Why heavyweights are bigger today

[Cap]

Well, if only William "The Fridge" Perry lookalikes turn pro, you are probably right.

[The Great John L]

You may be correct, but in the past 20 years arguably there have been three "dominant" HWs. Holyfield, Tyson and Lewis. Prime Holyfield was 210-215, Tyson was 215-220 and Lewis was 235-245. While I agree that HWs are bigger than they used to be, I don't find it hard to imagine a Holyfield/Tyson size HW coming along and stomping the miserable crop of HWs we have today. And yes, Tyson was over 215, but only by a few pounds, so you could say that there has only been one dominant HW "under 215" in the past few decades.

We can only wait and see what happens. Either way, the talent pool in the sport is continuing its decline, so these are hardly times worthy of historical assessment.

[John Galt]

Ambling alp, it is good to see you "contribute." You are another, along with John L. and Dempsey who understands athletics. I hope nothing I have written upsets you. I have done nothing but agree with the points made by you and your coharts. Do you, for some reason find the ideas espoused by you and your friends silly when you read them?
I'm in agreement with you and your friends, smaller is better at heavyweight, older is better too, nobody today can train a fighter, and the old methods are the only ones that worked. Nothing new is good.
See, I agree with everything you believe. Also, Ali never held when he fought, he never stalled, he danced for 15 rounds, he was small for his era...I think you will agree with all of those points?
I have asked John L. and Dempsey why they don't train some fighters and take advantage of the weak boxing scene of today. They are too modest to answer so I'll ask you. Why don't you train some boxers, or, perhaps you could train and clean up the heavyweight division yourself?
There should be some good money available, and with the weak talent pool you three have noted in the heavyweight division, it seems ripe for some new blood with some good old fashioned training. According to what I read from you three, if a heavyweight can last for 3-4 rounds, his opponent will be completely gassed. You three have it all figured out, go for it.
A few long jogs, early in the morning, soaking your skin and knuckles in brine, maybe even chase a few chickens, and you will be far ahead of the unathletic, fat boxers of today.
Then Dempsey and John L. can teach you about angles, and counter punching - stuff they don't think is taught today, that they think is a "secret" of the old timers, and you will be primed to take over the heavyweight division.
Don't hurt anyone with your secret techniques learned from the old timers. When they are huffing and puffing after a few rounds, thank the oldsters for the chicken chasing exercises, and the long slow jog at 5 am. Drop the ole solar plexus shot on them, then watch the ref count to 10. Can't wait to see you three go to the top of the talentless division.

[The Great John L]

I have asked John L. and Dempsey why they don't train some fighters and take advantage of the weak boxing scene of today. They are too modest to answer…

If you knew anything at all about boxing you would know that it’s nearly impossible to make a buck in boxing today, that’s one of the reasons why it’s dieing. Of course the top few performers and promoters make extremely good money, and everybody else goes broke. The few remaining in the sport that is. That’s why I am not attempting to make my living in boxing. And when you reach your adult years you’ll learn the same cruel facts about professional boxing.

Now answer my questions, which I will pose for the third (or is it fourth?) time. Where have all the boxing trainers gone? And where have the boxing gyms gone? Surely a teen of your wit and vast experience can answer such simple questions.

[The Great John L]

This is almost as much fun as arguing with Decagon when he first started posting here.

[Ambling Alp]

Decagon, said some crazy things, but he made some good points as well.
Atleast he wouldn't keep saying the same stupid things over and over and ignoring the other person's points because he doesn't have the knowledge of boxing history and is unable to counter the points that other people make.


Don't worry John L, I'm sure someday john galt will tell us:
1.Where all the thriving boxing gyms are.
2.Specifically, what all these new boxing skills are.
3.Why there has only been one dominaint heavyweight champion that weighed over 235
4.Why the biggest heavyweight has never been the best heavyweight in more than 100 years of boxing.
5.Why Valuev doesn't dominate now since he so much bigger than the other top fighters.
6. How did 193 pound Roy Jones win the title?
7.How was small Chris Bryd on top for so long?

