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

[Riddick Bowie]

And the circular reasoning continues. Yet again.

Keeps going something like this:
Side A: A smaller fighter from before our time couldn't make it now.

Side B: But if the guy had a lot of ability, he could.

Side A Nope. Size is too much to overcome.

Side B: But the guy from way back defeated big fighters.

Side A: Well, the big fighters that he beat didn't have much ability.

Side B: brick:

So true. We should probably all agree to disagree. There appears to be way more readers of Boxrec than there are posters, and I guess they can decide who made the more cogent case.

[Controversial]

Jersey Joe Walcott would certainly be a hw today. Take a look at the guy. He was ripped. If he was listed at 220, nobody would bat an eye. Why fight for chump change in the cruiserweights division when they could make making more money in the crappy hw division?

Maybe but you could say that about lots of fighters and most don’t do it or have great success when they try. Most LHWs and CWs could make HW but boil down to compete at the lighter weights. Okolie is 6’5” with a 82” reach but boxes at CW, he could easily add 20-30lbs and will likely move to HW but I’m sure he will pack on the pounds to be able to hang with the big HWs around. Walcott was 6’0” with a 74” reach so although I’m sure he would have some success at HW he would find it tougher than fighting guys he was bigger than and he didn’t have the build to pack on tons of weight. Not comparing Herbie Hide to Walcott but Hide was a decent size but generally recognised as being too small for the HW division, even though he had some success at HW. Bowe said he was the hardest puncher he fought. Qawi, Bert Cooper, Orlin Norris, Haye, Bellow, Jirov, Nelson etc etc were all better at a lighter weight than HW, even though they would’ve been similar sized or bigger than the old time HWs. That isn’t a coincidence, it’s just that they find the bigger guys too strong or big for them. In older eras the top HWs were generally smaller so the smaller guys could be more competitive.

Herbie Hide wasn't 'too small'. He was the same size as Ali and Holyfield. His heart was too small, his chin nonexistent. He was an on-top bully molly coddled by his team for reasons that were obvious when he stepped up. He's the only heavyweight 'champion' in history to faint before a punch landed (Bowe) and be counted out on a jab (Klitschko).

Yeah of course Hide lacked things that make a fighter successful like heart and dedication but he was really a blown up CW, a small CW at that. He started his career as one and went back to CW late into his career, at almost 39 he was still 200lbs, he had a lean body frame. I listened to his trainer being interviewed and he said Hide wasn’t a HW but he could hit harder than most so boxed there as that’s where the money was. He probably made more money against Bowe than he would've made had he spent his entire career at CW. He looked tiny against Bowe and Klitschko, he had to bulk himself up and there were reports he was weighing in with weights in his pockets. Probably not too dissimilar to Bellew, Nelson, Billam-Smith etc who have similar physical dimensions to Hide, all capable of making HW and having some success but not really big enough to compete with the best in that division.

[Ambling Alp II]

And the circular reasoning continues. Yet again.

Keeps going something like this:
Side A: A smaller fighter from before our time couldn't make it now.

Side B: But if the guy had a lot of ability, he could.

Side A Nope. Size is too much to overcome.

Side B: But the guy from way back defeated big fighters.

Side A: Well, the big fighters that he beat didn't have much ability.

Side B: brick:

So true. We should probably all agree to disagree. There appears to be way more readers of Boxrec than there are posters, and I guess they can decide who made the more cogent case.

Certainly agree that there are a lot more readers than posters.
I guess what bugs me the most is the fake reasoning. When it favors their guy (i.e. a modern fighter) some people are all about size. When you point out a big guy from before their time, ability suddenly becomes a big factor.
When you get down to it, a lot of this is about people being biased towards fighters of their own time and having little to no interest to what came before them. They are using size because it's convenient and usually the more modern guy weighs more.

