Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived

[Riddick Bowie]

It's a shame no one told those 60s guys to get 30lbs overweight because in the future people on the internet will equate being heavy with being good.

[Controversial]

It's a shame no one told those 60s guys to get 30lbs overweight because in the future people on the internet will equate being heavy with being good.

I don’t think anyone has said that but size and weight do play a part in fights. Otherwise we would see more CWs having major success at the highest levels at HW. The only two CWs in the last 40 odd years who have been at the top in HW terms has been Holyfield and Usyk, that’s because they were/are skilled and technically better than a lot of HWs. And both are pretty much the same size as Ali and Foreman were back in the 60s so not small, just small compared to a lot of the big HWs.

[Riddick Bowie]

It's a shame no one told those 60s guys to get 30lbs overweight because in the future people on the internet will equate being heavy with being good.

I don’t think anyone has said that but size and weight do play a part in fights. Otherwise we would see more CWs having major success at the highest levels at HW. The only two CWs in the last 40 odd years who have been at the top in HW terms has been Holyfield and Usyk, that’s because they were/are skilled and technically better than a lot of HWs. And both are pretty much the same size as Ali and Foreman were back in the 60s so not small, just small compared to a lot of the big HWs.

So what? Who are the other cruiser champs? Would any of them have been the heavyweight champion in the 60s? Which one? Deleon? Qawi? Jirov? Norris? Haye? Yeah right. No one Floyd Patterson's size is beating Floyd Patterson.

Cruiser has been an odd division. The creation of it coincided with an era where fighters in the upper classes were, for whatever reason, less fearsome and ferocious than previous generations. Holmes and later Tyson were the exception. Pinky, Spoon, Tubbs, Dokes and all the other slackers didn't have the passion or work rate to beat 50s, 60s, 70s guys. And the cruisers all sucked because they sucked, not because they were 190.

[Controversial]

It's a shame no one told those 60s guys to get 30lbs overweight because in the future people on the internet will equate being heavy with being good.

I don’t think anyone has said that but size and weight do play a part in fights. Otherwise we would see more CWs having major success at the highest levels at HW. The only two CWs in the last 40 odd years who have been at the top in HW terms has been Holyfield and Usyk, that’s because they were/are skilled and technically better than a lot of HWs. And both are pretty much the same size as Ali and Foreman were back in the 60s so not small, just small compared to a lot of the big HWs.

So what? Who are the other cruiser champs? Would any of them have been the heavyweight champion in the 60s? Which one? Deleon? Qawi? Jirov? Norris? Haye? Yeah right. No one Floyd Patterson's size is beating Floyd Patterson.

Cruiser has been an odd division. The creation of it coincided with an era where fighters in the upper classes were, for whatever reason, less fearsome and ferocious than previous generations. Holmes and later Tyson were the exception. Pinky, Spoon, Tubbs, Dokes and all the other slackers didn't have the passion or work rate to beat 50s, 60s, 70s guys. And the cruisers all sucked because they sucked, not because they were 190.

Yes plenty of poor HWs over the years, if only one belt most would never have been champ. But Patterson would’ve struggled more against the bigger and better HWs than the CWs you named which is kinda the point. Would Fury be as successful as he is if he were 6’0” and 14 stone? No of course not, his size coupled with his ability makes him the fighter he is.

[Riddick Bowie]

We're drifting too far from the point. The OP listed every man's height and weight as evidence the division was weak. Well we're in a weak era now and everyone's 7 ft and 300lbs. So height and weight evidently doth not a strong division make.

The early 60s should have been the Liston era but he was frozen out and denied a long reign. Williams, Machen, Foley, Patterson and perhaps an Ingo would have been a respectable title reign. The OP I imagine would prefer them to be hefting around an extra 30-50lbs as that magically elevates technique.

[Controversial]

We're drifting too far from the point. The OP listed every man's height and weight as evidence the division was weak. Well we're in a weak era now and everyone's 7 ft and 300lbs. So height and weight evidently doth not a strong division make.