Surely he will give us clear direct answers and just sarcasm. I even numbered them, to make it easier for him. His breathtaking knowledge of boxing history and past training methods is so vast and accurrate.

[John Galt]

So you three don't want to take over the boxing game because the money isn't there? PBF predicted he would make about 200M this year, but with the talents you have that is probably chicken feed.
Ambling Alp, do you take my posts for sarcasm? I am simply agreeing with what you and your friends believe. I don't recall mentioning any new boxing skills, you and your cohorts are the ones who believe that the old skills are kept secret and the new trainers don't know about them. Perhaps you could enlighten some of us who are not as well versed in boxing history to what techniques are missing in the modern fighters? I am too young and too inexperienced to pick up on the things you probably see.
John L., where do you think the boxing gyms and trainers have gone? I have not noticed a decline in the number of gyms and of course I am too young to be able to compare and contrast Jack Blackburn with Freddie Roach or Roger Mayweather. It seems that you have noticed that the number of gyms has declined. Do you have proof? I would like to be able to give some numbers when I pass that information along. Maybe you could give a list of trainers who over the years meet your standards?
How many times did you see Jack Blackburn in the gym? How did he train Joe Louis differently than what you have seen over the years in and around boxing. This should be enlightening and a real learning experience. Can't wait to hear how Blackburn trained fighters from the perspective of a boxing insider.

[raylawpc]

Which one of these two is Peter Maher,Terap?

Neither. The fighters pictured are Jack Broughton and Jack Slack, April 10, 1750.

[Robinson]

Don't worry John L, I'm sure someday john galt will tell us:
1.Where all the thriving boxing gyms are.
2.Specifically, what all these new boxing skills are.
3.Why there has only been one dominaint heavyweight champion that weighed over 235
4.Why the biggest heavyweight has never been the best heavyweight in more than 100 years of boxing.
5.Why Valuev doesn't dominate now since he so much bigger than the other top fighters.
6. How did 193 pound Roy Jones win the title?
7.How was small Chris Bryd on top for so long?
.

Alp can I have a crack at some of these please.

1. In Europe I would suspect, In the US like other western nations
amateur boxing has dwindled. Here in Aust we still have some decent
gyms in Melb, Sydney etc. MMA however has made boxing and its gyms
share the facilities.

2. New training methods and knowledge on diet and nutrition. Weight
cutting techniques has advanced in the last 40 odd years. The
use of focus mitts, plyometrics under standing of recovery and the
importance of sport specificity in training.

3. These days there seems no interest in unifying the belts. It seems
that the eastbloc nations and the champions enjoy having more than
one champ and the wealth it brings. This is not just a HW issue.

4. Perhaps time shall tell.

5. Once againt Valuev has not faced off against the other op guys
it appeatrs that his managemnet seem to like to showcase him as
a spectacle and put him in with safer opponents. Generally speaking
the BIGGEST guys on the list at the time never seem to have the
goods and attributes to be a champion...perhaps Willard and Carnera
being the exception for there era. Valuev is bigger than average by
todays standards, though Willard and Carnera are almost around the
mark by today.

6. RJJ beat Ruiz and then went back down to LHW. He was going to make
a splash at HW if I recall prior against Douglas, but a 1997 Douglas was
considered to big and dangerous. So they opted for a time when
they could face a relatively small HW with not the best goods. As for how
well he would have done at defending the title ... who knows ?

7. Byrd was on top at 6'2 and 215lbs for so long because he was a south
paw and was a student at the art of self preservation. A rare bird at
any weight (clever joke eh ;) ), he was able to win by making the other
guy miss and flutter away with his own shots. He still never truely
dominated. How do you think perhaps other smaller HW's would have done
historically against some of Byrd's foes.
5'7, 185lb Burns vs Ibeabuchi, Tua or Klitschko ?
or a
how about the great con in Conn how many of his fans
think that he at 6' 172lbs would be able to handle a Tua or a Klitschko ?

