Today VS Yesteryear: Has HW Punching Power Increased?

[Duran1970]

Fury would beat Rock

A lot of great and even very good fighters would. Mainly because he was right in your face just trying to outslug you and outpower you, and he wasn't particularly fast in spite of his size.

I can't imagine a guy with his style is gonna fare too well going up against significantly larger men.

I can.

[Controversial]

He did it once. Marciano much more.

Done what once?

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

There are 2 parts to this.

The answer is yes... thats basic physics

Does it mean this eras hw fighters are better? Conditioned better? As good at setting up power shots? Id say no

[Ghost Town Ghost]

Here's how I picture Marciano vs Fury going:

Fury comes out looking to crush the smaller man, throwing huge overhand rights that continually sail over the tiny, crouching Rock's head. As Rocky bores in and works the body, Fury immediately tries to lean on him but finds Marciano too low to the ground!! Rocky ducks even lower, drawing him towards the ground and spins out, fatiguing the huge gypsy king who has to constantly aright his bulk.

I see this scenario repeating until the 9th or 10th rd when Fury, his razor sharp boxing intellect telling him he must switch to a plan B, tries to jab and move - but he can barely lift his arms as a result of the body punishment. Marciano, sensing blood, drives Fury back, leaps in the air and lands the big right, sending him through the ropes and landing right next to Jim Lampley.

[Enlightened-One]

There are 2 parts to this.

The answer is yes... thats basic physics

Does it mean this eras hw fighters are better? Conditioned better? As good at setting up power shots? Id say no

Would you consider Rocky Marciano to be better conditioned and also possessing superior technique required to set-up power shots than the prime 175lbs versions of Sergey Kovalev and Roy Jones Jr?

That’s the main problem, because heavyweights from yesteryear were the physical equivalent of today’s light heavyweights or small cruiserweights.

[Jeff_lacy_ko]

There are 2 parts to this.

The answer is yes... thats basic physics

Does it mean this eras hw fighters are better? Conditioned better? As good at setting up power shots? Id say no

Would you consider Rocky Marciano to be better conditioned and also possessing superior technique required to set-up power shots than the prime 175lbs versions of Sergey Kovalev and Roy Jones Jr?

Sergey id say he is better. Roy.... yes although roy has so much more speed the comparison is tough to make

[Enlightened-One]

Would you consider Rocky Marciano to be better conditioned and also possessing superior technique required to set-up power shots than the prime 175lbs versions of Sergey Kovalev and Roy Jones Jr?

Sergey id say he is better. Roy.... yes although roy has so much more speed the comparison is tough to make

That’s the main problem, because heavyweights from yesteryear were the physical equivalent of today’s light heavyweights or small cruiserweights.

It’s not an apples to apples comparison.

[margaret thatcher]

Joe Smith was 6'1 190 fight night vs 6'2 187 Sully Barrera. It was a LHW fight

[Thomastearns]

Imagine the scenario towards the end of the Fury v Wilder rematch.

Replay Fury's attempts to despatch the beaten Wilder.

Now imagine Wilder being on the end of Marciano's right cross (I can't speak for Kovalev or Jones Jr - neither was a single punch knockout artist comparable to the Rock).

Simply no comparison. None at all.

You can simply forget about what would happen if a peak Mike Tyson had got Deontay Wilder in trouble.

And yet, yet, Tyson Fury is much taller, much bigger, much heavier than either of those 'small' men.

So how can this possibly be?
Doesn't equate.
Something must be wrong in the analysis.
Size matters most, doesn't it??
What could be wrong with this logic?

False premise syndrome - based on an optical illusion maybe?
Sometimes gets experienced detectives too.

Perhaps both Marciano and Tyson punched a lot harder than Fury. Perhaps both Marciano and Tyson were both lethal knockout artists?

Perhaps Tyson Fury isn't a lethal knockout artist.

Maybe his punching power, shock horror, is actually less than Rocky Marciano's!

[margaret thatcher]

Small doesnt really need to be in quotes, Rock was obviously a tiny hw no matter how hard he hit. He weighs the same as light heavys and had the reach of a junior lightweight

[Controversial]

Imagine the scenario towards the end of the Fury v Wilder rematch.

Replay Fury's attempts to despatch the beaten Wilder.

