Big heavyweights vs Smaller great heavyweights.

[Ambling Alp II]

I thought I would take something that was being discussed on other threads and bring it here on a new thread.
There have been some topics recently centering around what if fights between great smaller heavyweights vs much larger heavyweights. (Peter vs Marciano, V. Klitschko vs Tyson, Rahman vs Walcott)
Some people think that the huge size difference would be too much to overcome for the smaller fighter.
Other people think that a smaller heavyweight would win if he was good enough.

Let's put this to the test. Instead of just going by theories, lets look at actual results.

So lets actually look at the times when a big heavyweight (240 pounds or more) fought a great smaller heavyweight (220 or below) To be fair to each side, we won't count any fights where the losing fighter was clearly not in his prime.

What are some examples of the bigger man winning?
What are some examples of the smaller man winning?

[Syntax Error]

Evander Holyfield v Buster Douglas.
Evander Holyfield v George Foreman.
Evander Holyfield v Riddick Bowe 2.

I'm not sure if the losers fit your description of prime, but Douglas & Bowe weren't old, they were just greedy & ill disciplined.

Foreman was ancient, but you could argue he was actually a better fighter in the 90s than he was in the 70s: he was certainly cleverer, that's for sure.

[Bodyshot3]

Carnera's career certainly has both twists/outcomes.

He beat the much smaller/lighter Sharkey, Uzucdun and tiny Loughran but then lost to Baer who was actually only a few pounds heavier than Jack and Paulino. Was actually a bit surprised that Baer was so light.

In the modern era, Hide either did very well or fell apart against the bigger men.
He got crushed by Bowe (after a decent start) and by Vitali but stopped the much bigger Tony Tucker early.

Again, I was quite surprised that Hide was sometimes not outweighed by as much as I thought he often was at the time.
He was not that much lighter than Bentt for example and actually came in against Vitali at a fairly hefy 221lbs.

As Syntax has noted previously....Holyfield arguably remains the best example of a light man beating bigger men along with Haye seeing off the gigantic/feakish Valuev.

[Cygnus475]

Well the obvious ones are (for great small man vs grear big man)

-dempsey (6'1 187) ko willard (6'6 245).

-braddock vs baer (same height but baer had 20 lbs and 6'' reach avantge)

-joe louis (6'2 205 lbs) k.os against buddie baer (6'6 250 lbs) abe simmon (6'4 255 lbs) and carnera (6'5 250 lbs). Interesting examples.

-shavers (6'0 210) vs roy tiger williams (6'5 231) only time williams was ever stopped.

-frazier (5'11 205-210) beat ali (6'4) and buster mathis (6'3 243 lbs)

-spinx 6'2 (208) vs cooney 6'6 238

-tyson 5'10 225 against savarese (6'5 240) brian nielson (6'3 259) frank bruno (6'3 247) tyrell biggs (gold medalist 6'5) tony tucker and others.

-holyfield win over bowe, foreman, robbery against valuev

-roy jones over ruiz

-corrie sanders ko wladmir klitschko

Great big fighter beating great small fighter

-willard ko jack johnson

-foreman ko frazier

-liston ko patterson twice

-bowe k.o hide and holyfield

-lennox lewis (6'5 240+) beat holyfield (6'2), david tua (5'10)

-wladmir klitshko beat povetkin and chris byrd

Unless im missing something it seems like it happens for more often in history for a great smaller fighter to beat a great big fighter than the other way around.

[davie]

-shavers (6'0 210) vs roy tiger williams (6'5 231) only time williams was ever stopped.

Shavers was kind of cheating though, he may have scaled 20lbs lighter but he punched like a man 40lbs heavier

It was hardly fair

[davie]

Unless im missing something it seems like it happens for more often in history for a great smaller fighter to beat a great big fighter than the other way around.

To make the comparison fair, we'd have to ensure the ability levels were pretty much equal, that is not the case in some of the cases you have listed and many of those fighter definitely don't qualify as "great"

For me it's simple. Height, weight and reach give an advantage the majority of the time.
That advantage can be overcome by a gulf in class or a particular clash in styles and/or gameplans of the respective fighters.

Some fighter have some natural gifts that make them better suited to fighting bigger men but that is rare.

On the whole, I'd say 90% of the time a bigger man wins if all other aspects are equal but it gets ridiculous when someone starts claiming fighter A (6'7") beats fighter B (6'2") simply because of height and refuses to accept any other criteria. That shows a distinct lack of understanding and knowledge of the sports history and all the examples you've given where height was clearly not the deciding factor

[p4p1]

when the smaller guy wins it's usually due to a talent or skill deficit.

I think Wilder is super vulnerable despite his athletic gifts but give him the skills of Louis or Holyfield he would likely run through the entire division. I have to think that a big freak boxer, someone with 6'6+ that doesn't give up skill or speed because of his size would beat small great guys.

