Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

[Onetimeonly]

not enough debate around this subject

Indeed, I'm sure someone has changed their mind about Frazier being more dangerous than wilder.

Lol, I just clicked on the thread to see who bumped it from 9 years ago.

[Controversial]

not enough debate around this subject

Indeed, I'm sure someone has changed their mind about Frazier being more dangerous than wilder.

Lol, I just clicked on the thread to see who bumped it from 9 years ago.

What thread from 9 years ago about Wilder?

[Bodyshot3]

I thought the Price point was well made by Controversial.

Just as mammoth as Fury and when given a target.....much more of a game-over puncher.
Price also looked trimmer/more defined.

But the key point of difference is that Fury has a wider range of punches, can move in any direction better both whether attacking or defending and uses his size, height and reach far better. And when necessary, he can unload.

I know Ambling has his doubts about Fury - and that's fair enough - but I really do think he differs from some of the recent generations of monster heavyweights.

The way he outboxed and blunted WK was sublime (that's still his best win for me) and he was altogether more rounded than Price who used a ramrod jab and hoped for openings with his power shots.

Fury is kind of an evolution Heavyweight; massive and bullying when forced to have a firefight but happy to be technical and able to box-and-win when the opportunity is there.

I don't see Fury swiping at air, running out of ideas/energy or being countered in the way some many other massive guys did in the past. If you want to swap jabs and feints; he'll oblige you.

[DrDuke]

I thought the Price point was well made by Controversial.

Just as mammoth as Fury and when given a target.....much more of a game-over puncher.
Price also looked trimmer/more defined.

But the key point of difference is that Fury has a wider range of punches, can move in any direction better both whether attacking or defending and uses his size, height and reach far better. And when necessary, he can unload.

I know Ambling has his doubts about Fury - and that's fair enough - but I really do think he differs from some of the recent generations of monster heavyweights.

The way he outboxed and blunted WK was sublime (that's still his best win for me) and he was altogether more rounded than Price who used a ramrod jab and hoped for openings with his power shots.

Fury is kind of an evolution Heavyweight; massive and bullying when forced to have a firefight but happy to be technical and able to box-and-win when the opportunity is there.

I don't see Fury swiping at air, running out of ideas/energy or being countered in the way some many other massive guys did in the past. If you want to swap jabs and feints; he'll oblige you.

That's right.

Fury is a one of the most diverse heavies ever and amongst everything in his arsenal the Gypsy King definitely has an ability to make an advantage of size.

[Ambling Alp II]

I think we need to put some nuance in our thinking. We need to get away from thinking the bigger the better. It simply doesn't work that way.

What we need to understand is ideal size.
In the NFL, look at quarterbacks. If you are 5'9 and weigh 160, you aren't going to be a quarterback. However, you also aren't going to if you are 6'7 and 280. If you have to be tall enough to see well and weigh enough so that you don't get tackled easily. However, you can't be so big that you can't move.

In the NBA, you aren't going to be a center if you are "only" 6'6. There have been centers over 7'2. How many great ones have there been over 7;2? None. Very few good ones.
The best centers have been between 6'9 and 7"2.

Same with boxing.
Small heavyweights usually don't have the power and the ability to take punishment to be great.
Really big heavyweights are usually too slow, too easy to hit, and don't have ideal stamina to be great.
There has never been a great heavyweight bigger than Lennox Lewis. He has been an exception.

Obviously there are exceptions. which is why we need to go by what a fighter can do, and not be so obsessed up about weight.

QB's have grown tremendously over time. Currently (of course still exceptions) teams are looking at 6'4"/6' 5" and 225-245 lbs and more. That is almost as big as offensive linemen were in the late sixties and early seventies. Heavyweights as well. Even NBA centers are almost all around 7' tall nowadays. 7 footers were rare late sixties late seventies and have grown over time. All athletes. They are and will always be getting bigger; stronger; faster; and more athletic.

EDIT:
Kareem Abdul Jabbar NBA HOF 7'2"

Yao Ming NBA HOF 7'4"

Arvydas Sabonis NBA HOF 7'3"

Artis Gilmore NBA HOF 7'2"

I'm sure there are others.

I said over 7'2. I had Kareem and Gilmore in mind. Sabonis and Yao Ming were not great players. Not even close.