I tried as best as I could good sir :)

The fact remains size does matter, contray to what the ladies tell us.
Bigger is better when there is skill and technique behind it, just ask
them when they are drunk...and as for HW's well even the Cruiserweight
division has gone from 187, 190, 195, 200...whats next 210...220 ?

Kym

[Diamond WEAPON]

cosign for Robinson

[dempseyfire]

Don't worry John L, I'm sure someday john galt will tell us:
1.Where all the thriving boxing gyms are.
2.Specifically, what all these new boxing skills are.
3.Why there has only been one dominaint heavyweight champion that weighed over 235
4.Why the biggest heavyweight has never been the best heavyweight in more than 100 years of boxing.
5.Why Valuev doesn't dominate now since he so much bigger than the other top fighters.
6. How did 193 pound Roy Jones win the title?
7.How was small Chris Bryd on top for so long?
.

Alp can I have a crack at some of these please.

1. In Europe I would suspect, In the US like other western nations
amateur boxing has dwindled. Here in Aust we still have some decent
gyms in Melb, Sydney etc. MMA however has made boxing and its gyms
share the facilities.

2. New training methods and knowledge on diet and nutrition. Weight
cutting techniques has advanced in the last 40 odd years. The
use of focus mitts, plyometrics under standing of recovery and the
importance of sport specificity in training.

3. These days there seems no interest in unifying the belts. It seems
that the eastbloc nations and the champions enjoy having more than
one champ and the wealth it brings. This is not just a HW issue.

4. Perhaps time shall tell.

5. Once againt Valuev has not faced off against the other op guys
it appeatrs that his managemnet seem to like to showcase him as
a spectacle and put him in with safer opponents. Generally speaking
the BIGGEST guys on the list at the time never seem to have the
goods and attributes to be a champion...perhaps Willard and Carnera
being the exception for there era. Valuev is bigger than average by
todays standards, though Willard and Carnera are almost around the
mark by today.

6. RJJ beat Ruiz and then went back down to LHW. He was going to make
a splash at HW if I recall prior against Douglas, but a 1997 Douglas was
considered to big and dangerous. So they opted for a time when
they could face a relatively small HW with not the best goods. As for how
well he would have done at defending the title ... who knows ?

7. Byrd was on top at 6'2 and 215lbs for so long because he was a south
paw and was a student at the art of self preservation. A rare bird at
any weight (clever joke eh ;) ), he was able to win by making the other
guy miss and flutter away with his own shots. He still never truely
dominated. How do you think perhaps other smaller HW's would have done
historically against some of Byrd's foes.
5'7, 185lb Burns vs Ibeabuchi, Tua or Klitschko ?
or a
how about the great con in Conn how many of his fans
think that he at 6' 172lbs would be able to handle a Tua or a Klitschko ?

I tried as best as I could good sir :)

The fact remains size does matter, contray to what the ladies tell us.
Bigger is better when there is skill and technique behind it, just ask
them when they are drunk...and as for HW's well even the Cruiserweight
division has gone from 187, 190, 195, 200...whats next 210...220 ?

Kym

1) HW boxing is stronger right now in Europe than in the United States but its level of popularity there is not not close to where boxing was in the United States 40 years ago.
2) Old fighters did plyometrics too. HWs don't cut weight. Focus mitts are great fun but really do more harm than good. We've already gone over the nutrition argument.
3) You ducked the question
4) Time has already shown middleweights and light HWs can get fat and beat current top HWs
5) Ruiz and Chagaev aren't top fighters? Most had him losing to both of them, plus an old Larry Donald.
6) I don't remember the exact reasons for the Douglas fight falling through, but you honestly believe Jones feared a fat diabetic Douglas?? Give me a break. This small HW with 'not the best goods' has beaten Johnson, Rahman, Oquendo, (most say) Valuev, and McCline. He's been able to remain a top 10 guy for almost a decade, and yes, Ruiz is 6'1 and in his mid 20s was weighing in the 190s. He's not a large man by any means (despite weighing a pudgy 240 the 2nd half of his career) The only guys who've been clearly able to beat Ruiz have been small HWs . . Chagaev, Toney, and Jones Jr.
7) Byrd is 6'1 and ate up to over 200. A 195 lb Eddie Machen was stronger, hit harder, and was just as elusive as Byrd. I'd favor Machen to beat Ike, Tua (comfortably) and Wlad (not Vitali).
8) Cruiserweight was created for $, not rationale. Funny post though

[The Great John L]

A few comments.