[scartissue]

Maybe not all great heavys but all certainly were world-class when I think of Archie Moore beating Nino Valdes and Bob Baker. Jimmy Bivins beating Lee Savold, Lee Q. Murray and Turkey Thompson. And Jerry Quarry beating Buster Mathis and Ron Lyle. Again, all were world class at the time when these smaller heavies beat up on the big guys.

[Kalan]

Unless im missing something it seems like it happens for more often in history for a great smaller fighter to beat a great big fighter than the other way around.

Only if one looks at your nonsensical list... The fact that Nicolai Valuev won a Heavyweight Championship and went 50-2 for his career speaks volumes... A 180 pound man of his ability fighting Heavyweights would have a record of 2-50... However fans only focus on 1 of the 2 fights Valuev lost when his legs were gone... That's all they see... Gene Tunney lost a fight - so why not judge him on that one? The following are examples of great little guys getting beaten by mediocre big guys.

Inept big man, 275-pound Primo Carnera beats great little man, the brilliant 186-pound Tommy Loughran -- who can't handle the reach and strength deficits.

A great big 250-pound Heavyweight beat a 234-pound "small" Heavyweight.. Lewis added about 25-pounds of muscle to his frame over the years... And Tyson was smaller and only added 16 pounds... They were both rock solid... both lost a couple fights but Lewis used his size to destroy Tyson.

Mediocre big man Buster Douglas beats the living crap out of ATG prime smaller man Mike Tyson... Using his superior height, weight, reach, and size, Buster dominated Tyson and KTFO of the boy... End of that sad story, because it was the only fight Buster was every energized for. Now, in one of the lesser lights of Buster's career, he was knocked out by 6'10" giant Mike White---who had no skills at all, only gigantic size going for him.

On the other hand a prime ATG little guy, 187-pound Jack Dempsey managed to beat the living Hell out of a big fat fraud of a Heavyweight in Jess Willard, who was making his first and last Title Defense at age 37 after touring for 4 years, fighting only 1 exhibition, and getting fat as a pig. Proves nothing.

Then you have the example of Joe Louis smashing Primo Carnera... a huge Heavyweight who was previously battered by Max Baer for 11 rounds where he suffered 11 or 12 knockdowns... It was another great punching little man beating a poorly skilled and defenseless big man.

Then 245-pound ATG Wladimir Klitschko squared off with 210-pound ATG 2-Division World Champ David Haye, who was at least equal in ability if not better... Klitschko dominated, winning a boring 12 round decision without really trying. Haye seemed to be hampered by a lame toe.

Then you had a great fighter in 2-Division World Champion, 216-pound Thomas Adamek beating the inept 261-pound slowpoke, Michael Grant to get a Heavyweight Title shot at ATG, 40-year-old 243-pound Vitali Klitschko.. Adamek barely beat the hugely powerful and gigantic Grant---and then lost every round to Klitschko before getting his ass knocked out.. That concludes the highlights of piss poor to ATG big guys fighting all-star ATG little guys and mostly dominating all of them.

[Cygnus475]

Kalan calls david haye an ATG then wonders why people have him on their ignore list.

Tyson was way past his prime against lewis. Youd know that if you knew anything about boxing.

Valuev was trash and only fought trash--hence his seemingly impressive record to the untrained eye. His "win" over an old ass holyfield was a hilarious robbery.

When the smaller guy wins it's usually due to a talent or skill deficit.

Explain ali frazier fotc.

Or several of the other examples i listed.

For me it's simple. Height, weight and reach give an advantage the majority of the time.
That advantage can be overcome by a gulf in class or a particular clash in styles and/or gameplans of the respective fighters.

Some fighter have some natural gifts that make them better suited to fighting bigger men but that is rare.

On the whole, I'd say 90% of the time a bigger man wins if all other aspects are equal but it gets ridiculous when someone starts claiming fighter A (6'7") beats fighter B (6'2") simply because of height and refuses to accept any other criteria. That shows a distinct lack of understanding and knowledge of the sports history and all the examples you've given where height was clearly not the deciding factor

But heres the thing: there arent that many "great" big men. Often trainers considered them nothing more than novelties and freak shows, rarely putting too much stock into them with rare exceptions (emmanual stewart, dick saddler).

Even in other sports like basketball, football, etc where reach, height amd weight provide highly significant advantages, guys who are awkwardly tall and lumbering past he 6'5 250 pound mark are seldom succesful at the elite level. Is it biology? or is it modern sports that need to catch up and make the adjustments (similar to how people had to adjust to southpaws and provde alternative training methods and strategies surrounding them).

Very rare do we get really tall heavy guys who are exceptionally talented and athletic (lebron james, riddick bowe) or highly skilled (lennox lewis).

[Kalan]

Kalan calls david haye an ATG then wonders why people have him on their ignore list.

Tyson was way past his prime against lewis. Youd know that if you knew anything about boxing.