Now imagine Wilder being on the end of Marciano's right cross (I can't speak for Kovalev or Jones Jr - neither was a single punch knockout artist comparable to the Rock).

Simply no comparison. None at all.

You can simply forget about what would happen if a peak Mike Tyson had got Deontay Wilder in trouble.

And yet, yet, Tyson Fury is much taller, much bigger, much heavier than either of those 'small' men.

So how can this possibly be?
Doesn't equate.
Something must be wrong in the analysis.
Size matters most, doesn't it??
What could be wrong with this logic?

False premise syndrome - based on an optical illusion maybe?
Sometimes gets experienced detectives too.

Perhaps both Marciano and Tyson punched a lot harder than Fury. Perhaps both Marciano and Tyson were both lethal knockout artists?

Perhaps Tyson Fury isn't a lethal knockout artist.

Maybe his punching power, shock horror, is actually less than Rocky Marciano's!

I haven't read the other posts but I'm not sure anyone said Fury hit harder than Marciano. Fury isn't a huge puncher because he doesn't try to be. He doesn't plant his feet, his game is about hitting and not being hit and outboxing his opponents. He isn't a natural knockout artist.

[gilgamesh]

Small doesnt really need to be in quotes, Rock was obviously a tiny hw no matter how hard he hit. He weighs the same as light heavys and had the reach of a junior lightweight

For what it's worth Marciano holds 3 KO wins over opponents who came in weighing in excess of 220 pounds. Granted they were no world beaters, but nevertheless he beat 'em.

By KO.

[margaret thatcher]

Sure, still a small ass

[gilgamesh]

Sure, still a small ass

Obviously an exceptional talent for his size though. While I figure he'd get beaten by his fair share of guys who came after him, I think he'd surprise some naysayers too with guys he'd manage to beat that you might not think he could.

[Controversial]

How many eras would Marciano go undefeated? It was post WW2, the HW division wasn’t strong and had a lot of older guys coming to the end of their careers when Marciano was on the way up. As much as I like Marciano you can’t ignore the fact that guys like Louis and Charles just weren’t the fighters they once were and they still were not exactly easy fights for Marciano either.

If you dropped Fury into the 1950s and Marciano into the current HW division I’d fancy Fury to have more success. Marciano would need to bulk up to be a HW and that would more likely affect his stamina. Marciano had wars with little guys, can you honestly see him going toe to toe with the behemoths of today.

Being big at HW is a better advantage than being small in most cases. What I don't get is some people think Usyk will struggle at HW as he won't be big enough yet he's 6'3" with a 78" reach the same physical dimensions as Muhammad Ali. Also Usyk is technically far superior to Marciano in boxing skill and ability but somehow Marciano would still be successful.

[Enlightened-One]

This is a long post, but I feel it’s worth reading…

Many people are blinded by rose-tinted nostalgia, to the point they allow sentimentality to filter out all the bad bits about history, resulting in them viewing the past better than it really was, without considering the fact that evolution really does exist.

The weird thing is, the same individuals are often nostalgic and romanticise about historical events that occurred before they were even born, because they feel that almost everything from the past is better anything from today.

Extensive research tells us that memories aren’t accurate, because people are not only intentionally selective about their thoughts, but their recollections are often also distorted, due to them exaggerating the positive or negative aspects of certain historical events.

Researchers have also found that ageing brains allow negative memories to fade, resulting in older people having a distorted impression of how great things were during their younger days.

Scientists also believe that younger people (due to differences in lifestyle) have to adopt a different brain strategy than their older counterparts, since they need accurate memory for positive and negative things, whereas the elders filter out the negatives of the past as a coping mechanism.

And as we already know, many of the BoxRec forum community are in their late stages of middle age, hence their beliefs that Harry Greb decimates today’s middleweights, even though they’ve never even seen him fight… and them also having other bizarre thoughts, such as being convinced that Rocky Marciano would beat Tyson Fury, despite the American being almost 100lbs lighter and a foot shorter than the Brit.

Therefore, the older members of the BoxRec forum community will always believe that size is irrelevant and that heavyweights from yesteryear are much more superior in every possible way (such as punching power) than today’s big men, regardless of the facts, figures, eyeball test, opinions of experts etc.

I hate to break it to you guys, I’ve never seen a man KO’d because of nostalgia or sentimentality, but for some, those emotions (at least in terms of forum debates) appear to always trump everything presented to them that accurately reflects objective reality.

