BoxRec

crusader wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Anyway, it is disappointing when you see people so obsessed with what the needle on the scale says. It's an indication that the person who says it has little knowledge of the long history of the sport and doesn't seem to have much interest in learning about it.

crusader said"Weight plays a huge part in determining outcomes. Obviously it's not everything and can be overcome by a certain level of talent and/or skill, but there is no reason why focusing on the size disparities (the idea of the thread is if relatively small heavyweights are good enough to overcome significantly bigger heavyweights) in these hypotheticals makes one's opinion any less worth while or reflects poorly on their knowledge."

Actually weight usually doesn't play a huge part in determing boxing outcomes in the heavyweight division. In the first 100 years of heavyweight title fights, the fighter who weighed less won just as often as the fighter that weighed more. I would be happy to list many examples of smaller heavyweights defeating much larger heavyweights.

Yes there is are reasons why focusing on size disparities in these hypotheticals makes one's opinions less worthwhile or reflects poorly on their knowledge.
By focusing on the size disparities, they are ignoring everything else.
They are also assuming that being bigger is automatically an advantage, when it is often is not.
They are ignoring that these smaller heavyweights were the best in the world when there were many fighters that were much bigger than themselves.
They are ignoring that there has never been a time in boxing history where the biggest heavyweight was the best heavyweight.
They are picking and choosing when to use the bigger is better theory. What they are really doing is saying that heavyweights now are better than heavyweights from other era. They use size to dismiss the fighters form other eras. Yet they don't concede that the Klitschkos would have little chance vs Valuev. If they focused on huge size disparities all of the time, they would have to conclude that Valuev was better than the Klitschkos; which they won't do because it would be silly.

What you're saying is true as it pertains to early 20th century heavyweight boxing. Most of the larger heavys of that period were not always the best. Jim Jeffries is an exception. Of course that same principle can apply to later periods as well. Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker ,Leroy Jones and Gerry Cooney were not the best of their era either. Nor were Nikolay Valuev, Alexander Dimetrenko, or Timo Hoffman. But the heavy's who were their lesser in size, ie, Larry Holmes, Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, and Wladimir Klitschko were still bigger than many of the early 20th century heavy's and are deemed by most as ATG's.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

crusader wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Anyway, it is disappointing when you see people so obsessed with what the needle on the scale says. It's an indication that the person who says it has little knowledge of the long history of the sport and doesn't seem to have much interest in learning about it.

crusader said"Weight plays a huge part in determining outcomes. Obviously it's not everything and can be overcome by a certain level of talent and/or skill, but there is no reason why focusing on the size disparities (the idea of the thread is if relatively small heavyweights are good enough to overcome significantly bigger heavyweights) in these hypotheticals makes one's opinion any less worth while or reflects poorly on their knowledge."

Actually weight usually doesn't play a huge part in determing boxing outcomes in the heavyweight division. In the first 100 years of heavyweight title fights, the fighter who weighed less won just as often as the fighter that weighed more. I would be happy to list many examples of smaller heavyweights defeating much larger heavyweights.

Yes there is are reasons why focusing on size disparities in these hypotheticals makes one's opinions less worthwhile or reflects poorly on their knowledge.
By focusing on the size disparities, they are ignoring everything else.
They are also assuming that being bigger is automatically an advantage, when it is often is not.
They are ignoring that these smaller heavyweights were the best in the world when there were many fighters that were much bigger than themselves.
They are ignoring that there has never been a time in boxing history where the biggest heavyweight was the best heavyweight.
They are picking and choosing when to use the bigger is better theory. What they are really doing is saying that heavyweights now are better than heavyweights from other era. They use size to dismiss the fighters form other eras. Yet they don't concede that the Klitschkos would have little chance vs Valuev. If they focused on huge size disparities all of the time, they would have to conclude that Valuev was better than the Klitschkos; which they won't do because it would be silly.

Who the hell is saying that bigger fighters will always beat smaller fighters? Your example of Klitschko-Valuev is totally inane and misses the point I made in the quote. It's a mix of size and ability, meaning that if smaller men are significantly more skilled and/or talented than bigger men, they can beat them. The Klitschkos would handily beat Valuev despite the size difference because they are so much better than him.

You cannot also say that just because history is filled with smaller men beating larger men that size makes no difference. Who knows if the bigger men would've done even worse if they were not so large, and of course we are dealing with 4 fighters--Lewis, Bowe, and the Klitschkos--who are exceptional big men. They would enjoy size advantages that virtually no fighter did against Marciano and Dempsey (guys mentioned in this thread like Fulton and Firpo don't come close), and they're also quite handy as fighters. It's the interplay of size and ability that I think leads them to wins in these cases, not just size alone; you don't automatically beat someone just because you're bigger.

