Big heavyweights vs Smaller great heavyweights.

[Kalan]

How about these results?:
Muhammad Ali W15 Ernie Terrell
Mike Tyson WTKO8, W12 Razor Ruddock
Larry Holmes WTKO14 Gerry Cooney
Jimmy Young W10 George Foreman

More power to the smaller heavyweights, Kalan?

NOPE!!!!!! ... Ernie Terrell wasn't big... He weighed 202 for Doug Jones who was a little Light Heavyweight.. Terrell beat Jones with his bigger size. He wasn't the better fighter. Little Thad Spencer beat the crap out of Terrell. Ali had a bigger frame than skinny noodle Terrell.

Razor Ruddock was a raw swinger. Lennox Lewis was naturally bigger and taller and a good boxer. He smashed Ruddock out just like he did to little MIke Tyson... Mike slogged around the ring for 12 rounds with Ruddock... It was a weary, dreary fight that wore all the spectators out.. Tyson didn't have the size or power to get the swinger out of there.. Lewis did.

Cooney weighed 225... Is that real big??? NO!!! Plus he he wasn't ready and looked weak. He was one of the more punchable challengers in fistic history.

Was Young as small as Frazier???? NO! And Young could box, move, time, jab, counter, and defend Foreman's technique appropriately and Frazier couldn't do that. Frazier and Norton were the wrong styles for George. Foreman wasn't that big if he ate and trained right for every fight. George's best weight was 217 for Frazier. I was amazed how quick Foreman was in that fight. He was solid as a rock without an ounce of fat. Being over your best weight does not make you a better, faster, stronger, sharper, smoother, or harder punching fighter. You're bigger but not better.

Now, if you build your weight up through scientific, sport specific weight training---like Holyfield did for Tyson and Roy Jones did for John Ruiz---that extra weight and strength will help you. But that's very difficult to do and it's difficult to maintain... And also very difficult to undo if you want to go back down in weight and get that muscle weight off properly... And whatever muscularity you achieve, your bone frame will not get larger and taller to match it.

[Ambling Alp II]

I have a theory that HW's have overstepped their optimum size. 6'3 and 220 is about it IMO

It might be something like that. You want to have the ideal balance of advantages in power, reach, ability to take a punch, etc without sacrificing speed, defense, stamina etc.

There will always be exceptions; such as the rare biggger guy who is fast or a smaller guy with uncommon power. However, there probably is a ballpark optimum size.

[davie]

I have a theory that HW's have overstepped their optimum size. 6'3 and 220 is about it IMO

Why is it then that those ruling the division all exceed 6'4" and 230lb?

Guys like Haye and Povetkin are considered small. These guys fit your optimum criteria and are probably every bit as good if not better than Fury, Joshua, Wlad, Parker and Wilder and also carry pretty serious power, yet aren't top of the hill and are also not rated top 5 by many "in the know" types

[bollocks]

I suspect it's because there are no great 6'3 220 pounders around

[Kalan]

David Haye is 6'3" X 224 and 227 in his last 2 fights.. And he looks faster and stronger than ever.. If Haye with all his skills, speed, and power isn't considered great, why would 5'11" X 205 unskilled Joe Frazier be viewed as great??? As miserable as Frazier looked against a bigger stronger opponent who could punch much harder than Frazier, but not box too well. I'm sure if Haye fought in a different era you would consider him great.

[jezzamundo]

I have a theory that HW's have overstepped their optimum size. 6'3 and 220 is about it IMO

Why is it then that those ruling the division all exceed 6'4" and 230lb?