[Counter-puncher]

you lot are really going through all this again?

[Controversial]

This is a long post, but I feel it’s worth reading…

Many people are blinded by rose-tinted nostalgia, to the point they allow sentimentality to filter out all the bad bits about history, resulting in them viewing the past better than it really was, without considering the fact that evolution really does exist.

The weird thing is, the same individuals are often nostalgic and romanticise about historical events that occurred before they were even born, because they feel that almost everything from the past is better anything from today.

Extensive research tells us that memories aren’t accurate, because people are not only intentionally selective about their thoughts, but their recollections are often also distorted, due to them exaggerating the positive or negative aspects of certain historical events.

Researchers have also found that ageing brains allow negative memories to fade, resulting in older people having a distorted impression of how great things were during their younger days.

Scientists also believe that younger people (due to differences in lifestyle) have to adopt a different brain strategy than their older counterparts, since they need accurate memory for positive and negative things, whereas the elders filter out the negatives of the past as a coping mechanism.

And as we already know, many of the BoxRec forum community are in their late stages of middle age, hence their beliefs that Harry Greb decimates today’s middleweights, even though they’ve never even seen him fight… and them also having other bizarre thoughts, such as being convinced that Rocky Marciano would beat Tyson Fury, despite the American being almost 100lbs lighter and a foot shorter than the Brit.

Therefore, the older members of the BoxRec forum community will always believe that size is irrelevant and that heavyweights from yesteryear are much more superior in every possible way (such as punching power) than today’s big men, regardless of the facts, figures, eyeball test, opinions of experts etc.

I hate to break it to you guys, I’ve never seen a man KO’d because of nostalgia or sentimentality, but for some, those emotions (at least in terms of forum debates) appear to always trump everything presented to them that accurately reflects objective reality.

I agree with the rose tinted glasses analogy. Even taking sport out the equation most things I remember as a kid, be it a TV show, game etc... are pretty crap when you look at them today. I remember playing football manager on the Spectrum and thinking it was the best game ever, it wouldn't hold my interest at all anymore but the new type of football management games would.

My other half's elderly mum died and the dad would say how him and his wife never argued in all the years they were together, yet my partner said they were always arguing and falling out, but that's how her dad now remembers it. I'm in the older middle aged category and in some ways I think the older fighters were better as they often fought more regularly, were allowed to lose and learn their trade, whereas today fighters are often carefully matched to protect their unbeaten records. But in regards to size at HW I'm a Marciano fan but as fit and disciplined as he was, there is no getting away from the fact he was small and fought in a weak era and as much as I'd love him to be a success at HW today I just can't see it happening.

[Enlightened-One]

This is a long post, but I feel it’s worth reading…

Many people are blinded by rose-tinted nostalgia, to the point they allow sentimentality to filter out all the bad bits about history, resulting in them viewing the past better than it really was, without considering the fact that evolution really does exist.

The weird thing is, the same individuals are often nostalgic and romanticise about historical events that occurred before they were even born, because they feel that almost everything from the past is better anything from today.

Extensive research tells us that memories aren’t accurate, because people are not only intentionally selective about their thoughts, but their recollections are often also distorted, due to them exaggerating the positive or negative aspects of certain historical events.

Researchers have also found that ageing brains allow negative memories to fade, resulting in older people having a distorted impression of how great things were during their younger days.

Scientists also believe that younger people (due to differences in lifestyle) have to adopt a different brain strategy than their older counterparts, since they need accurate memory for positive and negative things, whereas the elders filter out the negatives of the past as a coping mechanism.

And as we already know, many of the BoxRec forum community are in their late stages of middle age, hence their beliefs that Harry Greb decimates today’s middleweights, even though they’ve never even seen him fight… and them also having other bizarre thoughts, such as being convinced that Rocky Marciano would beat Tyson Fury, despite the American being almost 100lbs lighter and a foot shorter than the Brit.

Therefore, the older members of the BoxRec forum community will always believe that size is irrelevant and that heavyweights from yesteryear are much more superior in every possible way (such as punching power) than today’s big men, regardless of the facts, figures, eyeball test, opinions of experts etc.

I hate to break it to you guys, I’ve never seen a man KO’d because of nostalgia or sentimentality, but for some, those emotions (at least in terms of forum debates) appear to always trump everything presented to them that accurately reflects objective reality.