Valuev was trash and only fought trash--hence his seemingly impressive record to the untrained eye. His "win" over an old ass holyfield was a hilarious robbery.

When the smaller guy wins it's usually due to a talent or skill deficit.

Explain ali frazier fotc.

Or several of the other examples i listed.

For me it's simple. Height, weight and reach give an advantage the majority of the time.
That advantage can be overcome by a gulf in class or a particular clash in styles and/or gameplans of the respective fighters.

Some fighter have some natural gifts that make them better suited to fighting bigger men but that is rare.

On the whole, I'd say 90% of the time a bigger man wins if all other aspects are equal but it gets ridiculous when someone starts claiming fighter A (6'7") beats fighter B (6'2") simply because of height and refuses to accept any other criteria. That shows a distinct lack of understanding and knowledge of the sports history and all the examples you've given where height was clearly not the deciding factor

But heres the thing: there arent that many "great" big men. Often trainers considered them nothing more than novelties and freak shows, rarely putting too much stock into them with rare exceptions (emmanual stewart, dick saddler).

Even in other sports like basketball, football, etc where reach, height amd weight provide highly significant advantages, guys who are awkwardly tall and lumbering past he 6'5 250 pound mark are seldom succesful at the elite level. Is it biology? or is it modern sports that need to catch up and make the adjustments (similar to how people had to adjust to southpaws and provde alternative training methods and strategies surrounding them).

Very rare do we get really tall heavy guys who are exceptionally talented and athletic (lebron james, riddick bowe) or highly skilled (lennox lewis).

Cynus475 you're a brainless idiot... How many Cruiserweight Champions ever won a Heayvweight Championship??? How many Heavyweights in Boxing History ever had David Haye's combination of skill, speed, and punching power??? Name 10 of them.

You love to make excuses for Tyson's losses... Mike was younger than Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis... When were they past their primes??? MIke lost all 4 fights he had with them -- not by any robbery, but by getting knocked out 3 X and deliberately fouling out for his other loss.

If Valuev was trash, that makes an even better argument that height, size, and strength matter -- because those are the only attributes Valuev had... And how does a trash fighter KO Monte Brarrett??? That was after Barrett beat Dominic Guinn and most people had him beating Joe Mesi.

Was Ali-Frazier a huge size disparity??? 10 whole pounds??? ... Ali did have solid height and reach advantages---and last time I checked Ali won their trilogy.

If Riddick Bowe was exceptionally talented why did a clumsy oaf like Andrew Golota beat the crap out of him??? The Foul Pole was blown away quickly by tough Heavyweight Champions: Lewis, Brewster, and Tyson -- but the chicken-hearted oaf was able pound on the clumsy and hittable Bowe.

[Ambling Alp II]

I am adding the following: Bob Fitzimmons beating Ed Dunkorst, Tommy Loughran def Ray Impettetiere, and Sharkey beating Carnera in their first fight.

-Remember fights in which the loser was clearly not in his prime don't count. So for example Holyfield over Foreman doesn't count. Smaller guy has to be under 220 and bigger guy has to be at least 240. Smaller guy has to be great.

So here is what we have so far:
Smaller guy winning:
Fitzsimmons (170) over Dunkhorst (260)
Dempsey 187 over Willard (245)
Loughran (188) over Impelletiere (254)
Sharkey (202) over Carnera (261)
Louis (196) over Carnera (260)
Louis (207.5) over Simon (255)
Louis (206.5) over Buddy Baer (250)
Frazier (204.5) over Mathis (243)
Holyfield (208) over Douglas (246)
Holyfield (217) over Bowe (246)

Bigger guy winning against a great:
Carnera (260.5) over Sharkey (201)
Carnera (270) over Loughran (186)

So far, the smaller ATG leads 10-2 against the big heavyweights.

[lillywhite14]

Carnera's career certainly has both twists/outcomes.

He beat the much smaller/lighter Sharkey, Uzucdun and tiny Loughran but then lost to Baer who was actually only a few pounds heavier than Jack and Paulino. Was actually a bit surprised that Baer was so light.

In the modern era, Hide either did very well or fell apart against the bigger men.
He got crushed by Bowe (after a decent start) and by Vitali but stopped the much bigger Tony Tucker early.

Again, I was quite surprised that Hide was sometimes not outweighed by as much as I thought he often was at the time.
He was not that much lighter than Bentt for example and actually came in against Vitali at a fairly hefy 221lbs.

As Syntax has noted previously....Holyfield arguably remains the best example of a light man beating bigger men along with Haye seeing off the gigantic/feakish Valuev.

Didn't Hide weigh in with weights? For some reason I thought he liked to add a few lbs if he could when weighing in

[Kalan]

I am adding the following Bob Fitzimmons beating Ed Dunkorst, Tommy Loughran def Ray Impettetiere, and Sharkey beating Carnera in their first fight.