[margaret thatcher]

you two should have a date where you make out and agree with each other all night that everyone else is just so stooopid

[Cojimar 1946]

If you look at average weights of dominant champions there has been a clear upward trajectory. If were taking guys with at least 3 title defenses at their best weights we get approximately the following numbers.
Jim Jeffries 212
Jack Johnson 192
Jack Dempsey 188
Joe Louis 198
Ezzard Charles 185
Rocky Marciano 187
Floyd Patterson 190

Starting in the 1960s you have
Muhammad Ali 212
Joe Frazier 205
Larry Holmes 211
Mike Tyson 218
Evander Holyfield 212
Lennox Lewis 247
Wladimir Klitschko 244
Tyson Fury 254

The average has gone up dramatically especially since Tyson. Prior to Liston the average weight for dominant champions was under 200

[Ezzard]

The was an empirical study that shows successful HW champions are bigger than unsuccessful challengers.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 598-2#Tab1

[Riddick Bowie]

Maybe but you could say that about lots of fighters and most don’t do it or have great success when they try. Most LHWs and CWs could make HW but boil down to compete at the lighter weights. Okolie is 6’5” with a 82” reach but boxes at CW, he could easily add 20-30lbs and will likely move to HW but I’m sure he will pack on the pounds to be able to hang with the big HWs around. Walcott was 6’0” with a 74” reach so although I’m sure he would have some success at HW he would find it tougher than fighting guys he was bigger than and he didn’t have the build to pack on tons of weight. Not comparing Herbie Hide to Walcott but Hide was a decent size but generally recognised as being too small for the HW division, even though he had some success at HW. Bowe said he was the hardest puncher he fought. Qawi, Bert Cooper, Orlin Norris, Haye, Bellow, Jirov, Nelson etc etc were all better at a lighter weight than HW, even though they would’ve been similar sized or bigger than the old time HWs. That isn’t a coincidence, it’s just that they find the bigger guys too strong or big for them. In older eras the top HWs were generally smaller so the smaller guys could be more competitive.

Herbie Hide wasn't 'too small'. He was the same size as Ali and Holyfield. His heart was too small, his chin nonexistent. He was an on-top bully molly coddled by his team for reasons that were obvious when he stepped up. He's the only heavyweight 'champion' in history to faint before a punch landed (Bowe) and be counted out on a jab (Klitschko).

Yeah of course Hide lacked things that make a fighter successful like heart and dedication but he was really a blown up CW, a small CW at that. He started his career as one and went back to CW late into his career, at almost 39 he was still 200lbs, he had a lean body frame. I listened to his trainer being interviewed and he said Hide wasn’t a HW but he could hit harder than most so boxed there as that’s where the money was. He probably made more money against Bowe than he would've made had he spent his entire career at CW. He looked tiny against Bowe and Klitschko, he had to bulk himself up and there were reports he was weighing in with weights in his pockets. Probably not too dissimilar to Bellew, Nelson, Billam-Smith etc who have similar physical dimensions to Hide, all capable of making HW and having some success but not really big enough to compete with the best in that division.

If you could have Holyfield's chin grafted onto him, and Holyfield's heart implanted in his chest, he could easily have been a real heavyweight champion with his speed and freakish punch power.

[Riddick Bowie]

The was an empirical study that shows successful HW champions are bigger than unsuccessful challengers.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 598-2#Tab1

Were Frazier, Tyson and Holyfield not successful HW champions? I seem to recall them mowing down a long line of bigger challengers?

[Ezzard]

Take it up with the data, not me.

[margaret thatcher]

oh no he got them boys shook

[Riddick Bowie]

Take it up with the data, not me.

Well it's just you said it was "empirical"

[Controversial]

Coincidentally Johnny Nelson talks about the jump from CW to HW in an interview I’m listening to today. He said as a CW you can probably beat 90% of HWs as you often have the speed advantage but the top guys you can’t really touch as they have the natural HW size and/or strength that make the weight jump too much. He then goes on to say how he couldn’t land a punch on Fury when he sparred him as he was just too big for him (looking on google Fury was just 16 years old). Nelson said he stayed at CW as he often held the size advantage.

[Ambling Alp II]

Take it up with the data, not me.

Well it's just you said it was "empirical"

I guess that means it makes no sense.

Still don't see why we can't just throw out how big a guy was, or if he fought before our time or not. Why can't we just go by how good he was, like we used to?

If a guy could punch hard (not just hard for his weight) than he could punch hard.
If a guy is fast (not just fast for his size) than he is fast.

It doesn't matter if he weighed 180 or 280.