Boxing in Europe is probably no more popular, if it's even as paopular as it was in the 60's & 70's. While it appears to have gained fans in some markets, including the new East Euro countries, other countries like Italy and Spain have seens a steep decline.

For Galt.

Yes, FMJ and DLH are making big money so boxing is thriving. And since Arnold, Lampert and Feinberg are setting income records, then the US economy must be thriving as well.

Do some research. Go get a few old phone books from before the time your parents were born -- try the 50's and 60's, and count the number of boxing gyms. Then do the same with the current phone book. Of course that would require some real effort.

[John Galt]

Dempsey wrote;
"Focus mitts are great fun but really do more harm than good."

Please explain.

[dempseyfire]

Dempsey wrote;
"Focus mitts are great fun but really do more harm than good."

Please explain.

Fighters learn to punch 'at' the target rather than through the target, and learn to fire off combinations without receiving counter-fire. I can't tell you how many fighters I've seen look like Mayweather on the mitts and then look like crap in a real bout. Of course it's not an entirely bad exercise as it can help a newcomer 'flow' with their punches more, along as being an obvious speed/reflex refresher, but to mention modern punching mitts as some sort of advanced 21st century training just doesn't cut it.

[Robinson]

DF,

1) HW boxing is stronger right now in Europe than in the United States but its level of popularity there is not not close to where boxing was in the United States 40 years ago.

Not yet any how. Though who knows in the near future.

2) Old fighters did plyometrics too. HWs don't cut weight. Focus mitts are great fun but really do more harm than good. We've already gone over the nutrition argument.
\Yes they did Plyometric exercises, but no where near as advanced as what todays
athletes do. Focus mitts...well can you clarify ? Do you not rate these in
the training of your fighters.
Nutrition..yes but like religion here it seems to be based more on belief than
fact.

3) You ducked the question
Perhaps but these days its not in vogue to unify the title.
4) Time has already shown middleweights and light HWs can get fat and beat current top HWs
Yes but they still have 'weight' behind them that helps absorb as well as influence
shots.

5) Ruiz and Chagaev aren't top fighters? Most had him losing to both of them, plus an old Larry Donald.
They at the same time did not blow him away or vice versa.
6) I don't remember the exact reasons for the Douglas fight falling through, but you honestly believe Jones feared a fat diabetic Douglas?? Give me a break. This small HW with 'not the best goods' has beaten Johnson, Rahman, Oquendo, (most say) Valuev, and McCline. He's been able to remain a top 10 guy for almost a decade, and yes, Ruiz is 6'1 and in his mid 20s was weighing in the 190s. He's not a large man by any means (despite weighing a pudgy 240 the 2nd half of his career) The only guys who've been clearly able to beat Ruiz have been small HWs . . Chagaev, Toney, and Jones Jr.

So why did RJJ not stick around at HW ? Not enough money for him ??

7) Byrd is 6'1 and ate up to over 200. A 195 lb Eddie Machen was stronger, hit harder, and was just as elusive as Byrd. I'd favor Machen to beat Ike, Tua (comfortably) and Wlad (not Vitali).

I dont think machen was as elusive as Byrd not as defensively skilled. How many guys over 225lb
did machen handle and KO ?

8) Cruiserweight was created for $, not rationale. Funny post though

So it was entirely created for monetary reasons ?? No other factors were
involved ?

[Seamus]

These ideal weight arguments are totally irrelevant. You're the weight the scale says you are and nothing else. James Toney never proved a Middleweight could go toe to toe with Sam Peter, he proved that a guy who began his career at Middleweight could. Alot of guys believe Larry Donald actually beat Valuev, which means the guy who perhaps should have gotten the decision was still 6-3 244 and not 5-11 205. As for John Ruiz, except for his big win over Holyfield when he weighed a puny 224, just about all his best results have seen him at 230+.