-Remember fights in which the loser was clearly not in his prime don't count. So for example Holyfield over Foreman doesn't count. Smaller guy has to be under 220 and bigger guy has to be at least 240. Smaller guy has to be great.

So here is what we have so far:
Smaller guy winning:
Fitzsimmons (170) over Dunkhorst (260)
Dempsey 187 over Willard (245)
Loughran (188) over Impelletiere (254)
Sharkey (202) over Carnera (261)
Louis (196) over Carnera (260)
Louis (207.5) over Simon (255)
Louis (206.5) over Buddy Baer (250)
Frazier (204.5) over Mathis (243)
Holyfield (208) over Douglas (246)
Holyfield (217) over Bowe (246)

Bigger guy winning against a great:
Carnera (260.5) over Sharkey (201
Carnera over Loughran

So far, the smaller ATG leads 10-2 against the big heavyweights.

FAT shouldn't count as "BIG" ... Toney was a natural Middleweight, but weighed over 240 for fights... Toney was never "BIG" he was "BIG AND FAT!!!"

Dunkhorst was FAT.. Willard was FAT... Simon was FAT... Mathis was very FAT and sometimes fought in the 220's... Douglas was FAT... Bowe was FAT

There are very few great fighters... You're limiting the small guys to "great" and picking any lout for your big guy so there's tons to choose from... Why not list small fighters who beat "great" big fighters over 240 who actually fought at their natural weight --- and without tons of blubber enhancing their poundage??? ... I think you'll find your results a little less skewed to the little guy and the big guy winning 90% of them.

[Cygnus475]

Kalan calls david haye an ATG then wonders why people have him on their ignore list.

Tyson was way past his prime against lewis. Youd know that if you knew anything about boxing.

Valuev was trash and only fought trash--hence his seemingly impressive record to the untrained eye. His "win" over an old ass holyfield was a hilarious robbery.

When the smaller guy wins it's usually due to a talent or skill deficit.

Explain ali frazier fotc.

Or several of the other examples i listed.

For me it's simple. Height, weight and reach give an advantage the majority of the time.
That advantage can be overcome by a gulf in class or a particular clash in styles and/or gameplans of the respective fighters.

Some fighter have some natural gifts that make them better suited to fighting bigger men but that is rare.

On the whole, I'd say 90% of the time a bigger man wins if all other aspects are equal but it gets ridiculous when someone starts claiming fighter A (6'7") beats fighter B (6'2") simply because of height and refuses to accept any other criteria. That shows a distinct lack of understanding and knowledge of the sports history and all the examples you've given where height was clearly not the deciding factor

But heres the thing: there arent that many "great" big men. Often trainers considered them nothing more than novelties and freak shows, rarely putting too much stock into them with rare exceptions (emmanual stewart, dick saddler).

Even in other sports like basketball, football, etc where reach, height amd weight provide highly significant advantages, guys who are awkwardly tall and lumbering past he 6'5 250 pound mark are seldom succesful at the elite level. Is it biology? or is it modern sports that need to catch up and make the adjustments (similar to how people had to adjust to southpaws and provde alternative training methods and strategies surrounding them).

Very rare do we get really tall heavy guys who are exceptionally talented and athletic (lebron james, riddick bowe) or highly skilled (lennox lewis).

Cynus475 you're a brainless idiot... How many Cruiserweight Champions ever won a Heayvweight Championship??? How many Heavyweights in Boxing History ever had David Haye's combination of skill, speed, and punching power??? Name 10 of them.

You love to make excuses for Tyson's losses... Mike was younger than Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis... When were they past their primes??? MIke lost all 4 fights he had with them -- not by any robbery, but by getting knocked out 3 X and deliberately fouling out for his other loss.

If Valuev was trash, that makes an even better argument that height, size, and strength matter -- because those are the only attributes Valuev had... And how does a trash fighter KO Monte Brarrett??? That was after Barrett beat Dominic Guinn and most people had him beating Joe Mesi.

Was Ali-Frazier a huge size disparity??? 10 whole pounds??? ... Ali did have solid height and reach advantages---and last time I checked Ali won their trilogy.

If Riddick Bowe was exceptionally talented why did a clumsy oaf like Andrew Golota beat the crap out of him??? The Foul Pole was blown away quickly by tough Heavyweight Champions: Lewis, Brewster, and Tyson -- but the chicken-hearted oaf was able pound on the clumsy and hittable Bowe.

So let me get this straight:

-david "my toe hurts" haye is an atg

-we should count tyson' loss to lewis in matchups because he was apparently he was the same fighter in 88' as he was in the early 2000's--despite not having rooney, cus, and a 3 year layoff.

-riddick bowe was overrated but valuev was a great fighter.

If you were slightly intelligent youd use bowe to support your argument about taller fighters. He was one of the most talented heavies over 6'4. Golota hit bowe with about 70 low blows, of course he didnt look good.

More nonsense from the clueless 14 year old with no friends.