The early 60s should have been the Liston era but he was frozen out and denied a long reign. Williams, Machen, Foley, Patterson and perhaps an Ingo would have been a respectable title reign. The OP I imagine would prefer them to be hefting around an extra 30-50lbs as that magically elevates technique.

Yes I agree, there’s more to it than size and weight alone and no matter how big you are if you can’t fight then you are not going to achieve much. I’ve also said it’s unfair to compare eras as you can only compete with those around you. I think maybe he meant that the early 60s was when HWs starting getting bigger and that helped Liston as he was not only good but bigger than most at that time.

[HomicideHenry]

We're drifting too far from the point. The OP listed every man's height and weight as evidence the division was weak. Well we're in a weak era now and everyone's 7 ft and 300lbs. So height and weight evidently doth not a strong division make.

The early 60s should have been the Liston era but he was frozen out and denied a long reign. Williams, Machen, Foley, Patterson and perhaps an Ingo would have been a respectable title reign. The OP I imagine would prefer them to be hefting around an extra 30-50lbs as that magically elevates technique.

Yes I agree, there’s more to it than size and weight alone and no matter how big you are if you can’t fight then you are not going to achieve much. I’ve also said it’s unfair to compare eras as you can only compete with those around you. I think maybe he meant that the early 60s was when HWs starting getting bigger and that helped Liston as he was not only good but bigger than most at that time.

Size alone won't help.

It's the quality of the man or woman that matters most.

That being said if a guy is a journeyman but he's 6'5" going up against another journeyman 5'11" or 6'0", the size differential more times than not will favor the bigger man if the two are the same level of ability.

Liston was normal in height, and slightly heavier in weight than other guys in his era or prior. But he did have wide shoulders which contributed to his long reach (80"). He was also lighter on his feet than given credit for. Between the punching power, reach, swiftness of feet and the intimidation factor he was able to dominate the field.

That being said, there is oddball scenarios where size means diddly squat despite being in same level of skills. I recall how 0-4-0 welterweight Jason McClure actually knocked out Ronnie Collins, a light heavyweight, who had a similarly bad record in sparring. In that case I suppose willingness to engage was the main primary difference.

[margaret thatcher]

the hws listed there were nearly all comparable in size to light heavy joe smith

[Riddick Bowie]

the hws listed there were nearly all comparable in size to light heavy joe smith

And they would all have KOd Smith and we'd never of heard of him.

[pound per pound]

Zora Folley 6' 1" 195
Eddie machen 6'0" 195
Henry Cooper 6'1" 190
Karl Mildenberger 6'1" 195
Robert Cleroux 6 1" 205
Inge Johanson 6'0" 202
Floyd Patterson 6'0" 195
Doug Jones 6'0" 185

and finally a big fighter
Cleveland William's 6'2" 215

These were all curser weight sized guys with the exception of Willams who had a suspect type of chin. For a guy like Liston, a natural heavyweight who could fight, had big time power, and massive reach advantages these small fries were made to order.

I agree the era was weak and the punchers had suspect chins. It has some decent boxers types but they were small. Liston aside for the Ali fight ( dive ? ) dominated them.

[Riddick Bowie]

Some odd views in this thread. Big Cat had a suspect chin? In his prime only bangers Satterfield and Liston KOd him. And when he was past it only bangers Foster and Lewis and a prime, absolute peak of his powers Ali stopped him. Not exactly a Herbie Hide chin, is it?

The OP dismisses Patterson as a win because 'many people beat him'. Again, in his day only Ingo, Liston and Ali beat him, and the Ingo loss was twice reversed. So prime Patterson couldn't handle prime Sonny Liston and prime Muhammad Ali and it's a knock against him? You have to laugh.

The culture of record building that began in the 80s has a lot to answer for. It's totally warped fan expectations while also retarding the development of so many fighters.

[Controversial]

Big Cat had a suspect chin? In his prime only bangers Satterfield and Liston KOd him. And when he was past it only bangers Foster and Lewis and a prime, absolute peak of his powers Ali stopped him. Not exactly a Herbie Hide chin, is it?

To be fair Williams record is pretty padded. When he stepped up in class he invariably lost with the exception of beating Terrell.

