him into a ring on his best night Ray Leonard beats 99.999999999% of all other welters on theirs.

marbleheadmaui wrote:My question with Leonard would be why would you think a guy whose body betrayed him after only 25 fights could excel in a time where one typically had 50+ fights before one even got into a title conversation? Now looking at it the other way, if we just dropped him into a ring on his best night Ray Leonard beats 99.999999999% of all other welters on theirs.

Less cocaine?

I was thinking on a one fight basis, not career so I'm not sure. His body would have likely betrayed him.

sorry nice fiction..lol soo ill sue you.where do i file the papers.fitz you point out today with weigh inns the day before hed be a welter..realy.but marciano under the same deal is still a heavy..nope.a LH.rocky fought once at 177 plus several times near the 180 mark etc etc..he makes LH with far more ease then fitz does the welters...why not saddler in the early 50s or late 40s instead of al brown..he hit harder and since your enthused with height and reach all the time saddler was 5-9 plus and todays weigh inns 122 maybe 118....you take one side of a train of thought but dismiss the other..here we go again taken a fighter from one era of long ago put him in a modern era without some of todays logic and reasoning.example john l..hes 5-11 200 at his best fighting weight about 120 years ago..but since todays heavies are taller and heavier just like the entire population then why is it so far fetched that john l would not be 6-3 235..or a jack johnson. if you want the physical stats to remain the same then gene tunney would be at 168 today given the weigh in time and the vast expertience today in dehyrdation..ill take tunney then over brown..i rarely disagree with you but this is pure fiction and your usual excellent insite is totaly lacking in many of your thoughts here.
why is hagler even disgussed then at 168 when most of entire career is at 160 with same day weigh inns..billy conn at 168 yes..marble your out in left field on this one..sorry.

again a 25 year era and bob foster..why cause hes tall with a long reach..then you match foster up with todays light heavies cause you love his height and reach..why not archie moore.would he not do the same to todays light heavies..hmm hed do the same to bob foster also..again lets leave the great eras of the past alone alone and let todays good to great fighters also be enjoyed..

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:My question with Leonard would be why would you think a guy whose body betrayed him after only 25 fights could excel in a time where one typically had 50+ fights before one even got into a title conversation? Now looking at it the other way, if we just dropped him into a ring on his best night Ray Leonard beats 99.999999999% of all other welters on theirs.

Less cocaine?

I was thinking on a one fight basis, not career so I'm not sure. His body would have likely betrayed him.

Not cocaine, the torn retina.

just a thought.lets take marciano or even a greb.with rocky you say his legendary staima would not be as important cause its 12 rounds today..you state he would have to get to guys earlier..realy .how much earlier..you forgot that rocky had a history of getting to guys early.a huge history..now staima and endurance..greb and rocky would fight at the same pace..torrid..does not endurance and stanima come into play when you throw a ton of REAL power punches every round or in grebs case 100-125 or more punches every round..myself i wont downplay there stanima..

Brilliant article. Thanks Marble. Question. What about Gene Tunney and the HW's of the 50's, 60's and 70's. I loved his movement and he was a really intelligent fighter.