[Kalan]

Kalan calls david haye an ATG then wonders why people have him on their ignore list.

Tyson was way past his prime against lewis. Youd know that if you knew anything about boxing.

Valuev was trash and only fought trash--hence his seemingly impressive record to the untrained eye. His "win" over an old ass holyfield was a hilarious robbery.



Explain ali frazier fotc.

Or several of the other examples i listed.



But heres the thing: there arent that many "great" big men. Often trainers considered them nothing more than novelties and freak shows, rarely putting too much stock into them with rare exceptions (emmanual stewart, dick saddler).

Even in other sports like basketball, football, etc where reach, height amd weight provide highly significant advantages, guys who are awkwardly tall and lumbering past he 6'5 250 pound mark are seldom succesful at the elite level. Is it biology? or is it modern sports that need to catch up and make the adjustments (similar to how people had to adjust to southpaws and provde alternative training methods and strategies surrounding them).

Very rare do we get really tall heavy guys who are exceptionally talented and athletic (lebron james, riddick bowe) or highly skilled (lennox lewis).

Cynus475 you're a brainless idiot... How many Cruiserweight Champions ever won a Heayvweight Championship??? How many Heavyweights in Boxing History ever had David Haye's combination of skill, speed, and punching power??? Name 10 of them.

You love to make excuses for Tyson's losses... Mike was younger than Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis... When were they past their primes??? MIke lost all 4 fights he had with them -- not by any robbery, but by getting knocked out 3 X and deliberately fouling out for his other loss.

If Valuev was trash, that makes an even better argument that height, size, and strength matter -- because those are the only attributes Valuev had... And how does a trash fighter KO Monte Brarrett??? That was after Barrett beat Dominic Guinn and most people had him beating Joe Mesi.

Was Ali-Frazier a huge size disparity??? 10 whole pounds??? ... Ali did have solid height and reach advantages---and last time I checked Ali won their trilogy.

If Riddick Bowe was exceptionally talented why did a clumsy oaf like Andrew Golota beat the crap out of him??? The Foul Pole was blown away quickly by tough Heavyweight Champions: Lewis, Brewster, and Tyson -- but the chicken-hearted oaf was able pound on the clumsy and hittable Bowe.

So let me get this straight:

-david "my toe hurts" haye is an atg

-we should count tyson' loss to lewis in matchups because he was apparently he was the same fighter in 88' as he was in the early 2000's--despite not having rooney, cus, and a 3 year layoff.

-riddick bowe was overrated but valuev was a great fighter.

If you were slightly intelligent youd use bowe to support your argument about taller fighters. He was one of the most talented heavies over 6'4. Golota hit bowe with about 70 low blows, of course he didnt look good.

More nonsense from the clueless 14 year old with no friends.

1. You can hurt your toe, and still be a great boxer-puncher and 2-Division World Champion at the same time. Toes will heal.

2. Tyson was responsible for the people around him, just like Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis were. Those 3 guys were older than Tyson, but beat him 3 X by knockout and 1 X because Mike fouled out---because he knew he was going to get knocked out... The excuses about any Tyson loss are still coming fast.

3. Valuev was very far from being a great fighter... I said height, weight, and reach were his only assets you idiot... He avoided the Klitschko's forever.

4. Bowe was never one of the more talented big men.. Lewis was very talented and would have taken him out faster than he did Tyson.. Lewis flattened Golota with 1 shot and Bowe couldn't put a dent in the Pole.. Bowe avoided Mercer, McCall, Tua, Tyson, Lewis, and any great big Heavyweight with a smashing punch.. Riddick hated hitters.. His brains were a little scrambled and he didn't want it to get any worse ... as he was easy to hit.

5. I have grandchildren older than 14... and they have plenty of friends as well. Do you have any?

[Cygnus475]

Cynus475 you're a brainless idiot... How many Cruiserweight Champions ever won a Heayvweight Championship??? How many Heavyweights in Boxing History ever had David Haye's combination of skill, speed, and punching power??? Name 10 of them.

You love to make excuses for Tyson's losses... Mike was younger than Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis... When were they past their primes??? MIke lost all 4 fights he had with them -- not by any robbery, but by getting knocked out 3 X and deliberately fouling out for his other loss.

If Valuev was trash, that makes an even better argument that height, size, and strength matter -- because those are the only attributes Valuev had... And how does a trash fighter KO Monte Brarrett??? That was after Barrett beat Dominic Guinn and most people had him beating Joe Mesi.

Was Ali-Frazier a huge size disparity??? 10 whole pounds??? ... Ali did have solid height and reach advantages---and last time I checked Ali won their trilogy.

If Riddick Bowe was exceptionally talented why did a clumsy oaf like Andrew Golota beat the crap out of him??? The Foul Pole was blown away quickly by tough Heavyweight Champions: Lewis, Brewster, and Tyson -- but the chicken-hearted oaf was able pound on the clumsy and hittable Bowe.