[Ezzard]

Coincidentally Johnny Nelson talks about the jump from CW to HW in an interview I’m listening to today. He said as a CW you can probably beat 90% of HWs as you often have the speed advantage but the top guys you can’t really touch as they have the natural HW size and/or strength that make the weight jump too much. He then goes on to say how he couldn’t land a punch on Fury when he sparred him as he was just too big for him (looking on google Fury was just 16 years old). Nelson said he stayed at CW as he often held the size advantage.

Makes total sense. Fury's dimensions would make it terribly difficult for even a top CW to deal with. Not to say a Holyfield, Usyk or elite 200 lb fighter couldn't do it.

But Fury is a giant in HW terms too. But maybe in 20 years his frame will be standard for HWs.

[Riddick Bowie]

Take it up with the data, not me.

Well it's just you said it was "empirical"

I guess that means it makes no sense.

Still don't see why we can't just throw out how big a guy was, or if he fought before our time or not. Why can't we just go by how good he was, like we used to?

If a guy could punch hard (not just hard for his weight) than he could punch hard.
If a guy is fast (not just fast for his size) than he is fast.

It doesn't matter if he weighed 180 or 280.

NEVER use the eye test, or employ any sort of critical thinking or rational enquiry when analysing fighters. Why bother when you can just look at stats. Like how Vitali Klitschko is the hardest puncher ever because of X wins and X KOs and because he's X feet tall with X inch muscles and weighs an impressive looking X lbs and made X defences etc etc. Never mind that an actual study would reveal that his best wins were over old, fat versions of Corrie Sanders and Shannon Briggs, and an even deeper study would discover that they were both only B tier heavyweights at best in the 90s -- all that matters is the stats.

Take it up with the data!

[pound per pound]

If you look at average weights of dominant champions there has been a clear upward trajectory. If were taking guys with at least 3 title defenses at their best weights we get approximately the following numbers.
Jim Jeffries 212
Jack Johnson 192
Jack Dempsey 188
Joe Louis 198
Ezzard Charles 185
Rocky Marciano 187
Floyd Patterson 190

Starting in the 1960s you have
Muhammad Ali 212
Joe Frazier 205
Larry Holmes 211
Mike Tyson 218
Evander Holyfield 212
Lennox Lewis 247
Wladimir Klitschko 244
Tyson Fury 254

The average has gone up dramatically especially since Tyson. Prior to Liston the average weight for dominant champions was under 200

Yes, it has. Pretty much everyone raked today is 220 lbs or more are they not? Not I agree with your best listed weights.

[pound per pound]

Well it's just you said it was "empirical"

I guess that means it makes no sense.

Still don't see why we can't just throw out how big a guy was, or if he fought before our time or not. Why can't we just go by how good he was, like we used to?

If a guy could punch hard (not just hard for his weight) than he could punch hard.
If a guy is fast (not just fast for his size) than he is fast.

It doesn't matter if he weighed 180 or 280.

NEVER use the eye test, or employ any sort of critical thinking or rational enquiry when analysing fighters. Why bother when you can just look at stats. Like how Vitali Klitschko is the hardest puncher ever because of X wins and X KOs and because he's X feet tall with X inch muscles and weighs an impressive looking X lbs and made X defences etc etc. Never mind that an actual study would reveal that his best wins were over old, fat versions of Corrie Sanders and Shannon Briggs, and an even deeper study would discover that they were both only B tier heavyweights at best in the 90s -- all that matters is the stats.

Take it up with the data!

Look at the data. In Vitali's cases he fought many guys, each of whom was well over 200 LBS, and only one of them had a losing record. Use the data.

I don not think Briggs rates as his best wins. Was he even in the top ten when they fought? Use the data.

Sorry but the 180-200 pound fighters have been breed out of the heavyweight division. Who was the last man raked in the top a heavyweight weight 180-200? 19XX something? Yes, that's how back you need to go.

- P4P

[HomicideHenry]

Take it up with the data, not me.

Well it's just you said it was "empirical"

I guess that means it makes no sense.

Still don't see why we can't just throw out how big a guy was, or if he fought before our time or not. Why can't we just go by how good he was, like we used to?

If a guy could punch hard (not just hard for his weight) than he could punch hard.
If a guy is fast (not just fast for his size) than he is fast.

It doesn't matter if he weighed 180 or 280.

Yeah, but if you have a large man who is quick, he is going to hit harder than a quicker small man. Its all physics. Most big men are not quick, but occasionally there is one and they usually end up heavyweight champion.

