Height Advantage at Heavyweight

[jamamb]

I am guilty of drawing my conclusion from highlights, Internet narratives, and the multiple knockdowns. I did not see the entire fight. I did see the temple shot (highlights) but he was KOed four rounds later. Certainly the effect could have lingered for the rest of the fight. --- Maybe I am wrong saying he 'got outclassed,' but I wouldn't say he 'got caught' either.

he didnt get 'caught' like lewis because he got back up and lewis didnt, but i think after the first kd he was clearly effected for the rest of the fight and this definitely played into ruiz getting the better of things.

but if aj had also been getting beaten before that it would look even worse for him, but as it played out i think it showed aj can beat and hurt ruiz in the right condition (ie not badly hurt). whether he can avoid getting badly hurt again in the question

[Cojimar 1946]

Wilder and Fury fought. That's all there is.

You can't make good match matching when you have so little talent. I guess you can have the mediocre heavyweights fight other mediocre heavyweights instead of bad heavyweights.

Nice spin with Ruiz. Interesting to see you talk about skills though. It's a start.

I think some of the up and coming prospects may have potential. Guys like Sirenko, Ajagba, Hrgovic, and Dubois. They have plenty of flaws but also some positive attributes. You might like Dubois.

[FruitStealer]

I need to give you are hard time on two points.

I don't think the Lewis comparison works; Lewis got caught; Joshua got outclassed.

Joshua's behavior after the fight, which IMO was very classy, argues he a Mr. Rogers in nature. I for one was quite impressed with his post fight actions/words.

Nailed it.
Ruiz win was not a lucky win, he simply outmatched AJ and won fairly. No excuses.
AJ already showed some stylistic flaws against Povetkin months ago. Maybe he manages tall clumsier guys better than stocky shorter faster guys.

Kudos to AJ for his behaviour on defeat tho. He seems quite an intelligent guy and capable of doing readjustments and win back his belts. Its hard not to like him even in defeat.

[HomicideHenry]

Btw.... Alp....

I'm aware by today's standards Gunboat and Pelkey wouldn't be considered giant...

But considering they were competing between 210-220 pounds and both basically 6'2" in height, while Dempsey was 187 when he fought Willard... They were "big"... After all, Jim Coffey was 6'3.5" and was known as The Roscommon Giant.

Dempsey was seen by many for a long time as nothing more than a blown up light heavyweight with heavyweight power. Firpo was 216.5 pounds and 6'2.5" and looked positively massive in comparison to Dempsey. Never mind the fact when Firpo fought Willard it was billed as "The Battle of the Giants."

I guess my point is context is king. It was a different time. Anyone over 6' and 200 pounds was considered big and anyone remotely close to 6'5" was seen as an ogre. Anyone beyond that was seen as positively gigantic.

In the olden times, you know this, that heavyweights were just as dedicated to being physically fit as their lighter weight contemporaries. They made a point of being lighter than their opponent. Jack Johnson gave Jim Jeffries crap at the weigh-in joking, "Mr Jeff this says I'm lighter than you." So if a well conditioned guy was 210-220 or better they were considered big guys.

[Ambling Alp II]

Gunboat and Pelkey were not considered giants in their own day either.

They weighed between 210-20? Well no they didn't.
Guess what? Smith weighed 178 for his fight with Dempsey. Never got to even 200.
Dempsey outweighed Smith by 12 pounds when they fought. He was only about an inch taller than Dempsey.
Pelkey usually weighed around 200. He was not considered especially big for his day.

Honestly, try looking up stuff before you post. And don't just skim. Actually read things and think about them first before posting. You are constantly saying things that simply aren't true. You try coming off as some historian but your research is sloppy.

[HomicideHenry]

Gunboat and Pelkey were not considered giants in their own day either.

They weighed between 210-20? Well no they didn't.
Guess what? Smith weighed 178 for his fight with Dempsey. Never got to even 200.
Dempsey outweighed Smith by 12 pounds when they fought. He was only about an inch taller than Dempsey.
Pelkey usually weighed around 200. He was not considered especially big for his day.