So let me get this straight:

-david "my toe hurts" haye is an atg

-we should count tyson' loss to lewis in matchups because he was apparently he was the same fighter in 88' as he was in the early 2000's--despite not having rooney, cus, and a 3 year layoff.

-riddick bowe was overrated but valuev was a great fighter.

If you were slightly intelligent youd use bowe to support your argument about taller fighters. He was one of the most talented heavies over 6'4. Golota hit bowe with about 70 low blows, of course he didnt look good.

More nonsense from the clueless 14 year old with no friends.

1. You can hurt your toe, and still be a great boxer-puncher and 2-Division World Champion at the same time. Toes will heal.

2. Tyson was responsible for the people around him, just like Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis were. Those 3 guys were older than Tyson, but beat him 3 X by knockout and 1 X because Mike fouled out---because he knew he was going to get knocked out... The excuses about any Tyson loss are still coming fast.

3. Valuev was very far from being a great fighter... I said height, weight, and reach were his only assets you idiot... He avoided the Klitschko's forever.

4. Bowe was never one of the more talented big men.. Lewis was very talented and would have taken him out faster than he did Tyson.. Lewis flattened Golota with 1 shot and Bowe couldn't put a dent in the Pole.. Bowe avoided Mercer, McCall, Tua, Tyson, Lewis, and any great big Heavyweight with a smashing punch.. Riddick hated hitters.. His brains were a little scrambled and he didn't want it to get any worse ... as he was easy to hit.

5. I have grandchildren older than 14... and they have plenty of friends as well. Do you have any?

1-haye isnt great at heavy. Haye wont even fight old ass briggs. He outpointed valuev and stopped the c level chisora...big whoop. Theres a difference between talent and actual accomplishment. Victor ortiz is very talented but a terrible boxer with a lackluster record.

2-tyson was responsible for cus dying? Tyson told don king to fire all those peoole who got him that far? Tyson as the same fighter in '88 as he was in the 2000's??? Its not about making excuses, its common sense. Tyson. Was. Not. The. Same. After. The. Layoff. Period.

3-i never disagreed with you. You lack reading comprehension. From the begining i said valuev was trash.

Your claim:

"The fact that Nicolai Valuev won a Heavyweight Championship and went 50-2 for his career speaks volumes... A 180 pound man of his ability fighting Heavyweights would have a record of 2-50... However fans only focus on 1 of the 2 fights Valuev lost when his legs were gone... That's all they see... Gene Tunney lost a fight - so why not judge him on that one? The following are examples of great little guys getting beaten by mediocre big guys."

valuev went 50-2 against nobodies. had he beaten some high calibre heavies youd have an argument. but he didnt. he was embarrassed by an old ass holyfield and schooled by the mediocre cruiserweight haye. i dont see how you can possibly spin that around to praise him for his size as if that got him far and he acconplished something.

so either way, whether you want to say he got by on size and weight or that he had actual skills, it makes him look bad considering who he lost to and how.

4-ah ok, so the REAL reason you dont want to say bowe had any skills (a complete lie, it was obvious to anyone who had seen the man fight for 2 minutes)...is becaus your whole narrative is "bigger=better". your mentality is the big guys just need to show up and bu virtue of size, win the fight. you wont concede this point no matter how idiotic because you want the narrative to be that big daddy bowe went 2-1 with holyfield (one of the most slilled heavies of all time) simply because he was "bigger".

nope, had nothing to do with his phenomenal inside game, thudding jab, punching power, excellent cardio, etc. three legendary fights with the most skilled heavy of that generation just because he was blessed with height and weight.

5-that makes it even worse if you're old enough to have grandkids and i had the impression you were their age.

[Bodyshot3]

Didn't Hide weigh in with weights? For some reason I thought he liked to add a few lbs if he could when weighing in

Anything was possible with our Herbie...I really want to read his book, appropriately titled "Nothing But Trouble."

It is also a pity that the great Jon Rendall never lasted long enough to produce a Hide book.....although with those two, things would've got messy!

I am not sure if he ever "did a Sibson" and weighed-in with a bar of lead....but as far as I can recall Hide moved up and down in weight fairly dramatically as a heavyweight. Bulking-up for the really big guys and coming in lighter for smaller opponents.

Personally, I thought when he boxed in the 210-220 range he was exactly at the right weight and a bloody nightmare; very quick, energetic and still able to hit hard enough to buzz decent opponents.

In both of his biggest fights he made huge tactical mistakes...engaging way too much with Bowe and simply not realising that Vitali could actually hit and box and was not another European Willi Fischer.

[Kalan]

So let me get this straight:

-david "my toe hurts" haye is an atg

-we should count tyson' loss to lewis in matchups because he was apparently he was the same fighter in 88' as he was in the early 2000's--despite not having rooney, cus, and a 3 year layoff.

-riddick bowe was overrated but valuev was a great fighter.