Centers have never worse than right now. Most centers were close to 7'0 in the late 1960s. and early 1970s.
They are and will always be getting bigger; stronger; faster; and more athletic? Don't buy that at all. It's just something people say, without thinking much about it. Are we going to pretend that the NBA is better than ever as well?

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes Holyfield lost to Bowe. He also beat Bowe. He also beat several other fighters much bigger than him. Tyson lost to Douglas. He probably would have beaten Douglas 9 of 10 times. He too beat many fighters bigger than him.

Because Holyfield and Tyson were great fighters and the bigger guys they beat invariably weren't great or past their best. Bowe was a good fighter and gave Holyfield hell and was the only fighter to stop Holyfield in his better years, ignoring the Toney stoppage loss 8 years later when Holyfield was on the slide. That's ignoring all the alleged rumours of PEDs too.

You certainly can argue that Holyfield was not in his better years when Bowe stopped him. and Holyfield almost stopped Bowe earlier in the fight.

I agree that Tyson didn't beat any great fighters who were bigger than himself. Holyfield did beat Bowe. (They both beat several good ones.)
That is sort of my point. There simply are many really many big fighters who were great. So far we have had Lewis and for a shorter time Bowe. That's it.

[oogiebe]

I think we need to put some nuance in our thinking. We need to get away from thinking the bigger the better. It simply doesn't work that way.

What we need to understand is ideal size.
In the NFL, look at quarterbacks. If you are 5'9 and weigh 160, you aren't going to be a quarterback. However, you also aren't going to if you are 6'7 and 280. If you have to be tall enough to see well and weigh enough so that you don't get tackled easily. However, you can't be so big that you can't move.

In the NBA, you aren't going to be a center if you are "only" 6'6. There have been centers over 7'2. How many great ones have there been over 7;2? None. Very few good ones.
The best centers have been between 6'9 and 7"2.

Same with boxing.
Small heavyweights usually don't have the power and the ability to take punishment to be great.
Really big heavyweights are usually too slow, too easy to hit, and don't have ideal stamina to be great.
There has never been a great heavyweight bigger than Lennox Lewis. He has been an exception.

Obviously there are exceptions. which is why we need to go by what a fighter can do, and not be so obsessed up about weight.

QB's have grown tremendously over time. Currently (of course still exceptions) teams are looking at 6'4"/6' 5" and 225-245 lbs and more. That is almost as big as offensive linemen were in the late sixties and early seventies. Heavyweights as well. Even NBA centers are almost all around 7' tall nowadays. 7 footers were rare late sixties late seventies and have grown over time. All athletes. They are and will always be getting bigger; stronger; faster; and more athletic.

EDIT:
Kareem Abdul Jabbar NBA HOF 7'2"

Yao Ming NBA HOF 7'4"

Arvydas Sabonis NBA HOF 7'3"

Artis Gilmore NBA HOF 7'2"

I'm sure there are others.

I said over 7'2. I had Kareem and Gilmore in mind. Sabonis and Yao Ming were not great players. Not even close.

Centers have never worse than right now. Most centers were close to 7'0 in the late 1960s. and early 1970s.
They are and will always be getting bigger; stronger; faster; and more athletic? Don't buy that at all. It's just something people say, without thinking much about it. Are we going to pretend that the NBA is better than ever as well?

Never said 'better.' This thread is about size. It is a fact that athletes are bigger; faster; and stronger in sports than years ago and it continues. Every year the average offensive lineman in college football is bigger than the avg NFL lineman for instance.

[Controversial]

Yes Holyfield lost to Bowe. He also beat Bowe. He also beat several other fighters much bigger than him. Tyson lost to Douglas. He probably would have beaten Douglas 9 of 10 times. He too beat many fighters bigger than him.

Because Holyfield and Tyson were great fighters and the bigger guys they beat invariably weren't great or past their best. Bowe was a good fighter and gave Holyfield hell and was the only fighter to stop Holyfield in his better years, ignoring the Toney stoppage loss 8 years later when Holyfield was on the slide. That's ignoring all the alleged rumours of PEDs too.

You certainly can argue that Holyfield was not in his better years when Bowe stopped him. and Holyfield almost stopped Bowe earlier in the fight.