[Ambling Alp II]

It's a shame no one told those 60s guys to get 30lbs overweight because in the future people on the internet will equate being heavy with being good.

I don’t think anyone has said that but size and weight do play a part in fights. Otherwise we would see more CWs having major success at the highest levels at HW. The only two CWs in the last 40 odd years who have been at the top in HW terms has been Holyfield and Usyk, that’s because they were/are skilled and technically better than a lot of HWs. And both are pretty much the same size as Ali and Foreman were back in the 60s so not small, just small compared to a lot of the big HWs.

Size and weight only play a part up to a point. At certain point, size stops being an advantage. At a later point, it actually becomes a disadvantage. People that pontificating on theories, should actually look at what happens in the real world, they will see this.

Look at basic facts:
When a great fighter under 200 fights a guy 220, he wins almost every time. More 90%
The biggest heavyweight at any point in boxing history has never been the best heavyweight. Not one time.

Look at other sports if that helps. an ideal quarterback probably isn't going to weight 180 pounds. He isn't going to weight 300 either.

In basketball, height helps, at least to a [point. but the tallest guy is almost never the best players. We need to llok at what actually happens and get away from the size nonsense.

How do we talk about two guys and discuss their power, speed, defense chin etc. If it comes out about even, then they are about even. However, some people will then say something like" yeah, but fighter B would have a 40-pound advantage. That is just stupid thinking. In basketball, if 2 are about even guys shooting, rebounding, passing, defense etc. we say that the two guys are even. Not "well yeah, but player is 6 inches taller' .

As for sonny Liston, may he wasn't as good as say Mike Tyson. But to dismiss him because supposedly his era was weak is just silly. Name one win that Tyson ever had that Liston wouldn't have? Just one.

[Controversial]

It's a shame no one told those 60s guys to get 30lbs overweight because in the future people on the internet will equate being heavy with being good.

I don’t think anyone has said that but size and weight do play a part in fights. Otherwise we would see more CWs having major success at the highest levels at HW. The only two CWs in the last 40 odd years who have been at the top in HW terms has been Holyfield and Usyk, that’s because they were/are skilled and technically better than a lot of HWs. And both are pretty much the same size as Ali and Foreman were back in the 60s so not small, just small compared to a lot of the big HWs.

Size and weight only play a part up to a point. At certain point, size stops being an advantage. At a later point, it actually becomes a disadvantage. People that pontificating on theories, should actually look at what happens in the real world, they will see this.

Look at basic facts:
When a great fighter under 200 fights a guy 220, he wins almost every time. More 90%
The biggest heavyweight at any point in boxing history has never been the best heavyweight. Not one time.

Look at other sports if that helps. an ideal quarterback probably isn't going to weight 180 pounds. He isn't going to weight 300 either.

In basketball, height helps, at least to a [point. but the tallest guy is almost never the best players. We need to llok at what actually happens and get away from the size nonsense.

How do we talk about two guys and discuss their power, speed, defense chin etc. If it comes out about even, then they are about even. However, some people will then say something like" yeah, but fighter B would have a 40-pound advantage. That is just stupid thinking. In basketball, if 2 are about even guys shooting, rebounding, passing, defense etc. we say that the two guys are even. Not "well yeah, but player is 6 inches taller' .

As for sonny Liston, may he wasn't as good as say Mike Tyson. But to dismiss him because supposedly his era was weak is just silly. Name one win that Tyson ever had that Liston wouldn't have? Just one.

No one has said size and weight trump everything. One of my earlier posts I clearly stated that if you can't fight then it doesn't matter how big you are. But when the big guy is skilled or has some kind of physical advantage that he can make use of, then those size advantages help.