[HomicideHenry]

Coincidentally Johnny Nelson talks about the jump from CW to HW in an interview I’m listening to today. He said as a CW you can probably beat 90% of HWs as you often have the speed advantage but the top guys you can’t really touch as they have the natural HW size and/or strength that make the weight jump too much. He then goes on to say how he couldn’t land a punch on Fury when he sparred him as he was just too big for him (looking on google Fury was just 16 years old). Nelson said he stayed at CW as he often held the size advantage.

Makes total sense. Fury's dimensions would make it terribly difficult for even a top CW to deal with. Not to say a Holyfield, Usyk or elite 200 lb fighter couldn't do it.

But Fury is a giant in HW terms too. But maybe in 20 years his frame will be standard for HWs.

What's more remarkable about what Nelson said is that the sparring session took place in 2005 when Fury was basically 16 years old. We're not even talking about the early pro version of Fury. Nelson at the time was still WBO champion although he would retire that same year.

[Controversial]

Coincidentally Johnny Nelson talks about the jump from CW to HW in an interview I’m listening to today. He said as a CW you can probably beat 90% of HWs as you often have the speed advantage but the top guys you can’t really touch as they have the natural HW size and/or strength that make the weight jump too much. He then goes on to say how he couldn’t land a punch on Fury when he sparred him as he was just too big for him (looking on google Fury was just 16 years old). Nelson said he stayed at CW as he often held the size advantage.

Makes total sense. Fury's dimensions would make it terribly difficult for even a top CW to deal with. Not to say a Holyfield, Usyk or elite 200 lb fighter couldn't do it.

But Fury is a giant in HW terms too. But maybe in 20 years his frame will be standard for HWs.

What's more remarkable about what Nelson said is that the sparring session took place in 2005 when Fury was basically 16 years old. We're not even talking about the early pro version of Fury. Nelson at the time was still WBO champion although he would retire that same year.

Just highlights that experience not always a deciding factor. I’ve always wondered if Mike Tyson could’ve beat Berbick in his debut. When a fighter has a unique style then all the experience in the world can’t really prepare you.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well it's just you said it was "empirical"

I guess that means it makes no sense.

Still don't see why we can't just throw out how big a guy was, or if he fought before our time or not. Why can't we just go by how good he was, like we used to?

If a guy could punch hard (not just hard for his weight) than he could punch hard.
If a guy is fast (not just fast for his size) than he is fast.

It doesn't matter if he weighed 180 or 280.

Yeah, but if you have a large man who is quick, he is going to hit harder than a quicker small man. Its all physics. Most big men are not quick, but occasionally there is one and they usually end up heavyweight champion.

Wow.
No, it's not all physics.

Is the large man quick, or just quick for a large man?
Even if he is quick, doesn't mean that he hit harder.
Even if he hits harder, doesn't mean is better than the smaller man.
And if a big man is quick, he still probably won't the hw champion.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well it's just you said it was "empirical"

I guess that means it makes no sense.

Still don't see why we can't just throw out how big a guy was, or if he fought before our time or not. Why can't we just go by how good he was, like we used to?

If a guy could punch hard (not just hard for his weight) than he could punch hard.
If a guy is fast (not just fast for his size) than he is fast.

It doesn't matter if he weighed 180 or 280.

NEVER use the eye test, or employ any sort of critical thinking or rational enquiry when analysing fighters. Why bother when you can just look at stats. Like how Vitali Klitschko is the hardest puncher ever because of X wins and X KOs and because he's X feet tall with X inch muscles and weighs an impressive looking X lbs and made X defences etc etc. Never mind that an actual study would reveal that his best wins were over old, fat versions of Corrie Sanders and Shannon Briggs, and an even deeper study would discover that they were both only B tier heavyweights at best in the 90s -- all that matters is the stats.

Take it up with the data!

Except for the data that shows he was 0-2 in fights that mattered. We aren't supposed to look at that data.

[HomicideHenry]

Makes total sense. Fury's dimensions would make it terribly difficult for even a top CW to deal with. Not to say a Holyfield, Usyk or elite 200 lb fighter couldn't do it.

But Fury is a giant in HW terms too. But maybe in 20 years his frame will be standard for HWs.