Guys like Haye and Povetkin are considered small. These guys fit your optimum criteria and are probably every bit as good if not better than Fury, Joshua, Wlad, Parker and Wilder and also carry pretty serious power, yet aren't top of the hill and are also not rated top 5 by many "in the know" types

Look at the guys in the past couple of decades who've been Top 10 heavyweights:
Holyfield (natural cruiserweight bulked up)
Tyson (short natural heavy, around 218lb at his best)
Tua (short natural heavy, around 225lb at his best)
Byrd (blown up cruiserweight, went down to light heavy)
RJJ (former middleweight, blown up light heavyweight)
Toney (former middleweight, obese)
Ibragimov (6'2", chubby at 220lb)
Povetkin (6'2", soft at 225lb)
JC Gomez (blown up cruiserweight)
Chambers (blown up cruiserweight, chubby at 200lb)
Chagaev (6'1", soft at 225lb)
Haye (blown up cruiserweight)
Boytsov (6'1, probably didn't deserve top 10 ranking)
Adamek (6'1, former light heavyweight, blown up cruiserweight)

Holfyfield, Tyson, Byrd, Jones, Ibragimov, Povetkin, Chagaev and Haye have all held world titles.

[Syntax Error]

David Haye is 6'3" X 224 and 227 in his last 2 fights.. And he looks faster and stronger than ever.. If Haye with all his skills, speed, and power isn't considered great, why would 5'11" X 205 unskilled Joe Frazier be viewed as great??? As miserable as Frazier looked against a bigger stronger opponent who could punch much harder than Frazier, but not box too well. I'm sure if Haye fought in a different era you would consider him great.

Haye did not look faster in his last 2 outings; he looked slower.

Also, it's difficult to say that he looked stronger when his last two opponents had been dug up from his nearest cemetery.

[Tomasino]

David Haye is 6'3" X 224 and 227 in his last 2 fights.. And he looks faster and stronger than ever.. If Haye with all his skills, speed, and power isn't considered great, why would 5'11" X 205 unskilled Joe Frazier be viewed as great??? As miserable as Frazier looked against a bigger stronger opponent who could punch much harder than Frazier, but not box too well. I'm sure if Haye fought in a different era you would consider him great.

Haye did not look faster in his last 2 outings; he looked slower.

Also, it's difficult to say that he looked stronger when his last two opponents had been dug up from his nearest cemetery.

I'd say that's up there with his most foolish posts.

[keithmoonhangover]

why would 5'11" X 205 unskilled Joe Frazier be viewed as great???.

Errr.... because he beat one of the two best heavyweights in history?

To be skilled in boxing is being able to win. It's not about footwork or hand speed or defence or power, it's about what works. Frazier was extremely well skilled.

[Kalan]

I disagree... It was perfect timing for unskilled Frazier to get Ali, who was the biggest sucker in the world for left hooks -- Frazier's best punch... Also Ali was not a banger who could make Frazier pay dearly for being so wide open.. If Frazier came up when Foreman was champ he'd just be another in a long line of defeated challengers.. Frazier ran over a lot of teeny guys such as Quarry, Ellis (who fought most of his career fights as a Middleweight), Bonavena, Zyglewitcz, Daniels, etc.. In an era of tiny Heavyweights Frazier could overpower those little guys and absorb everything they offered.

Little Jimmy Young certainly had no punching power, but had the skills to deal with Foreman... Frazier??? ... Foreman hasn't missed him with a punch yet.

When the 6'3" X 217 rock hard, ripped to shreds, hard punching---and in spectacular shape for that fight---Foreman came along... Frazier had the chance of a snowball in Hell... Even 10 years later Heavyweights were a lot bigger and stronger -- as little Leon Spinks found out when he faced some real men and got FLATTENED many times... Ali was the only good Heavyweight Spinks beat... Ali could hit Leon and Norton too -- just not very hard.

[Ambling Alp II]

As mentioned earlier, Frazier defeated Buster Mathis, who weighed 243 pounds.
The big heavyweights are 2-15 vs the smaller great fighters.

[keithmoonhangover]

As mentioned earlier, Frazier defeated Buster Mathis, who weighed 243 pounds.
The big heavyweights are 2-15 vs the smaller great fighters.

Yes, but that's a fact and Kalan doesn't really use them.

[Kalan]

As mentioned earlier, Frazier defeated Buster Mathis, who weighed 243 pounds.
The big heavyweights are 2-15 vs the smaller great fighters.