I didn't dismiss Liston either, he was a great fighter but he wasn't fighting guys bigger than himself a lot of the time, over half his opponents were 200lb and under, some were in the 170-180 range. So that would've gone in Liston's favour. In terms of who did Tyson beat that Liston couldn't I think the version of Holmes that Tyson beat would've beaten Liston. Again if you can fight and are smaller then you will have success, we've seen it with Holyfield and Usyk. But most of the guys named in the original post like Cooper, Folley, Machen, Mildenberger etc had no major skill set that set them apart from anyone else. If they were fighting the big decent HWs of today they would struggle.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yes the magical 200- pound mark. I remember many years ago, when I first joined this forum. Somebody that just wait, down the road people will making a big deal about weighing 200 and calling older fighters under 200 cruiserweights. Another guy said no way, that people are smarter than that. Well we now see it all the time,

Don't know who are all the guys you are referring to that weighed 170-180 in Liston's day. But Folley weighed 200 or more for much of his career. Williams was above it. Valdes was well over 200. Terrell was well above it, about the same size as Wilder. Even Patterson was more than 170-180.

As for skill sets- Nobody is saying these guys are legends. However, in most eras there aren't multiple legends.

Floyd Patterson had a lot of hand speed, good power. Eddie Machen was a very skilled boxer. Willaims had a lot of power. Folley had a little of everything.

"But when the big guy is skilled or has some kind of physical advantage that he can make use of, then those size advantages help."
It just not that simple. Most big guys had good power. most are slow and have bad stamina. You have to look at it by a case by case basis.

We have to get away from the weight nonsense.

[Controversial]

Yes the magical 200- pound mark. I remember many years ago, when I first joined this forum. Somebody that just wait, down the road people will making a big deal about weighing 200 and calling older fighters under 200 cruiserweights. Another guy said no way, that people are smarter than that. Well we now see it all the time,

Don't know who are all the guys you are referring to that weighed 170-180 in Liston's day. But Folley weighed 200 or more for much of his career. Williams was above it. Valdes was well over 200. Terrell was well above it, about the same size as Wilder. Even Patterson was more than 170-180.

As for skill sets- Nobody is saying these guys are legends. However, in most eras there aren't multiple legends.

Floyd Patterson had a lot of hand speed, good power. Eddie Machen was a very skilled boxer. Willaims had a lot of power. Folley had a little of everything.

"But when the big guy is skilled or has some kind of physical advantage that he can make use of, then those size advantages help."
It just not that simple. Most big guys had good power. most are slow and have bad stamina. You have to look at it by a case by case basis.

We have to get away from the weight nonsense.

The 200lb mark is just because it’s a round number and the CW limit, of course it isn’t set in stone. I said some of Listons opponents were in that 170-180 range, not the fighters the OP mentioned but other opponents were. And of course it is a case by case basis, I’ll say it again size isn’t everything but when you are the better fighter and bigger like Liston was it does help. If the HWs today were competing against guys who were around the 180 region people would criticise them for fighting guys too small whereas it was fairly common at one point.

[HomicideHenry]

On one hand I agree with Alp, because I can name countless men throughout boxing history who were far smaller than the men they defeated. Sam Langford comes to mind starting off at 130 and ended up being the second best heavyweight of his time. Ezzard Charles was a welterweight who ended up heavyweight champion. Skills and stamina, combined with heart and determination, can overcome a lot of physics.

However.... a lot of the big men today are not just bigger than the big men of yesteryear but the athleticism and the skills finally caught up with the big men. Most of the giants of the 19th and early 20th century were simply strongmen in boxing gloves, and even they (for the most part) are smaller than the large heavyweights today.

There is a complete dismissal of guys today simply because they are not as active as they were in previous eras, or because they simply do not look as impressive on film as smaller heavyweights even though they are better than they look. Height and weight mean little unless you have skills, stamina, heart and determination. Guys like Tyson Fury, for example, have those capabilities along with his size. So he'd be a tough assignment for anyone in the past.

[Controversial]

On one hand I agree with Alp, because I can name countless men throughout boxing history who were far smaller than the men they defeated. Sam Langford comes to mind starting off at 130 and ended up being the second best heavyweight of his time. Ezzard Charles was a welterweight who ended up heavyweight champion. Skills and stamina, combined with heart and determination, can overcome a lot of physics.

However.... a lot of the big men today are not just bigger than the big men of yesteryear but the athleticism and the skills finally caught up with the big men. Most of the giants of the 19th and early 20th century were simply strongmen in boxing gloves, and even they (for the most part) are smaller than the large heavyweights today.

