Would the heavyweight fighters of yore have trouble

[Ambling Alp II]

I would bet on any of them to beat the Klitschkos.

On the other hand, the Klitischkos would weigh less if they fought in the 1920s-1950s. They would be lighter than several guys during this period, such as Buddy Baer, Abe Simon, Primo Carnera. Even as it is, they are about the same size. None dominated the heavyweight division against much smaller men.
Interesting, of the guys mentioned from this period, the biggest (Sharkey) was the lightest puncher.

I keep going back to this: There were big guys throughout boxing history. Many were more talented than Vitaly. Almost all did not have the major chin and stamina weaknesses that Wladimir had. Yet most were not the best of their era. There just doesn't seem to be any reason to think the Klitschkos would do well against really good heavyweights from other eras.

[Ezzard]

That's the other thing you have to credit the Klits with...

They are at quite literally a massive disadvantage as most of their opponents are smaller than them.

They keep winning despite that disadvantage.

[HomicideHenry]

One, why people tend to think that there weren't large men prior to the 2000's is beyond me. It's just a statistical fact that size alone was a huge disadvantage in boxing--- bigger men equal out to being bigger targets, and being much slower and easier to knock off balance than a man who was of more equal proportion. Even in the early Queensbury age there were men of enormous size and strength; and also in the bare knuckle eras.

The following is a list by era of some of the more notable 'giants' of the time frame:

1700's:

Charles Freeman- billed at 7'2", skeletal remains measure 6'11"

1800-1890's:

Louis 'The Human Freight Car' 6'7" 280+ pounds

Note: Several times during John L. Sullivan's world tour exhibition ventures, and other champions on such tours, encountered many opponents well over 250 pounds. Sullivan, as champion during such ventures, at least met four men of such weight and size, blasting such men out inside of a single round. Bob Fitzsimmons in particular, even against average sized heavyweights, was giving way 20+ pounds, often fought men who were in the 250+ pound range in exhibitions and pro matches, such as the before said man listed above.

1900-1920:

Peter Maher- 6'4" 220+ pounds

Jim Coffey- 6'4" 220+ pounds

Jim Jeffries- 6'3" 220-280 pounds (depending on exhibition or opponent)

Bill Tate- 6'8" and 240+ pounds

Luther McCarty- 6'4" 240+ pounds

Jess Willard- 6'6" 240+ pounds

George Godfrey- 6'4" 260+ pounds

Primo Carnera- 6'6" 270+ pounds

Jose Santa- 6'8" 250+ pounds

Ray Impelltiere- 6'9" 240+ pounds

Carl Morris- 6'4" 240+ pounds

Billy Wells- 6'4" 230+ pounds

Gogea Mitu- 7'4" 280+ pounds

Wayne Munn- 6'7" 240+ pounds

'Big' Ben Wray- 7'2" 240+ pounds

Harry Wills- 6'4" 240+ pounds

1930-1950's

Ewart Pontfigwier- 7'2" 280+ pounds

Buddy Baer- 6'7" 240+ pounds

Jim Cully- 7'4" 280+ pounds

Ted Evans- 7'7" 280+ pounds (died before turning pro; fought exhibitions)

1960-1980's:

'Giant' Jack O'Hollaran- 6'7" 240+ pounds

Ernie Terrell- 6'6" 220+ pounds

Buster Mathis- 6'4" 240+ pounds

Chuck Wepner- 6'5" 230+ pounds

John Tate- 6'4" 240+ pounds

Duane Bobick- 6'5" 240+ pounds

1990-2000's

Mike White- 6'10" 280+ pounds

Charles Chancellor- 7'0" 400+ pounds

Jorge Gonzales- 6'7" 240+ pounds

Michael Grant- 6'7" 240+ pounds

Jan Nortje- 6'11" 270+ pounds

Tyson Fury- 6'9" 250+ pounds

Chris Arreola- 6'4" 250+ pounds


Conclusion:

There has always been enormously tall/heavy men in boxing history. The fact that the majority never saw a title fight or won a title, however, speaks volumes. Mickey Walker, the former welterweight and middleweight champion, is an excellent example that size means relatively little, as in his HEAVYWEIGHT debut he decisioned Bearcat Wright, a man who nearly outweighed Walker by 80 pounds and was a foot taller than him. Walker would go on to kayo many heavyweights, and at the pinnacle of his heavyweight venture was robbed in a decision draw against Jack Sharkey and lost on kayo to Max Schmeling for the title. The problem, these days, is people are so scared and so political that they have made it impossible for anyone in the smaller weights to come up to heavyweight and challenge the big guys---- citing that you must weight over 195 pounds (in some states) or weigh more than 210 pounds in the rest. That robs the small men the ability and skills that they have at their natural weights. If people were to abandon these strict rules, I garuntee you that we would see alot of upsets and alot of multi division champions in the higher weights. One must note, though, the further back you go the more it seems the taller men were also at appropriate weights--- they didnt carry excess baggage weight into the ring, if they could make 220 pounds, they fought at 220 pounds.