Honestly, try looking up stuff before you post. And don't just skim. Actually read things and think about them first before posting. You are constantly saying things that simply aren't true. You try coming off as some historian but your research is sloppy.

Alp, BoxRec lists Pelkey was 210 against Luther McCarty. He was routinely that weight. Gunboat was 6'2", which was a tall height FOR THAT TIME. Foreman, fifty years later, was 6'3" and 215 pounds and everyone thought Foreman was huge. You love to have it both ways.

Harry Will was another one who was huge for the era. BoxRec lists him 6'2" but we've already been over this issue the man was listed several times 6'4".

Anyways, you're a lovable curmudgeon Alp but I'm not going to be assed with you grumbling how everyone today is absolutely garbage and how size means nothing and how Jess Willard would be a champion today.

If me saying 210-220 was hefty and 6'2" is tall for the era, is grounds for dismissal, then you're Willard comment is automatic grounds for the lunatic asylum.

[Ambling Alp II]

Once again you didn't do your research (or skimmed over it again) and said something that isn't accurate.
Gunboat Smith was 6'2 which was one inch taller than Dempsey. He weighed 178 for the Dempsey fight. Nobody considered him a giant at the time. He wasn't competing at 210-220 as you claimed.

You said fighting Smith was preparation for Willard. Willard was 6'6 and weighed in the 240s. fighting a guy 6'2 178 pounds is not at all the same thing. Pelkey was heavier but nowhere near the size of Willard.

I am just pointing out that you were saying things that simply weren't true. This wasn't about my opinions.

But yes I do think the heavyweight division has been horrible the last several years. (That is hardly a controversial statement) Don't you agree with that?

[HomicideHenry]

The Lewis era and the Klitschko era was particularly poor. However, the emergence of men like Fury & Wilder & Joshua, along with Ruiz, and guys like Usyk & Hunter, etc--- the division is really start to gain depth it didn't have before.

So imho it's improving all the time.

No it's not the 90s or the 70s, but I do believe we're having an 80s revival where several good quality guys are appearing all at once.

[oogiebe]

The Lewis era and the Klitschko era was particularly poor. However, the emergence of men like Fury & Wilder & Joshua, along with Ruiz, and guys like Usyk & Hunter, etc--- the is really start to gain depth it didn't have before.

So imho it's improving all the time.

No it's not the 90s or the 70s, but I do believe we're having an 80s revival where several good quality guys are appearing all at once.

The Lewis era wasn't poor. And have you forgotten Holyfield and a late Tyson; Tua; Mercer; Mavrovic; Morrison; Bruno; Rahman; McCall; Ruddock; Even Vitali? Et al.

[Ambling Alp II]

The Lewis era was basically the 1990s which he indicates he thinks was good. Makes no sense.

"So imho it's improving all the time" contradicts his other statements.

There are no great heavyweights.
Wilder and Fury are the only proven good ones.
There a lot of mediocre heavyweights.
There are a lot of bad heavyweights.
There are a lot of heavyweights that are unknown quantities. They might be good or may develop into being good but are untested. Joshua was an unknown quantity. He has shown to be mediocre.

The only way for someone to prove they are good is to beat Fury or Wilder.

[oogiebe]

The Lewis era was basically the 1990s which he indicates he thinks was good. Makes no sense.

"So imho it's improving all the time" contradicts his other statements.

There are no great heavyweights.
Wilder and Fury are the only proven good ones.
There a lot of mediocre heavyweights.
There are a lot of bad heavyweights.
There are a lot of heavyweights that are unknown quantities. They might be good or may develop into being good but are untested. Joshua was an unknown quantity. He has shown to be mediocre.

The only way for someone to prove they are good is to beat Fury or Wilder.