If you were slightly intelligent youd use bowe to support your argument about taller fighters. He was one of the most talented heavies over 6'4. Golota hit bowe with about 70 low blows, of course he didnt look good.

More nonsense from the clueless 14 year old with no friends.

1. You can hurt your toe, and still be a great boxer-puncher and 2-Division World Champion at the same time. Toes will heal.

2. Tyson was responsible for the people around him, just like Douglas, Holyfield, and Lewis were. Those 3 guys were older than Tyson, but beat him 3 X by knockout and 1 X because Mike fouled out---because he knew he was going to get knocked out... The excuses about any Tyson loss are still coming fast.

3. Valuev was very far from being a great fighter... I said height, weight, and reach were his only assets you idiot... He avoided the Klitschko's forever.

4. Bowe was never one of the more talented big men.. Lewis was very talented and would have taken him out faster than he did Tyson.. Lewis flattened Golota with 1 shot and Bowe couldn't put a dent in the Pole.. Bowe avoided Mercer, McCall, Tua, Tyson, Lewis, and any great big Heavyweight with a smashing punch.. Riddick hated hitters.. His brains were a little scrambled and he didn't want it to get any worse ... as he was easy to hit.

5. I have grandchildren older than 14... and they have plenty of friends as well. Do you have any?

1-haye isnt great at heavy. Haye wont even fight old ass briggs. He outpointed valuev and stopped the c level chisora...big whoop. Theres a difference between talent and actual accomplishment. Victor ortiz is very talented but a terrible boxer with a lackluster record.

2-tyson was responsible for cus dying? Tyson told don king to fire all those peoole who got him that far? Tyson as the same fighter in '88 as he was in the 2000's??? Its not about making excuses, its common sense. Tyson. Was. Not. The. Same. After. The. Layoff. Period.

3-i never disagreed with you. You lack reading comprehension. From the begining i said valuev was trash.

Your claim:

"The fact that Nicolai Valuev won a Heavyweight Championship and went 50-2 for his career speaks volumes... A 180 pound man of his ability fighting Heavyweights would have a record of 2-50... However fans only focus on 1 of the 2 fights Valuev lost when his legs were gone... That's all they see... Gene Tunney lost a fight - so why not judge him on that one? The following are examples of great little guys getting beaten by mediocre big guys."

valuev went 50-2 against nobodies. had he beaten some high calibre heavies youd have an argument. but he didnt. he was embarrassed by an old ass holyfield and schooled by the mediocre cruiserweight haye. i dont see how you can possibly spin that around to praise him for his size as if that got him far and he acconplished something.

so either way, whether you want to say he got by on size and weight or that he had actual skills, it makes him look bad considering who he lost to and how.

4-ah ok, so the REAL reason you dont want to say bowe had any skills (a complete lie, it was obvious to anyone who had seen the man fight for 2 minutes)...is becaus your whole narrative is "bigger=better". your mentality is the big guys just need to show up and bu virtue of size, win the fight. you wont concede this point no matter how idiotic because you want the narrative to be that big daddy bowe went 2-1 with holyfield (one of the most slilled heavies of all time) simply because he was "bigger".

nope, had nothing to do with his phenomenal inside game, thudding jab, punching power, excellent cardio, etc. three legendary fights with the most skilled heavy of that generation just because he was blessed with height and weight.

5-that makes it even worse if you're old enough to have grandkids and i had the impression you were their age.

Value beat Heavyweight Champions: including Sergei Liakhovich and Evander Holyfield.. He knocked out Monte Barrett who a lot of people thought would beat him. He beat Larry Donald, a good boxer who was stopped once in his career by Vitali Klitschko.. He fought undefeated Ruslan Chagaev to a close decision loss... He lost a clear decision to David Haye that was ruled a MD... He was never floored and never stopped... Not bad for a guy with 2 left feet, clumsy leads and counters, no head movement, a ridiculously bad defense, ploddingly slow movement, and terrible knees.. What he did was solely based on height, weight reach, strength and no other attributes... He accomplished a Hell of a lot more than you ever will. He was a Heavyweight Champion with multiple defenses.

Bowe was under 240 when he was in shape, but hardly ever in shape. I don't consider him a huge man but he was a lot bigger than Holyfield, who was a very small Heavyweight.. Their only representative fight was the 2nd. Holyfield was the right weight and strength. He boxed a bigger guy instead of brawling like an idiot.. In the 3rd match Evander was suffering from heart problems like the 1st Moorer fight.. He knocked Bowe flat on the canvas, but couldn't follow up. His heart problems kicked in.. In the 1st Bowe fight Evander weighed 205. He was over-trained and ridiculously weak.. I dismiss the 1st and 3rd fights completely because Evander wasn't right.. At his best Holyfield would obliterate the inept Bowe.. The Golota fights showed the real Bowe getting punched by inept swings and not getting a punching bag out of there.. Holyfield fought much better versus Tyson.. He was healthy.. He got his weight and strength up real good and was far sharper. Tyson got Golota out in 2 rounds with no trouble. He was much better than Bowe.