What's more remarkable about what Nelson said is that the sparring session took place in 2005 when Fury was basically 16 years old. We're not even talking about the early pro version of Fury. Nelson at the time was still WBO champion although he would retire that same year.

Just highlights that experience not always a deciding factor. I’ve always wondered if Mike Tyson could’ve beat Berbick in his debut. When a fighter has a unique style then all the experience in the world can’t really prepare you.

What I find interesting is that Nelson is certainly one of the top 5 cruiserweights of all time, or just outside the top 5. He wasn't necessarily a small man either. Nelson was 6'2" and somewhere around 198 pounds when trained down. Muhammad Ali was 6'2.5" in comparison.

When one really thinks about it, Fury has been working with top cruiserweights and small heavyweights like Eddie Chambers for years and years. So when a lot of people are on the hater bandwagon saying Usyk would just run through him, I'm thinking to myself if the teenage boy could make a top 5 all-time cruiserweight like Nelson effectively useless then it's no easy task for Usyk.

[HomicideHenry]

I guess that means it makes no sense.

Still don't see why we can't just throw out how big a guy was, or if he fought before our time or not. Why can't we just go by how good he was, like we used to?

If a guy could punch hard (not just hard for his weight) than he could punch hard.
If a guy is fast (not just fast for his size) than he is fast.

It doesn't matter if he weighed 180 or 280.

Yeah, but if you have a large man who is quick, he is going to hit harder than a quicker small man. Its all physics. Most big men are not quick, but occasionally there is one and they usually end up heavyweight champion.

Wow.
No, it's not all physics.

Is the large man quick, or just quick for a large man?
Even if he is quick, doesn't mean that he hit harder.
Even if he hits harder, doesn't mean is better than the smaller man.
And if a big man is quick, he still probably won't the hw champion.

Of course, you have to factor in skills and technique and ring IQ and conditioning. But it is an undisputed scientific fact that the greater the velocity, the greater the kinetic power. And the greater the mass behind the velocity the more more devastating the kinetic power against a lesser mass opposing force.





Let's say, for example, Jack Dempsey could throw a left hook at seventy five miles an hour at 187 pounds, that equates to a certain amount of kinetic power.

https://www.gigacalculator.com/calculat ... ulator.php

So let's say, 187 at 75mph within a 3 foot distance for a duration of 2 seconds that's 104.276 newton's. Now let's take someone like Tyson Fury. Let's say he weighs 265 pounds and he's throwing hooks at 60mph, that comes out to 94.574 newton's. That's a difference of basically nine newton's of force. But let's assume Fury could throw a 75mph hook the same as Dempsey, that comes out to 144.771 newton's.

Back in the day when fight films were done frame by frame it was easier to determine speed of punches. How fast Fury actually throws punches I'm not sure but he's considered quite quick for a man of his size. A far better expert at breaking down speed by film needs to come in on this.

But the fact of the matter is if you got a big man nearly as fast as a smaller man, or just as fast, he's going to be more devastating than the smaller man.

[Riddick Bowie]

What's more remarkable about what Nelson said is that the sparring session took place in 2005 when Fury was basically 16 years old. We're not even talking about the early pro version of Fury. Nelson at the time was still WBO champion although he would retire that same year.

Just highlights that experience not always a deciding factor. I’ve always wondered if Mike Tyson could’ve beat Berbick in his debut. When a fighter has a unique style then all the experience in the world can’t really prepare you.

What I find interesting is that Nelson is certainly one of the top 5 cruiserweights of all time, or just outside the top 5. He wasn't necessarily a small man either. Nelson was 6'2" and somewhere around 198 pounds when trained down. Muhammad Ali was 6'2.5" in comparison.

When one really thinks about it, Fury has been working with top cruiserweights and small heavyweights like Eddie Chambers for years and years. So when a lot of people are on the hater bandwagon saying Usyk would just run through him, I'm thinking to myself if the teenage boy could make a top 5 all-time cruiserweight like Nelson effectively useless then it's no easy task for Usyk.

Ali was 6'3''

Nelson top 5?!! Where are DeLeon and Warring then? Names that would certainly intimidate Nelson into his shell: Holyfield, Usyk, Haye, Qawi, Toney, Jirov, Mormeck, Norris, Lebedev, Gomez...