We have a very competitive landscape. We have very good fighters. Do we have any greats? Let's wait for careers to finish first. Also, I don't think AJ is mediocre. Let's see what he does moving forward. Remember Lewis; Ali; etc.

[jamamb]

if you have to beat fury or wilder to prove your good, when did they prove they were good. fury vs wlad i guess...

tbh, aj actually has a deeper resume then both of them . hed already beat several opponents at least as good as ruiz, including a guy who beat ruiz. its conveable that fury or wilder could still lose to lesser fighters too

[HomicideHenry]

The Lewis era wasn't poor. And have you forgotten Holyfield and a late Tyson; Tua; Mercer; Mavrovic; Morrison; Bruno; Rahman; McCall; Ruddock; Even Vitali? Et al.

Context... Context.... Context....

The Lewis era is the late 90s-early 2000s.

That was when he was dominant and had most of the belts. Prior to that everybody and their brother seemed to have a title belt--- Seldon, Morrison, Bentt, Damiani, Bruno, etc. so he certainly wasn't "the man" but just one of many in the early and mid 90s.

Holyfield in the late 90s-early 2000s was completely shot. Mercer by that point was also shot. Ruddock & Bruno were retired. Who was really left? Byrd, Ruiz, Jones? And he never fought them.

Botha, Tua, Grant, the Rahman fights, Tyson, Vitali Klitschko... That's basically the Lewis era... When Lewis was "the man" without dispute... And it's not good retrospectively. Not really.

The Klitschko era really began with Samuel Peter onwards. Prior to that he was just a contender, WBO didn't mean much of anything back then. There really wasn't anyone who could challenge him--- and he sure wasn't going to fight his brother--- and an argument can be made MAYBE that David Haye WAS the best guy he fought in his entire reign as champion. No disrespect to Haye, but if a loudmouth cruiserweight champion was your best challenge it speaks volumes to the eras worth.

[oogiebe]

Context... Context.... Context....

The Lewis era is the late 90s-early 2000s.

That was when he was dominant and had most of the belts. Prior to that everybody and their brother seemed to have a title belt--- Seldon, Morrison, Bentt, Damiani, Bruno, etc. so he certainly wasn't "the man" but just one of many in the early and mid 90s.

Holyfield in the late 90s-early 2000s was completely shot. Mercer by that point was also shot. Ruddock & Bruno were retired. Who was really left? Byrd, Ruiz, Jones? And he never fought them.

Botha, Tua, Grant, the Rahman fights, Tyson, Vitali Klitschko... That's basically the Lewis era... When Lewis was "the man" without dispute... And it's not good retrospectively. Not really.

The Klitschko era really began with Samuel Peter onwards. Prior to that he was just a contender, WBO didn't mean much of anything back then. There really wasn't anyone who could challenge him--- and he sure wasn't going to fight his brother--- and an argument can be made MAYBE that David Haye WAS the best guy he fought in his entire reign as champion. No disrespect to Haye, but if a loudmouth cruiserweight champion was your best challenge it speaks volumes to the eras worth.

Keep making it up as you go. I'm moving on. Thanks.

[HomicideHenry]

Eras & Reigns, in my view, go hand in hand. If you were "the man" by lineal consensus or by having the most belts, Lewis & Klitschko didn't have their own era until later than you're suggesting.

[Ambling Alp II]

if you have to beat fury or wilder to prove your good, when did they prove they were good. fury vs wlad i guess...

tbh, aj actually has a deeper resume then both of them . hed already beat several opponents at least as good as ruiz, including a guy who beat ruiz. its conveable that fury or wilder could still lose to lesser fighters too

Fury was more impressive against a less washed up version of Klitschko than Joshua was. Wilder fought to a draw with Fury.

Obviously a certain point you have to go by the eye test. For the most part has looked more impressive against mediocre opponents than Joshua has. Fury has not always looked impressive but in his two biggest fights he has shown something and he has not had an embarrassing defeat yet.