As for your last comment. Your impressions are light years off because you have the perception of a toddler meeting Santa Claus.

[Ambling Alp II]

I am adding the following: Bob Fitzimmons beating Ed Dunkorst, Tommy Loughran def Ray Impettetiere, and Sharkey beating Carnera in their first fight.

-Remember fights in which the loser was clearly not in his prime don't count. So for example Holyfield over Foreman doesn't count. Smaller guy has to be under 220 and bigger guy has to be at least 240. Smaller guy has to be great.

So here is what we have so far:
Smaller guy winning:
Fitzsimmons (170) over Dunkhorst (260)
Dempsey 187 over Willard (245)
Loughran (188) over Impelletiere (254)
Sharkey (202) over Carnera (261)
Louis (196) over Carnera (260)
Louis (207.5) over Simon (255)
Louis (206.5) over Buddy Baer (250)
Frazier (204.5) over Mathis (243)
Holyfield (208) over Douglas (246)
Holyfield (217) over Bowe (246)

Bigger guy winning against a great:
Carnera (260.5) over Sharkey (201)
Carnera (270) over Loughran (186)

So far, the smaller ATG leads 10-2 against the big heavyweights.

Here are two more:
Max Baer (209.5) over Primo Carnera (263)
Max Baer (204) over Jose Santa (244)

The smaller ATGs now lead 12-2 over the big heavyweights.

[keithmoonhangover]

I am adding the following: Bob Fitzimmons beating Ed Dunkorst, Tommy Loughran def Ray Impettetiere, and Sharkey beating Carnera in their first fight.

-Remember fights in which the loser was clearly not in his prime don't count. So for example Holyfield over Foreman doesn't count. Smaller guy has to be under 220 and bigger guy has to be at least 240. Smaller guy has to be great.

So here is what we have so far:
Smaller guy winning:
Fitzsimmons (170) over Dunkhorst (260)
Dempsey 187 over Willard (245)
Loughran (188) over Impelletiere (254)
Sharkey (202) over Carnera (261)
Louis (196) over Carnera (260)
Louis (207.5) over Simon (255)
Louis (206.5) over Buddy Baer (250)
Frazier (204.5) over Mathis (243)
Holyfield (208) over Douglas (246)
Holyfield (217) over Bowe (246)

Bigger guy winning against a great:
Carnera (260.5) over Sharkey (201)
Carnera (270) over Loughran (186)

So far, the smaller ATG leads 10-2 against the big heavyweights.

Here are two more:
Max Baer (209.5) over Primo Carnera (263)
Max Baer (204) over Jose Santa (244)

The smaller ATGs now lead 12-2 over the big heavyweights.

Do McCall and Rahman vs Lewis count?

[Ambling Alp II]

No. The smaller guy can't be over 220. Rahman and McCall were too big.

I was actually just counting great fighters for the smaller guys anyway. There had been a lot of debate lately about how a a great smaller heavyweight would do against a big heavyweight. People have put out their theories of why or why not weight is so important.

For this thread, instead of just spouting off theories again, I thought we should look at what has happened in these situations when it actually happened in real life.

[keithmoonhangover]

No. The smaller guy can't be over 220. Rahman and McCall were too big.

I was actually just counting great fighters for the smaller guys anyway. There had been a lot of debate lately about how a a great smaller heavyweight would do against a big heavyweight. People have put out their theories of why or why not weight is so important.

For this thread, instead of just spouting off theories again, I thought we should look at what has happened in these situations when it actually happened in real life.

[cfang]

How much did Mavrovic weigh against lewis? wasn't he like 190lb or something or have I got that wrong? Lewis was surely like 240+?

I know lewis won but lewis was a huge puncher and mavrovic took the best he had. Does this surely go some way to proving that at heavy - its not so much the size but the fighters? Just a thought.

[pound per pound]

Since Riddick Bowe onward the #1 gun has pretty much 6'4" tall or greater. Nearly 25 years have passed.

The best " smaller " heavyweight in modern times was Holyfield yet he has a losing record vs giants in Bowe and Lewis.

I have not seen a dominant heavyweight champion below 210 pounds in a long long time, and could not tell you how many men that weight was highly ranked in the past 30 years. Very few I suspect.

So yes size matters, especially when combined with skill.

Modern big men are essentially 3 weight classes above the Jack Johnson's and Rocky Marciano's of yesteryear. You don't see mismatches these days with light heavies or cruisers moving up to challenge Joshua do you?

Can a welterweight champion beat a light heavy champion?

Can a middleweight champion beat a cruiserweight champion?

Sure, but its very rare, and that's the size disparity a six-foot tall 200-pound heavyweight would be dealing with today in terms of inches, reach and weight given up are similar to the above examples.