I agree that Tyson didn't beat any great fighters who were bigger than himself. Holyfield did beat Bowe. (They both beat several good ones.)
That is sort of my point. There simply are many really many big fighters who were great. So far we have had Lewis and for a shorter time Bowe. That's it.

But does Holyfield even fall into the small HW category, it's only because he started at CW. Ali would've started out as a CW too, so would a lot of other fighters. Holyfield is listed as 6'2" 1/2, with a 78" reach and around 215lbs, again about the size of Ali. When I think of small I tend to think of guys under 200lbs or lacking in height and reach. Tyson was short but his speed and power often overcame this. A power puncher is a power puncher, they are capable of knocking big guys out. Shavers wasn't that big. The argument is more about having a physical advantage with skill. If you are at a big physical disadvantage, against a skilled fighter, it makes for a harder fight. It crazy to think that Wilder was 6'7" and 240lbs yet was still 3 stone lighter than Fury. No matter how good someone is when you are being pushed around, leaned on and hit by a much bigger fighter, it will take effect. Now as good as say Ezzard Charles was, those physical disadvantages would be a huge hurdle for him against someone like Bowe, Lewis and Fury.

[Cojimar 1946]

I think if we are going to classify someone like Bowe as a great heavyweight than Fury might already qualify.

But in reality I'm doubtful Bowe is really any bigger than George Foreman. Bowe weighed more but had more body fat. I don't think he was a bigger man naturally.

[HomicideHenry]

I think if we are going to classify someone like Bowe as a great heavyweight than Fury might already qualify.

But in reality I'm doubtful Bowe is really any bigger than George Foreman. Bowe weighed more but had more body fat. I don't think he was a bigger man naturally.

Foreman was 6'3" and Bowe 6'5". Foreman had a 78.5" reach and Bowe had a 81" reach. Foreman in his prime weighed between 215-225 pounds. Bowe in his prime weighed between 235-245 pounds. Bowe was certainly an all around bigger man than Foreman.

[Ambling Alp II]

More importantly, Bowe was a lot better than Fury. I hope we really don't have to argue that, but I'm sure we will.

[Controversial]

But in reality I'm doubtful Bowe is really any bigger than George Foreman. Bowe weighed more but had more body fat. I don't think he was a bigger man naturally.

Foreman was 6'3" and Bowe 6'5". Foreman had a 78.5" reach and Bowe had a 81" reach. Foreman in his prime weighed between 215-225 pounds. Bowe in his prime weighed between 235-245 pounds. Bowe was certainly an all around bigger man than Foreman.

Foreman was the same size as Ali, same height and reach and Foreman was only 3 1/2 pounds heavier when they fought. I think it was just Foreman had the reputation as a KO artist and was more heavily muscled, that might explain why many think he was so much bigger.

[Controversial]

More importantly, Bowe was a lot better than Fury. I hope we really don't have to argue that, but I'm sure we will.

Bowe looked great in the Holyfield fights but Holyfield often stood toe to toe with him but when you are giving away 30lbs to a hard hitter that tactic makes for a hard nights work. I'm not sure Bowe looked so good in other fights, his resume is pretty thin. Granted Fury hasn't fought a who's who either but he beat Klitschko in his back yard and Wilder too. Fury wouldn't stand in front of Bowe like Holyfield did and would benefit from being bigger than Bowe.

Fury isn't a fighter that will look great though, he doesn't have an exciting style and he isn't a KO artist. What he is though is skilled, awkward, big and able to adapt in fights better than most.

[Cojimar 1946]

Bowe weighed more than Foreman due to his eating habits and tendency to come into fights out of shape but I don't think this really reflects on size per se. I think Bowe would have been better served coming in lighter for many of his fights.

If you compare Bowes physique to 70s Foreman it looks like Foreman is more shredded at similar weights if anything. Foreman weighed the same for the Frazier rematch as Bowe did in some fights for example. Also heights for 90s heavyweights seem to be pretty inflated. I doubt Bowe was over 6'4

[Ambling Alp II]

More importantly, Bowe was a lot better than Fury. I hope we really don't have to argue that, but I'm sure we will.

Bowe looked great in the Holyfield fights but Holyfield often stood toe to toe with him but when you are giving away 30lbs to a hard hitter that tactic makes for a hard nights work. I'm not sure Bowe looked so good in other fights, his resume is pretty thin. Granted Fury hasn't fought a who's who either but he beat Klitschko in his back yard and Wilder too. Fury wouldn't stand in front of Bowe like Holyfield did and would benefit from being bigger than Bowe.