Buster Mathis wasn't big you idiot... He was FAT!!! ... He weighed 220 for Amos Lincoln (check it out) and 280 for Claude McBride.. That's 60 pounds of fat right there, but he had a lot more to take off if he really got to it... For my money he could have made 200 if he really got down -- into the kind of ripped condition George Foreman achieved for Frazier 1.

Just about all of those "big" guys you mention were actually FAT!!!... You could weigh 300 too if you ate like a fking swine.

[Tomasino]

why would 5'11" X 205 unskilled Joe Frazier be viewed as great???.

Errr.... because he beat one of the two best heavyweights in history?

To be skilled in boxing is being able to win. It's not about footwork or hand speed or defence or power, it's about what works. Frazier was extremely well skilled.

Frazier was fast, had good head movement, was a big puncher with an iron chin and incredible will to win. He was fearless in the ring and could slug toe to toe with anyone not named George Foreman. I don't know anyone who is into boxing that doesn't think Frazier was great.

[Tomasino]

As mentioned earlier, Frazier defeated Buster Mathis, who weighed 243 pounds.
The big heavyweights are 2-15 vs the smaller great fighters.

Buster Mathis wasn't big you idiot... He was FAT!!! ... He weighed 220 for Amos Lincoln (check it out) and 280 for Claude McBride.. That's 60 pounds of fat right there, but he had a lot more to take off if he really got to it... For my money he could have made 200 if he really got down -- into the kind of ripped condition George Foreman achieved for Frazier 1.

Just about all of those "big" guys you mention were actually FAT!!!... You could weigh 300 too if you ate like a fking swine.

Are you describing modern day heavyweights, little one?

[Kalan]

NO you little brainless turd... I'm describing fat, blubbery Buster Mathis -- who sometimes weighed 220 and sometimes weighed 280

[Ambling Alp II]

Mathis may have been the most mobile fighter ever that weighed over 240.
15-2 for the smaller heavyweights.

[keithmoonhangover]

NO you little brainless turd... I'm describing fat, blubbery Buster Mathis -- who sometimes weighed 220 and sometimes weighed 280

Mathis may not have been ripped, but he was a solid contender.

[Kalan]

Mathis may have been the most mobile fighter ever that weighed over 240.
15-2 for the smaller heavyweights.

Most mobile Heavyweight over 240 was Wladimir Klitschko... in the Fast Eddie Chambers (little guy) and Ray Austin fights... As I said Buster Mathis wasn't big because he weighed 220 for Amos Lincoln... Little Tomasz Ademk was more solid at 216 when he was 44-1 and trounced by Vitali Klitschko

[Tomasino]

I'd suggest we all (the forum users who know boxing) just ignore this loser Kalan from now on.

Yes it's tempting to poke him with a stick, he always reacts the way you expect and posts some hilariously uninformed rubbish but it's clogging the forum up with pure bullshit and I'm now seeing people try their best to find common ground with him, only for him to insult them and post more dog shit.

It's just a suggestion

[Kalan]

Mathis lost 3 of his last 4 fights, beating only Claude McBride, a Butter Bean type who had fought nothing but creampuffs... Buster was washed up at 29.

[Kalan]

Tomasino somebody poked you with a stick and it went all the way through your brain.

[Tomasino]

Tomasino somebody poked you with a stick and it went all the way through your brain.

I find your posts that are loosely based on boxing funnier. The fact remains, you are an unwelcome member of the forum.

[cfang]

why would 5'11" X 205 unskilled Joe Frazier be viewed as great???.

Errr.... because he beat one of the two best heavyweights in history?

To be skilled in boxing is being able to win. It's not about footwork or hand speed or defence or power, it's about what works. Frazier was extremely well skilled.

Frazier was fast, had good head movement, was a big puncher with an iron chin and incredible will to win. He was fearless in the ring and could slug toe to toe with anyone not named George Foreman. I don't know anyone who is into boxing that doesn't think Frazier was great.

[elmersalsa]

Anthony Joshua greater than Smokin' Joe? My ass!