There is a complete dismissal of guys today simply because they are not as active as they were in previous eras, or because they simply do not look as impressive on film as smaller heavyweights even though they are better than they look. Height and weight mean little unless you have skills, stamina, heart and determination. Guys like Tyson Fury, for example, have those capabilities along with his size. So he'd be a tough assignment for anyone in the past.

Exactly, lots of big tough men types fighting in the early days to feed their family, not really worrying if they won or lost. So of course when they fought the good skilled smaller men they lost. But to me thats no different to sticking Canelo in with some big unskilled HWs of today and letting him beat them up. Just because Canelo could beat a huge HW when he only weighs around 170 it doesn't mean he could beat them all. As you say as the years went by the bigger guys got more skilled and athletic.

[HomicideHenry]

On one hand I agree with Alp, because I can name countless men throughout boxing history who were far smaller than the men they defeated. Sam Langford comes to mind starting off at 130 and ended up being the second best heavyweight of his time. Ezzard Charles was a welterweight who ended up heavyweight champion. Skills and stamina, combined with heart and determination, can overcome a lot of physics.

However.... a lot of the big men today are not just bigger than the big men of yesteryear but the athleticism and the skills finally caught up with the big men. Most of the giants of the 19th and early 20th century were simply strongmen in boxing gloves, and even they (for the most part) are smaller than the large heavyweights today.

There is a complete dismissal of guys today simply because they are not as active as they were in previous eras, or because they simply do not look as impressive on film as smaller heavyweights even though they are better than they look. Height and weight mean little unless you have skills, stamina, heart and determination. Guys like Tyson Fury, for example, have those capabilities along with his size. So he'd be a tough assignment for anyone in the past.

Exactly, lots of big tough men types fighting in the early days to feed their family, not really worrying if they won or lost. So of course when they fought the good skilled smaller men they lost. But to me thats no different to sticking Canelo in with some big unskilled HWs of today and letting him beat them up. Just because Canelo could beat a huge HW when he only weighs around 170 it doesn't mean he could beat them all. As you say as the years went by the bigger guys got more skilled and athletic.

I like your hypothetical.

Let's say you have a grade A level fighter whose 170 pounds (walking around weight) and he fights a grade D level heavyweight whose 6'5" and 300 pounds. I venture to say 99/100 the 170 pounder will win. Too fast, skilled, conditioned, etc.

But I will say there's a drop off to it. The same grade A fighter at 170 pounds faces a grade C heavyweight whose 6'3" and 240 pounds, he'll still win a majority but now it's more like 80/20 or 70/30. If he fought a grade B heavyweight 6'4" and 250 pounds, it's suddenly 60/40 or 50/50. If he fought a grade A heavyweight 6'7" and 245 pounds, he's losing 99/100 to the bigger equally skilled man.

Now, when you have two grade A guys where one man is naturally smaller than the other man. The axiom of the "good little man will almost always lose to a good big man" applies. And this isn't just in the heavyweight division. Take Canelo vs GGG.... the taller, rangier, man won the trilogy. Or Pep vs Saddler, again the taller and rangier man won the series. Or Duran vs Hearns, once again the taller and rangier man won.

Now is it always the case? No. There have been exceptions. When you get into that A grade elite it's really more like A- and A and A+ dynamics. An A+ smaller man will beat an A- man, or on occasion an A man. But it's extraordinarily rare to see an A+ big man lose to an A+ little man, unless that big man is at the tail end of his career (ie, Holmes vs Spinks) and getting slower and easier to score points on.

[pound per pound]

It's a shame no one told those 60s guys to get 30lbs overweight because in the future people on the internet will equate being heavy with being good.

I don’t think anyone has said that but size and weight do play a part in fights. Otherwise we would see more CWs having major success at the highest levels at HW. The only two CWs in the last 40 odd years who have been at the top in HW terms has been Holyfield and Usyk, that’s because they were/are skilled and technically better than a lot of HWs. And both are pretty much the same size as Ali and Foreman were back in the 60s so not small, just small compared to a lot of the big HWs.

Size and weight only play a part up to a point. At certain point, size stops being an advantage. At a later point, it actually becomes a disadvantage. People that pontificating on theories, should actually look at what happens in the real world, they will see this.