Fury isn't a fighter that will look great though, he doesn't have an exciting style and he isn't a KO artist. What he is though is skilled, awkward, big and able to adapt in fights better than most.

Bowe did look good in most of his other fights in his prime. Better than Fury. a lot better.
Klitschko was 39 years old when fury fought him. Had a lot of trouble in a terrible fight. Klitschko had major weaknesses even his prime. That is not a big win for Fury. It is an embarrassment.
Wilder is a hard puncher, but otherwise is mediocre. Outside of that, he had fought nobody worth mentioning.

Holyfield always fought like like he did against Bowe. He moved at a times, but often fought toe to toe against bigger fighters. It worked almost always worked well but not as well against Bowe. Unlike most big heavyweights, Bowe fought very well on the inside.

Fury doesn't look great because he isn't great. How "skilled" is he really? He got knocked down, what four times against Wilder? Came very close to being stopped in two different fights by Wilder.

Fury is not a great fighter. There is no reason to think he is. Bowe, for a few years was. He and Lewis are the only big heavyweights that have been great.

[Controversial]

Bowe weighed more than Foreman due to his eating habits and tendency to come into fights out of shape but I don't think this really reflects on size per se. I think Bowe would have been better served coming in lighter for many of his fights.

If you compare Bowes physique to 70s Foreman it looks like Foreman is more shredded at similar weights if anything. Foreman weighed the same for the Frazier rematch as Bowe did in some fights for example. Also heights for 90s heavyweights seem to be pretty inflated. I doubt Bowe was over 6'4

Weight is an odd thing though, Fury carries flab but carries it well and if anything is stronger because of it, he has no muscle tone or definition. If some the old time HWs were to compete today many would need to pack on weight too. Extra weight can be a positive for some, a negative for others. No way was Bowe out of shape in the Holyfield fights.

[Controversial]

More importantly, Bowe was a lot better than Fury. I hope we really don't have to argue that, but I'm sure we will.

Bowe looked great in the Holyfield fights but Holyfield often stood toe to toe with him but when you are giving away 30lbs to a hard hitter that tactic makes for a hard nights work. I'm not sure Bowe looked so good in other fights, his resume is pretty thin. Granted Fury hasn't fought a who's who either but he beat Klitschko in his back yard and Wilder too. Fury wouldn't stand in front of Bowe like Holyfield did and would benefit from being bigger than Bowe.

Fury isn't a fighter that will look great though, he doesn't have an exciting style and he isn't a KO artist. What he is though is skilled, awkward, big and able to adapt in fights better than most.

Bowe did look good in most of his other fights in his prime. Better than Fury. a lot better.
Klitschko was 39 years old when fury fought him. Had a lot of trouble in a terrible fight. Klitschko had major weaknesses even his prime. That is not a big win for Fury. It is an embarrassment.
Wilder is a hard puncher, but otherwise is mediocre. Outside of that, he had fought nobody worth mentioning.

Holyfield always fought like like he did against Bowe. He moved at a times, but often fought toe to toe against bigger fighters. It worked almost always worked well but not as well against Bowe. Unlike most big heavyweights, Bowe fought very well on the inside.

Fury doesn't look great because he isn't great. How "skilled" is he really? He got knocked down, what four times against Wilder? Came very close to being stopped in two different fights by Wilder.

Fury is not a great fighter. There is no reason to think he is. Bowe, for a few years was. He and Lewis are the only big heavyweights that have been great.

Like a lot of fighters they will be looked upon better when they retire. Lewis used to get a lot of negative press and was knocked out twice by nobodies. Wilder hits as hard as any HW you can name, just because he hasn't knocked out an ATG doesn't mean anything. Fury got up and won, that is what matters, anyone can be knocked down, especially at HW (see Lewis). Fury doesn't always look great but he is very effective at what he does and would be a hard fight for any HW. Fury lets himself down at times though, he is a fighter that needs the big occasion to perform well. The Klitschko fight wasn't a great fight but Klitschko was very accomplished at what he done and was undefeated in 11 years, not easy to get the win in Germany as the away fighter.