Special Note:

One may ask 'Why so many men of large size during the 1900-1920 era'? The answer, for the most part, lies in the fact that during the reign of Jack Johnson promoters, managers, etc. sought out every farm hand, rancher, miner, lumberjack, circus performer, etc. in the world to take up the sport of boxing to upset the great Johnson. It was evident in his fights with Burns and Ketchell that a man of small size wasn't going to be able to do the job (Hart/Johnson & Choynski/Johnson was never filmed, so the public for the most part was unaware that those two small men were capable), so the search of a 'true' white hope was rampant. Football players and wrestlers like Wayne Munn were brought in, and failed. Circus strongmen like Victor McLaglen were brought in and failed. It took seven years of poverty, low living and rough conditions--- plus one 6'6" 240+ pound giant--- to finally bring an end to Johnson's reign. After it was over, alot of displaced over sized fighters were left over. Some turned out to be good--- while most were melons.

[Ambling Alp II]

Good list.
A couple of the weights were off; Billy Wells was skinny and never weighed close to 240. Bobick was not that heavy either. However people should get the point. Big heavyweights are nothing new. A few more:

1900-1920: Ed Dunkhorst 6'3 Weighed as much as 270.

1930-1950: Abe Simon 6'4 Usually around 250-255
Jim Thompson 6'2 240

1960s-1980's LeRoy Jones 6'5 Usually over 250.

The Klitschkos should get credit for beating good fighters and get docked for losses; like anyone else.

The best opponent that Wladimir beat was Chris Byrd. Byrd had good but not great boxing skills and no power. He was a decent fighter; nothing special. The rest of Wladimir's wins are pretty much meaningless when comparing him to decent fighters of the past. He lost badly to journeyman Ross Purrit, and limited Lamon Brewster and Corrie Sanders.

Vitaly did beat Sanders; the rest of his wins are pretty much meaning less when comparing him to decent fighters of the past. He also lost to Byrd and an obese Lennox Lewis.

Neither of the Klitschkos should rated that much higher than Abe Simon and Buddy Baer.

[Goldust]

A great deal of the more recent heavyweights are easily carrying a good 20-30 lbs. of fat or bloated steroid muscle into the ring which only tends to slow them down and reduce their effectiveness. It's simply inexcusable for guys to waddle into the ring at 6' to 6' 4" and 240+lbs. George Foreman at 6' 3 1/2" in his prime was only in the 218-225lbs. range.

History has shown that the ideal size for heavyweights has been in the 6' 1" to 6' 4" and 200-225lbs. range. I suspect that part of the reason for so many large (6' 5" and up) heavyweights today has to do with the over all poor technical skills. Subsequently sheer size, strength and mass is often the determining factor. If you have two generally poor/average heavyweights and one enjoys a 4-5 inch height and 40-50 weight advantage who do you think is going to have the edge.

[Ezzard]

All well and good unless you happen to have been a bloated 1980s blob of jelly in which case you were somehow different...

[dominik]

Would the heavyweight fighters of yore have trouble with today's super heavyweights?


At some point does a massive advantage in size become determinative?


Please discuss...

it depends what you mean with past. The 80s and 90s fighters are of course modern fighters and could handle the klits (or lewis). maybe very few 70s fighters could also (ali, foreman).

but the fighters before that I can't see having a chance (dempsey, marciano, louis, liston...).

[dominik]

Good list.
A couple of the weights were off; Billy Wells was skinny and never weighed close to 240. Bobick was not that heavy either. However people should get the point. Big heavyweights are nothing new. A few more:

1900-1920: Ed Dunkhorst 6'3 Weighed as much as 270.

1930-1950: Abe Simon 6'4 Usually around 250-255
Jim Thompson 6'2 240

1960s-1980's LeRoy Jones 6'5 Usually over 250.

The Klitschkos should get credit for beating good fighters and get docked for losses; like anyone else.