[Diamond WEAPON]

These ideal weight arguments are totally irrelevant. You're the weight the scale says you are and nothing else. James Toney never proved a Middleweight could go toe to toe with Sam Peter, he proved that a guy who began his career at Middleweight could. Alot of guys believe Larry Donald actually beat Valuev, which means the guy who perhaps should have gotten the decision was still 6-3 244 and not 5-11 205. As for John Ruiz, except for his big win over Holyfield when he weighed a puny 224, just about all his best results have seen him at 230+.

Exactly, some people naturally have fat on them. The idea that if you take a fatter person and make them a skinny person they'll become healthier is simply false. Different genetics make people different ideal shapes for optimal health and efficiency. It's why Ricky Hatton gets fat when he's not in training for fights, because his body's genetics make him that way naturally, though part of it comes from lifestyle as well. HWs obviously get more leeway with their weight than the lower weight classes, so they can theoretically carry the natural fat that their body wants them to have genetically.

[Knucklez]

Roy Jones Snr, Big Roy, stepped in and stopped the negotiations between Roy Jr and the Douglas camp. The fight was close to being made at that point.

I agree with John Galt - Joe Louis was good but he's no Valuev

Robinson - you made a point that if big heavyweights were equally as skilled as small heavyweights, then they would be superior overall (a good big un beats a good little un), which in theory is correct. But I don't see how this is relevant when you have actual fighters to look at and compare. Anything outside of that is make believe.

[Ezzard]

7. Byrd was on top at 6'2 and 215lbs for so long because he was a south
paw and was a student at the art of self preservation. A rare bird at
any weight (clever joke eh ;) ), he was able to win by making the other
guy miss and flutter away with his own shots. He still never truely
dominated. How do you think perhaps other smaller HW's would have done
historically against some of Byrd's foes.
5'7, 185lb Burns vs Ibeabuchi, Tua or Klitschko ?
or a
how about the great con in Conn how many of his fans
think that he at 6' 172lbs would be able to handle a Tua or a Klitschko ?

I agree that size does matter but it is just one factor among many.

Conn was a better fighter than Byrd. If you are saying that Conn would need to beef up to be as successful in this era (or more so) than Byrd then I can accept that you may have something. If you are saying that Conn was not big enough to compete today than I'd disagree as Byrd is naturally no bigger.

A lot of HWs today weigh more than they need to. I think size puts them at ease psychologically. It makes them feel more confident. Even so if Ezzard Charles, Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano had Holyfield's 'sceience' behind them, then hot knife through butter comes to mind. Then even without the 'science' you can't tell me that James Toney's collection of double chins and spare tyres really put him at an advantage in a HW boxing match.

[Ambling Alp]

These ideal weight arguments are totally irrelevant. You're the weight the scale says you are and nothing else. James Toney never proved a Middleweight could go toe to toe with Sam Peter, he proved that a guy who began his career at Middleweight could. Alot of guys believe Larry Donald actually beat Valuev, which means the guy who perhaps should have gotten the decision was still 6-3 244 and not 5-11 205. As for John Ruiz, except for his big win over Holyfield when he weighed a puny 224, just about all his best results have seen him at 230+.

I agree that Toney wasn't a middleweight when he fought Peter.
However don't you think that if Toney weighed around 200-210 and in reasonable shape, he would have beaten Peter, despite the fact that he was 37.
Why is it so hard to image a talented fighter in his 20's that size beating Peter?

Look at the Donald-Valuev fight. if size was such an advantage, Valuev should have crushed Donald. He outweighed him by 80 pounds. However, the fight was about even. This isn't even taking into account that Donald was 38 and well past his best.

No, a 5'11 205 fighter didn't beat Valuev. However, if a 5'11 205 guy that could really fight did fight Valuev, he would beat him.