[DrDuke]

More importantly, Bowe was a lot better than Fury. I hope we really don't have to argue that, but I'm sure we will.

Bowe looked great in the Holyfield fights but Holyfield often stood toe to toe with him but when you are giving away 30lbs to a hard hitter that tactic makes for a hard nights work. I'm not sure Bowe looked so good in other fights, his resume is pretty thin. Granted Fury hasn't fought a who's who either but he beat Klitschko in his back yard and Wilder too. Fury wouldn't stand in front of Bowe like Holyfield did and would benefit from being bigger than Bowe.

Fury isn't a fighter that will look great though, he doesn't have an exciting style and he isn't a KO artist. What he is though is skilled, awkward, big and able to adapt in fights better than most.

Bowe did look good in most of his other fights in his prime. Better than Fury. a lot better.
Klitschko was 39 years old when fury fought him. Had a lot of trouble in a terrible fight. Klitschko had major weaknesses even his prime. That is not a big win for Fury. It is an embarrassment.
Wilder is a hard puncher, but otherwise is mediocre. Outside of that, he had fought nobody worth mentioning.

Holyfield always fought like like he did against Bowe. He moved at a times, but often fought toe to toe against bigger fighters. It worked almost always worked well but not as well against Bowe. Unlike most big heavyweights, Bowe fought very well on the inside.

Fury doesn't look great because he isn't great. How "skilled" is he really? He got knocked down, what four times against Wilder? Came very close to being stopped in two different fights by Wilder.

Fury is not a great fighter. There is no reason to think he is. Bowe, for a few years was. He and Lewis are the only big heavyweights that have been great.

So, Fury isn't skilled now, because he was dropped 4 times.

[Controversial]

Fury doesn't look great because he isn't great. How "skilled" is he really? He got knocked down, what four times against Wilder? Came very close to being stopped in two different fights by Wilder.

So, Fury isn't skilled now, because he was dropped 4 times.

Was Muhammad Ali skilled? He hardly ever threw a body punch, would keep his hands low and try and sway from punches, he was susceptible to a left hook and took a lot of punishment in fights. Marciano wasn't particularly skilled, he was good at what he done too, whipped himself into incredible shape and threw punches for 15 rounds, no finesse on show. Sometimes fighters just have qualities and strengths that separate them from the rest. Heart, bravery, determination and will to win often eclipses skill.

[HomicideHenry]

Alp sure hates boxing it's a wonder he still even watches the sport as much as he runs down the heavyweight division today. I'm reminded of an "I Love Lucy" episode where Ricky and Fred are arguing over boxing and Ricky talking about how great Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott are, and Fred says that Bob Fitzsimmons would've eaten them alive.

Alp is too nostalgic. It's like those guys who disregard physics altogether and think Bruce Lee could've beaten Brock Lesnar or Stipe Miocic. Fury would've been a tough fight for anyone in boxing history, whether he be on the winning end or the losing end of the equation.

Not so long ago on the forum we were all debating whether Wladimir Klitschko was a top ten all-time heavyweight, and the consensus was he was either #10 or just outside at #11. I think retrospectively Fury would have had Klitschko's number, just like Fury has Wilder's number, at any point in Klitschko's career.

I think whenever Tyson Fury does retire he will be in that unique place kind of like Rocky Marciano where people either over rate him or completely underrate him--- the critics, like Alp, will argue he never fought anybody and he looked like crap, but a man can't be faulted for who is in his era.

My worry? Every time Fury wins, the opponents and victories are relegated to trash. He could beat Usyk, Joshua, Ruiz, Whyte and it all be relegated to being meaningless. "Not enough title defenses for my liking," etc.

I still find it hilarious how Fury outboxing Klitschko is seen as an embarrassment (Alp's words) and yet Joshua fighting an older slower and active version is a great win fitting for a true champion. The hypocrisy is ridiculous.

I cannot stand Wilder not one damn bit, but Alp can hold up someone like Earnie Shavers who gassed out after a few rounds and was sloppy too--- arguing that the acorn could be a world champion today, or was one of the best heavyweight contenders of all time who never won a world title, etc. but does not give any credit or courtesy to Wilder.