The best opponent that Wladimir beat was Chris Byrd. Byrd had good but not great boxing skills and no power. He was a decent fighter; nothing special. The rest of Wladimir's wins are pretty much meaningless when comparing him to decent fighters of the past. He lost badly to journeyman Ross Purrit, and limited Lamon Brewster and Corrie Sanders.

Vitaly did beat Sanders; the rest of his wins are pretty much meaning less when comparing him to decent fighters of the past. He also lost to Byrd and an obese Lennox Lewis.

Neither of the Klitschkos should rated that much higher than Abe Simon and Buddy Baer.

well those are good points but it does not only count who you beat and who you lose to but also how long you actually spend on top. dominance matters even if it is a weak division. roger federer arguably did dominate a weak field from 04-07 and he also got his ass handed over and over again by rafael nadal (lost like 70% of their encounters) but he is still be seen as the GOAT by most because of his extended dominance and number of tournaments won.

I'm not saying boxing is like tennis and who you beat certainly does matter but dominating a division for 7+ years (no matter how weak it is) does account for something.

don't get me wrong there is such thing as a transitional champion between two real greats but more than half a decade is more than a transition- it's an era.

[Ambling Alp II]

I think the tennis analogy is a little deceiving. If you aren't a tennis fan, you may want to skip this part) :) It's not like Federer rollded up a lot of majors before Nadal came along and then has not done much. Nadal won his first major (The French Open) in 2005. Before that Federer had won 3 majors. From Nadal's first major to now, Nadal has won 13 majors and Federer has won 14.
Federer has also won 6 ATP Tour finals, 4 since Nadal 2005. Nadal has never won this.
The head to head is a bit deceiving and sometimes is in tennis. (We can get into that on the Off Topic Forum if you like.)

I think for now, people have Federer slightly ahead. However, his best days are behind him. A lot depends on what Nadal does for the rest of his career. The next 3-4 years will be crucial. Nadal just has not been as great for quite as as Federer yet.

As for the Klitschkos, yes dominating a weak era does have to count for something. It means that you aren't horrible yourself. That's about it. you also have to remember that Klitschkos have been a round a long time; their careers overlapped some fighters who retired or atleast have been past their prime for a long time. They were not dominating when there were still some decent heavyweights around.

[Goldust]

but the fighters before that I can't see having a chance (dempsey, marciano, louis, liston...).

So you're seriously preposing that Ross Puritty, Chris Byrd, past prime Corrie Sanders, Lamon Brewster, and fat past prime Lennox Lewis (fighters who all hold wins over either Klitschko) are/were so much better than Dempsey, Marciano, Louis and Liston since apparently you don't see any of them "having a chance"?

[ThatOne]

but the fighters before that I can't see having a chance (dempsey, marciano, louis, liston...).

So you're seriously preposing that Ross Puritty, Chris Byrd, past prime Corrie Sanders, Lamon Brewster, and fat past prime Lennox Lewis (fighters who all hold wins over either Klitschko) are/were so much better than Dempsey, Marciano, Louis and Liston since apparently you don't see any of them "having a chance"?

I don't think I wrote that today's super heavyweights would beat those guys... I thought I was agnostic about all this...

[Goldust]

I'm not saying boxing is like tennis and who you beat certainly does matter but dominating a division for 7+ years (no matter how weak it is) does account for something.

don't get me wrong there is such thing as a transitional champion between two real greats but more than half a decade is more than a transition- it's an era.

It does count for something, in their defense they can only fight whats out there at the time. But by the same token it's hard for me to get too worked up over the Klitschko's bloated records when the division is so poor that 41 year old Tony Thompson is getting multiple title shots and guys like hog fat past prime Shannon Briggs is getting a title shot too. This is the same feeble era where Nikolay Valuev compiled a sterling record of 50-2 (34ko).

What's worse is that they don't even look all that great beating these guys. They're winning but all too often every round/fight looks just like the last one, sloppy, ugly, one sided and tedious. Everybody has off nights/poor fights, difficult opponents that make you look bad (Tyson didn't look great vs. Bonecrusher Smith or Mitch Green) but those fights were the exception. I have to believe that guys like Holmes, Tyson, Louis, Foreman etc. would look a hell of a lot more impressive fighting and beating opponents of the caliber of T. Thompson, Alexander Povetkin, David Haye, Kevin Johnson etc. than either Klitschko has been.

[dempseyfire]

Faster and stronger? Try fatter and slower . . . I've been saying this for years.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/ki ... 14331.html