The problem nowadays is that guys that have the height and frame that should be weighing 200-210 are weighing 220-230. Guys that should be weighing 220 are weighing 240.

It's not that guys weighing 200-220 can't be top heavyweights anymore. It's that there aren't hardly any that actaully weigh that.
At a certain point, size stops becoming an advantage. At a later point it becomes a handicap.
Virtually every piece of evidence shows this.
Outside of Klitschko, where is all of this power that the big heavyweights have?
Valuev can't hurt guys much smaller than him. McCline can't crack an egg. We keep hearing that Peter is such a hard puncher but he has yet to prove it.

If 193 pound (at the age of 34) Roy Jones can win the heavyweight title, why can't a talented fighter in his 20's that weighs 200-220 win the title?
There have been dominating heavyweights that weighed under 220 as late as the 1990's. There has never been a dominating heavyweight over 250.
Lewis and to a lesser extent Bowe are the only heavyweights over 230 that have been that good.
If Chris Byrd can be a top heavyweight, why can't a guy his size that can punch be even better?

[Seamus]

I'm afraid Alp, that you're the one asking the question why ? not me. I've been saying since I came on here, almost 3 yrs ago, that size does make a big difference in the HW division, and the reasons for that are pretty logical. While a 200 lb fighter on avg, will be faster than one who's 230+, the bigger man will on avg have considerably more power, will be stronger on the inside, where sooner or later everyone from Minimumweight on up has to fight. Will withstand bodyshots better, and more than likely with a thicker neck he'll take headshots noticeably better as well.

What you're seeing isn't a fluke, the size of heavyweights has been slowly but steadily increasing over time. Last time I checked (about a month ago) 29 of the top 50 were 6-3 or over. HW's have never been that tall before either.

I expect no shortage of guys who will come along now (except for Diamond WEAPON and Robinson) and attempt to shoot holes in my arguments, but after all is said in done there still won't be one Joe Frazier sized HW ready to come along and cleanout the alleged worst HW division of all time.

[Ambling Alp]

I agree that everything else being even, that the bigger man will win. The problem with that arguement is that everything isn't even. You mention that on average, the bigger man will have more power, be better inside, withstand body shots, and have a thicker neck to take shots better.
As I have said before up to a certain extent, size is and advantage, then it doesn't help much more, then it gets to a point that it's actaully a disadvantage. There are reasons why you don't see 500 pound lineman.
Is there really much evidence that a fighter over 250 has more power than 220? Outside of Ktitschko, there hasn't been a big man with great power. Valuev, MCline, Peter haven't proved it. Part of punching power is speed, which the bigger man doesn't usually have.
I don't think there much evidence that a really big man can take body shots better.
As for taking a punch, I don't know. Klitschko can't take a punch.

Smaller fighters on average also usually have faster handspeed, have better stamina, can fight at a faster pace, are harder to hit etc.

I also think the height difference is exaggerated. In 1935, the average heavyweight top 10 contender was just under 6'3. Only one guy was under 6'1. This more of a weight issue. An excess weight issue.

As for the theory that we will never see another small heavyweight dominate the division? Well who knows? Tyson and Holyfield did it in the 1980's and 1990's. They beat guys that weighed a lot who had better skills than the big heavyweights of today.

Will we ever see a 250 pound heavyweight clean out the division? We haven't seen one come close yet.

[dempseyfire]

I'm afraid Alp, that you're the one asking the question why ? not me. I've been saying since I came on here, almost 3 yrs ago, that size does make a big difference in the HW division, and the reasons for that are pretty logical. While a 200 lb fighter on avg, will be faster than one who's 230+, the bigger man will on avg have considerably more power, will be stronger on the inside, where sooner or later everyone from Minimumweight on up has to fight. Will withstand bodyshots better, and more than likely with a thicker neck he'll take headshots noticeably better as well.

What you're seeing isn't a fluke, the size of heavyweights has been slowly but steadily increasing over time. Last time I checked (about a month ago) 29 of the top 50 were 6-3 or over. HW's have never been that tall before either.