Look at basic facts:
When a great fighter under 200 fights a guy 220, he wins almost every time. More 90%
The biggest heavyweight at any point in boxing history has never been the best heavyweight. Not one time.

Look at other sports if that helps. an ideal quarterback probably isn't going to weight 180 pounds. He isn't going to weight 300 either.

In basketball, height helps, at least to a [point. but the tallest guy is almost never the best players. We need to llok at what actually happens and get away from the size nonsense.

How do we talk about two guys and discuss their power, speed, defense chin etc. If it comes out about even, then they are about even. However, some people will then say something like" yeah, but fighter B would have a 40-pound advantage. That is just stupid thinking. In basketball, if 2 are about even guys shooting, rebounding, passing, defense etc. we say that the two guys are even. Not "well yeah, but player is 6 inches taller' .

As for sonny Liston, may he wasn't as good as say Mike Tyson. But to dismiss him because supposedly his era was weak is just silly. Name one win that Tyson ever had that Liston wouldn't have? Just one.

Since Mike Spinks every heavyeight champion has been about 220 - 270 pounds. You don't see any 180- 200 pound men doing well in boxing for 35+ years at heavyweight. Why? The answer is obvious

Size when combined with good ring skills is too much for modern athletes to overcome. Yeah if you go back in history 50+ years you can see a legendary popluar heavywieght champion beating the tar out of a guy mild to no skills guy who wouldn't be not be ranked today. Yet men this size ( 180-200 ) pounds are mostly on black and white film and do not veneture into the modern heavyweight divison which if you use the box rec rankings today as a judge they are mostly 240+ pound men, with the exception of Usky who is 220.

As time has passed boxing has added the modern cruiser weight division and the bridge weight division. IMO, MMA has a better break down of it's size and weight classes. It is what it is. Check the link out.

https://www.abcboxing.com/unified-weight-classes-mma/

-P4P

[evrenb]

Holyfield

Vs Douglas - 208lbs...seriously bulked up weight
Vs Foreman - 208lbs
Vs Cooper - 210lbs
Vs Holmes - 210lbs
Vs Bowe - 205lbs

Chris Byrd

Vs Vitali 210lbs
Vs mcline 214lbs
Vs golota 210lbs

Mike Tyson

Fought 9 world rirle fights under 220lbs

Deontaly wilder

Fought 5 times under 220lbs

Usyk ... a cruiserweight also ...seriously bulked up..not a natural weight...

[Riddick Bowie]

I don’t think anyone has said that but size and weight do play a part in fights. Otherwise we would see more CWs having major success at the highest levels at HW. The only two CWs in the last 40 odd years who have been at the top in HW terms has been Holyfield and Usyk, that’s because they were/are skilled and technically better than a lot of HWs. And both are pretty much the same size as Ali and Foreman were back in the 60s so not small, just small compared to a lot of the big HWs.

Size and weight only play a part up to a point. At certain point, size stops being an advantage. At a later point, it actually becomes a disadvantage. People that pontificating on theories, should actually look at what happens in the real world, they will see this.

Look at basic facts:
When a great fighter under 200 fights a guy 220, he wins almost every time. More 90%
The biggest heavyweight at any point in boxing history has never been the best heavyweight. Not one time.

Look at other sports if that helps. an ideal quarterback probably isn't going to weight 180 pounds. He isn't going to weight 300 either.

In basketball, height helps, at least to a [point. but the tallest guy is almost never the best players. We need to llok at what actually happens and get away from the size nonsense.

How do we talk about two guys and discuss their power, speed, defense chin etc. If it comes out about even, then they are about even. However, some people will then say something like" yeah, but fighter B would have a 40-pound advantage. That is just stupid thinking. In basketball, if 2 are about even guys shooting, rebounding, passing, defense etc. we say that the two guys are even. Not "well yeah, but player is 6 inches taller' .

As for sonny Liston, may he wasn't as good as say Mike Tyson. But to dismiss him because supposedly his era was weak is just silly. Name one win that Tyson ever had that Liston wouldn't have? Just one.