I agree with the rose tinted glasses analogy. Even taking sport out the equation most things I remember as a kid, be it a TV show, game etc... are pretty crap when you look at them today. I remember playing football manager on the Spectrum and thinking it was the best game ever, it wouldn't hold my interest at all anymore but the new type of football management games would.

My other half's elderly mum died and the dad would say how him and his wife never argued in all the years they were together, yet my partner said they were always arguing and falling out, but that's how her dad now remembers it. I'm in the older middle aged category and in some ways I think the older fighters were better as they often fought more regularly, were allowed to lose and learn their trade, whereas today fighters are often carefully matched to protect their unbeaten records. But in regards to size at HW I'm a Marciano fan but as fit and disciplined as he was, there is no getting away from the fact he was small and fought in a weak era and as much as I'd love him to be a success at HW today I just can't see it happening.

I’m nostalgic about certain things too and it’s fairly easy to recognise the same emotion when others reminisce about the past, causing their recollections to become unrealistically positive in nature.

It’s a perfectly natural human emotion that every single one of us possesses. It’s not a character flaw.

Nostalgia prevents us from holding grudges and being overwhelmed about so many negative things that have occurred in our lives. We couldn’t forgive others if our sentimentality didn’t force our negative memories to fade away.

However, I do feel that we shouldn’t be blinded by such sentimentality, by ignoring evolution.

And I guess that’s part of the reason why I wrote that post, it wasn’t meant to criticise older people per se, but it was aimed to persuade them to recognise the fact they’ve based their opinions on nostalgia alone.

An analogy would those that watched a classic movie a few decades ago, when they were kids, believing it to be remarkable and much better than anything we currently see, but then after watching it again today to only realise it hasn’t aged well and that it wasn’t even that good in the first place.

I just want people to “watch that movie again” and to compare it against today’s standards to see how much things have evolved.

[Controversial]

I agree with the rose tinted glasses analogy. Even taking sport out the equation most things I remember as a kid, be it a TV show, game etc... are pretty crap when you look at them today. I remember playing football manager on the Spectrum and thinking it was the best game ever, it wouldn't hold my interest at all anymore but the new type of football management games would.

My other half's elderly mum died and the dad would say how him and his wife never argued in all the years they were together, yet my partner said they were always arguing and falling out, but that's how her dad now remembers it. I'm in the older middle aged category and in some ways I think the older fighters were better as they often fought more regularly, were allowed to lose and learn their trade, whereas today fighters are often carefully matched to protect their unbeaten records. But in regards to size at HW I'm a Marciano fan but as fit and disciplined as he was, there is no getting away from the fact he was small and fought in a weak era and as much as I'd love him to be a success at HW today I just can't see it happening.

I’m nostalgic about certain things too and it’s fairly easy to recognise the same emotion when others reminisce about the past, causing their recollections to become unrealistically positive.

It’s a perfectly natural human emotion that every single one of us possesses. It’s not a character flaw.

Nostalgia prevents us from holding grudges and being overwhelmed about so many negative things that have occurred in our lives. We couldn’t forgive others if our sentimentality didn’t force our negative memories to fade away.

However, I do feel that we shouldn’t be blinded by such sentimentality, by ignoring evolution.

And I guess that’s part of the reason why I wrote that post, it wasn’t meant to criticise older people per se, but it was aimed to persuade them to recognise the fact they’ve based their opinions on nostalgia alone.

An analogy would those that watched a classic movie a few decades ago, when they were kids, believing it to be remarkable and better than anything we currently see, but then after watching it again today to only realise it hasn’t aged well and that it wasn’t even that good in the first place.

I just want people to “watch that movie again” and to compare it against today’s standards to see how much things have evolved.

Except we can watch a lot of old fighters so in that sense it isn't nostalgia as we can see they could fight. But using Ali as an example he wasn't great in every fight and was in some close ones too so in that sense some people seem to forget that. It also depends how far back you go, watching some of the fighters from the early 1900s they don't look technical at all and quite amaterish. I'm not a fan of comparing eras though, it was what it was at that time, if a fighter was the best at that point in time, then he was the best. Fighters like SRR would be great in any era, others maybe not so great.

[Enlightened-One]

I’m nostalgic about certain things too and it’s fairly easy to recognise the same emotion when others reminisce about the past, causing their recollections to become unrealistically positive.