Yes it conceivable that Fury or Wilder could lose to lesser fighters. However since it has not happened yet it doesn't matter. We can only go by what has actually happened.

[APerno]

Fury was more impressive against a less washed up version of Klitschko than Joshua was. Wilder fought to a draw with Fury.

Obviously a certain point you have to go by the eye test. For the most part has looked more impressive against mediocre opponents than Joshua has. Fury has not always looked impressive but in his two biggest fights he has shown something and he has not had an embarrassing defeat yet.

Yes it conceivable that Fury or Wilder could lose to lesser fighters. However since it has not happened yet it doesn't matter. We can only go by what has actually happened.

Alp prepare to be yelled on!

You, need a new word!

Other than Duran walking away from Leonard in '80 (and possibly a very few others times) prize fighters don't have embarrassing loses. They just lose.

AJ did not embarrass himself, he lost fighting . . . like a champion. (Just as Jeffries did not 'humiliate' himself.) He owes the game nothing more than that. But on the other hand we owe him the respect not to use words like exposed / humiliated / embarrassed. Those are words for the asshole pundits who make gain from a fighter's downfall to use. They think it makes them sound more like experts, like they have insight, but all it does is expose them as self aggrandizing dicks.

I understand why you are trying to separate the different levels of defeat and how that impacts a fighter's legacy, I got the point of the Fury sentence, but I got a problem with the word choice.

It is kind of like calling a journeyman a 'bum.' - They say the same thing, but one is exploitive, the other respectful.

[oogiebe]

Alp prepare to be yelled on!

You, need a new word!

Other than Duran walking away from Leonard in '80 (and possibly a very few others times) prize fighters don't have embarrassing loses. They just lose.

AJ did not embarrass himself, he lost fighting . . . like a champion. (Just as Jeffries did not 'humiliate' himself.) He owes the game nothing more than that. But on the other hand we owe him the respect not to use words like exposed / humiliated / embarrassed. Those are words for the asshole pundits who make gain from a fighter's downfall to use. They think it makes them sound more like experts, like they have insight, but all it does is expose them as self aggrandizing dicks.

I understand why you are trying to separate the different levels of defeat and how that impacts a fighter's legacy, I got the point of the Fury sentence, but I got a problem with the word choice.

It is kind of like calling a journeyman a 'bum.' - They say the same thing, but one is exploitive, the other respectful.

His flaws were indeed exposed. But to say that HE was exposed is silly. All the greats have lost, except Marciano of course, and how they came back made them the greats they are. AJ's no bum, and still is one of the best three or four HW's today. We should let him prepare his comeback and then look at how he reacts to this. So I agree with most of what you posted.

[Ambling Alp II]

Sorry if embarrassing is not a word that some people don't like. Never claimed to be a great wordsmith. He got beat convincingly by a guy that nobody was saying was very good before the fight.

As for the great losing; yes almost all did, But they also beat quality competition. Joshua has yet to do that. Few of the greats have lost so convincingly to a fighter who had so little respect.

So far he has no meaningful victories and one one-sided loss. So far Joshua has done little to prove that he is a good fighter, much less a great one.

[overhand_right]

I'd happily say that Bruce Seldon was embarrassing versus Mike Tyson, Mike Tyson was embarrassing versus Holyfield in the rematch, Audley Harrison vs Haye, Haye vs Klitscko etc. There's tons of embarrassing losses. I'm sure the King Kong-like Joshua feels embarrassed by the way a dumpy little fat man beat the bejeezus out of him.

[oogiebe]

I'd happily say that Bruce Seldon was embarrassing versus Mike Tyson, Mike Tyson was embarrassing versus Holyfield in the rematch, Audley Harrison vs Haye, Haye vs Klitscko etc. There's tons of embarrassing losses. I'm sure the King Kong-like Joshua feels embarrassed by the way a dumpy little fat man beat the bejeezus out of him.

Bruce Seldon. looked like Tarzan; fought like Jane.