I think everybody knows that Rocky Marciano is my favorite heavyweight champion of all time. I've done numerous threads over the years in defense of the man as being one of the all-time greats, but even I am not going to make an argument that a man 5'11" and 187 pounds can actually beat Tyson Fury.

Oh don't get me wrong The Rock would've left an impression, hitting the arms and hips and body enough times to really hurt Fury--- but he's simply never going to win. He would get busted up and cut up and probably stopped in 8 rounds, or less, especially in this day and age of squeamish referees.

Marciano absolutely looked like small standing next to Muhammad Ali (6'3") so he would look like a child next to Fury--- I think I've shared pictures before on the forum of me standing next to a 6'10" hutch cupboard to really give a size comparison since I'm 5'9"-5'10" and the contrast is startling.

If Fury was just some stationary lump with no talent or ability or skills, I could see someone's point but that is simply not the case. Fury is definitely made from the same cloth as the old time heavyweight champions which is why he stands head and shoulders above the rest today.

[Ambling Alp II]

Fury doesn't look great because he isn't great. How "skilled" is he really? He got knocked down, what four times against Wilder? Came very close to being stopped in two different fights by Wilder.

So, Fury isn't skilled now, because he was dropped 4 times.

Was Muhammad Ali skilled? He hardly ever threw a body punch, would keep his hands low and try and sway from punches, he was susceptible to a left hook and took a lot of punishment in fights. Marciano wasn't particularly skilled, he was good at what he done too, whipped himself into incredible shape and threw punches for 15 rounds, no finesse on show. Sometimes fighters just have qualities and strengths that separate them from the rest. Heart, bravery, determination and will to win often eclipses skill.

WAs Ali skilled? Umm yes. He hardly ever threw a body punch because he simply didn't need to. In his prime he didn't take much punishment; he was very hard to hit. He kept his hands low because of his ability to evade punches it actually made sense for to keep them low. Larry Holmes, Gene Tunney, and Roy Jones could do that. Very few fighters could.

He was not susceptible to a left hook. Was never knocked or hurt from it in his prime. Past his prime, he fought 41 rounds against Joe Frazier, who had a great left hook. Was knocked down once for three seconds. Fought several guys with good left hooks.

Agree that heart/bravery and determination is important. So is skill. So is speed. So is a chin. So is ring IQ.
That people give him credit to beating an ancient Klitschko just shows how desperate they are to give credit for something. All we really have to go are the Wilder fights. That he twice came that close to losing really is not good evidence of his "greatness." Simply watching him fight. He has some strengths and other areas where he needs improvement. He isn't great. We should not pretend that he is.

Agree that we have to look at strengths and weaknesses. Doing that, it is obvious that Ali was an extremely rare fighter. Marciano and Bowe (for a few years) was great. Fury is not.

[Ambling Alp II]

homicdehenry said : I still find it hilarious how Fury outboxing Klitschko is seen as an embarrassment (Alp's words) and yet Joshua fighting an older slower and active version is a great win fitting for a true champion. The hypocrisy is ridiculous.

I simply never said that it was a great win for Joshua. Never said anything of the kind. Therefore there is no hypocrisy.

[HomicideHenry]

homicdehenry said : I still find it hilarious how Fury outboxing Klitschko is seen as an embarrassment (Alp's words) and yet Joshua fighting an older slower and active version is a great win fitting for a true champion. The hypocrisy is ridiculous.

I simply never said that it was a great win for Joshua. Never said anything of the kind. Therefore there is no hypocrisy.

I wasn't necessarily referring to you, but I have seen many people on this forum argue that Joshua beating Klitschko was better than Fury beating Klitschko--- arguing that Fury beat an old man and yet somehow Klitschko magically turned back the years and became a force to be reckoned with against Joshua. Utter trash.

[Ambling Alp II]

Have never seen anyone on this Forum say this. If anyone did, I agree that is ridiculous.

[HomicideHenry]

A lot of people did when Joshua beat Klitschko.

From my perspective, at the time, Fury out boxing Klitschko was more impressive because nobody ever tried to do that with Wladimir, they always went for knockouts because he had a soft chin. When Fury bombed out Wilder, I made the remark that if he fought Klitschko that way he would have knocked out Wladimir too.

Yes, tactical chess matches are not exciting. But to out-box a man who was thought to be virtually impossible to out-box is a pretty impressive feat, even if Klitschko was up in years.