I expect no shortage of guys who will come along now (except for Diamond WEAPON and Robinson) and attempt to shoot holes in my arguments, but after all is said in done there still won't be one Joe Frazier sized HW ready to come along and cleanout the alleged worst HW division of all time.

?? Where's the giant-sized guy cleaning out the division? No-one has cleaned anything since Lewis b/c the HWs today suck. And the dominant guys pre-Lewis were small HWs in Holyfield and Tyson.

Body frame equates to true size, NOT weight. So if Sultan Ibragimov, a guy barely 6'1 (his 6'2 listing is not accurate) who weighed in at 200 as late as 27 years old, puts on weight and goes up to 220, is he now as big as Liston, who was 6'1 and 212 at his best? Or Is Toney at 5'10 230 bigger than Tyson at 215? The clear answer is NO. You seem to be arguing that Tommy Loughran would get crushed by modern fat HWs, but if he ate a lot and weighed 220 (adversly affecting his speed and stamina) he could hang . . .that is a RIDICULOUS argument. I don't see all of these fat guys with their gut sticking out in MMA, Basketball, Hockey, Football (except the O-line) . . .and boxing is the most stamina-challenging of them all.

Tall guys? THe top guys besides the Klits in recent years have been short HWs-Ibragimov, Toney, Peter, Chagaev, Byrd, Ruiz, Povetkin etc.

So riddle me this, all of the 5'10-6'3 guys in the past who weighed 220 and below all could've been better fighters if they'd run less and put on 20-40 lbs? So only the HWs of the past 15 years have realized this huge benefit? What a discovery! Too bad they put in all of that hard work and discipline for nothing.

Guys are weighing in more, b/c they can. When the comp isn't pushing themselves and coming in shape, these guys don't put the sacrifice in. As much as I despise Klitschko, the reason he lasted through Peter was that Klitschko is a gym-rat and Peter is like the rest, skipping road-work and eating crap.

[Seamus]

Wladimir Klitschko has been pretty consistent the last few yrs, but even if he get's KO'd in his next bout, the new champion will be 6-5 and probably over 240. Whether there are dominant fighters or not, the guys who are winning the belts are typically over 230.

As for Tyson and Holyfield. I remember back when many thought Tyson was a nearly flawless fighter, then Bonecrusher Smith a guy with a 19-5 record, showed how a big strong 6-4 guy can tie up a smaller man and make him look less than lethal. Sure it was an ugly fight that Tyson clearly one, but if Smith had thrown a few punches, other than the one that buckled Tyson's legs in the last 15 seconds, he might have won. You might not like hearing the reason Evander Holyfield was able to perform well on the inside against guys with a clear weight advantage. Plain and simple, he spent some quality time in the weightroom, and that's why Tyson got pushed around the ring like a blocking sled in the first bout.

All these arguments about fighters from the past and how they'd beat the HW's of today have no real bearing on what's actually happening in the present. The more and more a case is made for how beatable everyone in this HW division now is, the more questionable those claims become as time passes without anyone achieving that which is supposed to be so easy. I'll just boldly stand by what I've been saying and that is that days of Louis, Frazier sized champions are over.

[Ambling Alp]

The bottom line with Smith and Tyson though is that Tyson did beat Smith.
Weight lifting wasn't the main reason holyfield was good. He was still smaller than his opponents. He had the tenacity,punching accurracy, handspeed, and chin that his bigger opponents didn't have. He was better when he was under 210 than when he was bigger.

The days of the small heavyweights winning a title is over? Just two years Chris Byrd had a title!
It wasn't that long ago when Tyson and Holyfield were beating bigger guys.
For several years bigger guys couldn't beat him.
Just 5 years ago Jones won the title at 193 and he was only 5'11.
James Toney almost won the title at 5'10.
The days of a Joe Louis sized heavyweight is over?
Louis was taller than 2 of the 3 current beltholders.

We are still waiting for a heavyweight over 250 that can punch and take a punch, much less dominate the division. Hasn't happned yet.