Would the old-timers really stand a chance today?
By Janne Romppainen
05.11 - One of the cases which are never closed is the discussion about how the old ring legends would fare against the stars of today. Could Jack Dempsey do to Lennox Lewis what he did to Jess Willard? Would the knockout king Archie Moore blast Roy Jones out too? Would Harry Greb have been too much for Bernard Hopkins? What about a clash between Henry Armstrong and Roberto Duran?
The weird thing in here is that boxing is the only sport along with other combat sports where this kind of discussion still lives. Nobody argues for example about would Jesse Owens beat Maurice Green in 100 meters run or could the weightlifting legend Norbert Schemansky still win Olympic gold medal today. The reason why there is no dispute about these subjects is quite obvious: everybody can see it from the results. Owens best time loses over half a second to the present world record and Schemanskys record is over fifty kilograms ( well over 100lbs) less than the best result now. The world records of the past are just paper for the best athletes of today, the athletes who achieved them wouldnt be among the top-hundred now. What makes those sports different from boxing then?
In my opinion, nothing does. I dont think fistic achievers would fare any better than their timers from other sports. The reason why many people still think that for example Moore could defeat Jones is still obvious as well. That is because you cant compare them because they fought in different eras. In boxing there are no seconds, no kilograms or no inches to measure. You can just see how the past champs dominated their opponents with ease. This is the thing that creates the illusion of their supremacy over present-day athletes. Boxing still looks the same, you cant see its development. Sure Archie Moore was ahead of his time, but not forty years ahead. In no sport has a world record withstood over forty years, how could it do so in boxing?
Suppose you watch a hundred-meter race from the Olympics in 1936 from a tape where there is no clock. You see how Jesse Owens defeats everybody by yards. Sure you would think now that he was so good that he could compete today, its quite natural. Your eyes lie, only the clock tells the truth. In boxing there is no clock. There is only the false image.
Then there is the size difference thing of course. It affects not only in the heavyweight but in other weight categories too. Even though the middleweight limit still is the same it has always been at 160lbs., the modern fighters are clearly bigger than the old ones. This is because the nutrition and training methods have developed so dramatically. A middleweight fighter can walk in 175lbs or so and lose his weight only temporarily for the weigh-in. When he steps in the ring, he is again over 170lbs. The old-timers didnt have a chance to do so, so they would face at least a ten-pound disadvantage. Could they overcome that? I doubt it.
What I have said here should not take anything away from the ring legends. I do not question their greatness. They wouldnt stand a chance today, but that is no shame. What I say here probably brings a lot of criticism but I say it anyway and the same goes with the other legends mentioned in this artcile. In my opinion Archie Moore was the greatest light-heavyweight who ever lived, but he would be easy meat for Roy Jones, Dariuz Michalzewski, Antonio Tarver and other modern stars.