It’s a perfectly natural human emotion that every single one of us possesses. It’s not a character flaw.

Nostalgia prevents us from holding grudges and being overwhelmed about so many negative things that have occurred in our lives. We couldn’t forgive others if our sentimentality didn’t force our negative memories to fade away.

However, I do feel that we shouldn’t be blinded by such sentimentality, by ignoring evolution.

And I guess that’s part of the reason why I wrote that post, it wasn’t meant to criticise older people per se, but it was aimed to persuade them to recognise the fact they’ve based their opinions on nostalgia alone.

An analogy would those that watched a classic movie a few decades ago, when they were kids, believing it to be remarkable and better than anything we currently see, but then after watching it again today to only realise it hasn’t aged well and that it wasn’t even that good in the first place.

I just want people to “watch that movie again” and to compare it against today’s standards to see how much things have evolved.

Except we can watch a lot of old fighters so in that sense it isn't nostalgia as we can see they could fight. But using Ali as an example he wasn't great in every fight and was in some close ones too so in that sense some people seem to forget that. It also depends how far back you go, watching some of the fighters from the early 1900s they don't look technical at all and quite amaterish. I'm not a fan of comparing eras though, it was what it was at that time, if a fighter was the best at that point in time, then he was the best. Fighters like SRR would be great in any era, others maybe not so great.

I agree with everything you say, except for your claim about there being a “lot of videos” from yesteryear.

There might be half a dozen or so videos of Rocky Marciano’s fights (in low quality I might add), but there are very few videos of his opponents other bouts, hence they’re often viewed without context.

The assumption that many others have (not you), is that Marciano’s opposition is superior than most of today’s fighters’, but this is highly unlikely to be the case.

[Controversial]

Except we can watch a lot of old fighters so in that sense it isn't nostalgia as we can see they could fight. But using Ali as an example he wasn't great in every fight and was in some close ones too so in that sense some people seem to forget that. It also depends how far back you go, watching some of the fighters from the early 1900s they don't look technical at all and quite amaterish. I'm not a fan of comparing eras though, it was what it was at that time, if a fighter was the best at that point in time, then he was the best. Fighters like SRR would be great in any era, others maybe not so great.

I agree with everything you say, except for your claim about there being a “lot of videos” from yesteryear.

There might be half a dozen or so videos of Rocky Marciano’s fights (in low quality I might add), but there are very few videos of his opponents other bouts, hence they’re often viewed without context.

The assumption that many others have (not you), is that Marciano’s opposition is superior than most of today’s fighters’, but this is highly unlikely to be the case.

No I meant in the terms of nostalgia, it would only be nostalgic if we were going by memory alone, we can watch some of the older fighters albeit I agree there isn't always a lot of fights to choose from. Ezzard Charles was a great fighter but times were different back then, it wasn't unusual for the better fighters to have second jobs, take fights at short notice and just to put food on the table. Charles had 7 fights in 1951 (one was 9 days after the previous one), today guys are lucky to fight twice a year. So some fighters have several losses which gives the impression they couldn't fight, records can be deceiving. Even today there a fighters who could be so much better than they are but don't have the funding or backing to support their careers and end up as journeymen or not fulfilling their full potential.

[Counter-puncher]

[Ambling Alp II]

Sure, still a small ass

Obviously an exceptional talent for his size though. While I figure he'd get beaten by his fair share of guys who came after him, I think he'd surprise some naysayers too with guys he'd manage to beat that you might not think he could.

Which is what some people just don't get. He puncher as hard as almost anyone. He was better conditioned than just about any heavyweight. He threw more punches than just about anyone. How successful Fury going to be in another era when landing less than 10 punches a round?
The number on the scale is not going to bail him out.

[Thomastearns]

Enlightened-One wrote,

"An analogy would those that watched a classic movie a few decades ago, when they were kids, believing it to be remarkable and much better than anything we currently see, but then after watching it again today to only realise it hasn’t aged well and that it wasn’t even that good in the first place.

I just want people to “watch that movie again” and to compare it against today’s standards to see how much things have evolved."



A very poor analogy according to those cineastes at the BFI.

Your mileage may vary, but I'm strongly inclined to agree with them.

https://www.bfi.org.uk/greatest-films-all-time