Since Mike Spinks every heavyeight champion has been about 220 - 270 pounds. You don't see any 180- 200 pound men doing well in boxing for 35+ years at heavyweight. Why? The answer is obvious

Size when combined with good ring skills is too much for modern athletes to overcome. Yeah if you go back in history 50+ years you can see a legendary popluar heavywieght champion beating the tar out of a guy mild to no skills guy who wouldn't be not be ranked today. Yet men this size ( 180-200 ) pounds are mostly on black and white film and do not veneture into the modern heavyweight divison which if you use the box rec rankings today as a judge they are mostly 240+ pound men, with the exception of Usky who is 220.

As time has passed boxing has added the modern cruiser weight division and the bridge weight division. IMO, MMA has a better break down of it's size and weight classes. It is what it is. Check the link out.

https://www.abcboxing.com/unified-weight-classes-mma/

-P4P

Roy Jones was heavyweight champion and weighed about 196. His skills thoroughly dominated John Ruiz, who was powerful enough to wrestle monsters Valuev, McCline, Rahman, Golota et al. He could handle size. Pumped up small guys with speed - RJJ, Toney and Haye - utterly bedevilled him.

[Controversial]

Holyfield

Vs Douglas - 208lbs...seriously bulked up weight
Vs Foreman - 208lbs
Vs Cooper - 210lbs
Vs Holmes - 210lbs
Vs Bowe - 205lbs

Chris Byrd

Vs Vitali 210lbs
Vs mcline 214lbs
Vs golota 210lbs

Mike Tyson

Fought 9 world rirle fights under 220lbs

Deontaly wilder

Fought 5 times under 220lbs

Usyk ... a cruiserweight also ...seriously bulked up..not a natural weight...

Of course, they fit into the skilled fighter or huge puncher category so that often trumps size but ultimately they all lost to bigger men (Usyk aside but new to the division). Wilder is a physical freak, he's hardly small at 6'7" and maybe some concerns about how 'natural' one of them was. It's when they meet an equally skilled larger man where the size advantage can come into play.

[evrenb]

Holyfield

Vs Douglas - 208lbs...seriously bulked up weight
Vs Foreman - 208lbs
Vs Cooper - 210lbs
Vs Holmes - 210lbs
Vs Bowe - 205lbs

Chris Byrd

Vs Vitali 210lbs
Vs mcline 214lbs
Vs golota 210lbs

Mike Tyson

Fought 9 world rirle fights under 220lbs

Deontaly wilder

Fought 5 times under 220lbs

Usyk ... a cruiserweight also ...seriously bulked up..not a natural weight...

Of course, they fit into the skilled fighter or huge puncher category so that often trumps size but ultimately they all lost to bigger men (Usyk aside but new to the division). Wilder is a physical freak, he's hardly small at 6'7" and maybe some concerns about how 'natural' one of them was. It's when they meet an equally skilled larger man where the size advantage can come into play.

Do large men have the same skills?

[Controversial]

Holyfield

Vs Douglas - 208lbs...seriously bulked up weight
Vs Foreman - 208lbs
Vs Cooper - 210lbs
Vs Holmes - 210lbs
Vs Bowe - 205lbs

Chris Byrd

Vs Vitali 210lbs
Vs mcline 214lbs
Vs golota 210lbs

Mike Tyson

Fought 9 world rirle fights under 220lbs

Deontaly wilder

Fought 5 times under 220lbs

Usyk ... a cruiserweight also ...seriously bulked up..not a natural weight...

Of course, they fit into the skilled fighter or huge puncher category so that often trumps size but ultimately they all lost to bigger men (Usyk aside but new to the division). Wilder is a physical freak, he's hardly small at 6'7" and maybe some concerns about how 'natural' one of them was. It's when they meet an equally skilled larger man where the size advantage can come into play.

Do large men have the same skills?

Every fighter is different so of course some have different skillsets or advantages than others, be that speed, power, ability, chin, fitness, mental strength etc etc.. Size isn't the be all and end all, as I wrote earlier Canelo could beat a few HWs but I'm sure no one would give him a chance against the best HWs in the division and the reason why is he's too small.