Not sure about you in particular, but people often write off a guy because he is smaller.

My point about Valuev is not inane. I think the Klitschkos would have beaten him. Because they were significantly better than him.
I think Marciano and Dempsey would have beaten the Klitschos because they were significantly better.
Marciano and Dempsey had a lot of ability, the Klitschos had a bit, Valuev had very little.
The difference in ability between the Marciano/Dempsey and the Klitschkos is at least as much as the difference between the Klitschkos and Valuev.

I'm glad that you reailize that size isn't everything. However, you are still assuming that size is automatically an advantage. It's not. At a certain point it becomes a liability. It affects speed, stamina, defense. There is a reason you don't see 300 pound runningbacks and wide receivers.

Yes it does make a difference that smaller heavyweights have often beaten bigger heavyweights. I'm not talking about one or two examples.

Lewis and Bowe anre exceptional big men. They had a lot of ability. The Klitschkos aren't even close to them. They aren't that "handy" as fighters. They each have multiple glaring weaknesses.

If size was that important, then there would have times in the history of the sport that the biggest fighter was the best. It has never happened in over 120 years. Not once.

I think one ought to big up and resurface the "Giants" thread that was done years ago, as a collective source of enormous fighters over the passed 100 years or so in the sport. The majority of these men, generally had only a handful of fights and went nowhere. As Alp points out, after a certain limit, size and weight becomes a disadvantage. The center of gravity increases, which only increases the likelihood of a man being taken off his feet. Speed, reflexes, and all around mobility begin to be compromised--- and what would be small, almost impregnable guards among average sized men, become wide openings among the big men. Is why men with explosive speed like Dempsey, was able to annihilate someone like Jess Willard rather easily-- and if one watches film on Big Jess, he fights essentially as men do today, clinching and leaning on men when they come in close. Such tactics only left more openings available to someone like Dempsey.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Not sure about you in particular, but people often write off a guy because he is smaller.

My point about Valuev is not inane. I think the Klitschkos would have beaten him. Because they were significantly better than him.
I think Marciano and Dempsey would have beaten the Klitschos because they were significantly better.
Marciano and Dempsey had a lot of ability, the Klitschos had a bit, Valuev had very little.
The difference in ability between the Marciano/Dempsey and the Klitschkos is at least as much as the difference between the Klitschkos and Valuev.

I'm glad that you reailize that size isn't everything. However, you are still assuming that size is automatically an advantage. It's not. At a certain point it becomes a liability. It affects speed, stamina, defense. There is a reason you don't see 300 pound runningbacks and wide receivers.

Yes it does make a difference that smaller heavyweights have often beaten bigger heavyweights. I'm not talking about one or two examples.

Lewis and Bowe anre exceptional big men. They had a lot of ability. The Klitschkos aren't even close to them. They aren't that "handy" as fighters. They each have multiple glaring weaknesses.

If size was that important, then there would have times in the history of the sport that the biggest fighter was the best. It has never happened in over 120 years. Not once.

I think the Klitschkos are exceptional among other big men, and I can't really see too many superheavyweights who were definitely better than them. While they may not be as good as Lewis and Bowe were, I certainly think they're 'handy', as I argue in a previous post.

Your point about size not being that important because few big men have dominated misses the important issue of sample sizes; throughout history there have been far fewer superheavyweights like Lewis, Bowe, and the Klitschkos than there have been smaller heavyweights. There is consequently a far smaller talent pool of big men to draw on, and thus you're not as likely to find fighters who have the right combinations of size and ability to defeat exceptional smaller fighters. None of that is inconsistent with size being an advantage, and the measure of how important size is should not be how well big men have done but how well they would've done if they weren't so large.

Bowe was clearly not as good as Holyfield. He won the series 2-1... he was bigger...

Mike Spinks would get an all-time higher rank at 175 than Tyson does at heavy. But when they fought...

Fitzsimmons would be higher than Jeffries in a p4p ranking.

Tommy Loughran was like day to nigh in ability with Carnera.

Archie Moore would rank higher than Marciano p4p.

Bob Foster was better than Zora Folley and Ernie Terrell.

I am struggling to remember when a less talented smaller guy moved up to heavy and beat a more talented bigger guy? and I'm not talking about a guy weighing 230 beating a guy who weighs 240.

The only one I can think of is Byrd beating Vitali but nobody here would accept it as they think Byrd is better...just hoping people start posting their scores again.

IIRC wasn't Vitali kicking Byrds ass until he tore his rotator cuff and retired? Not really that much of a win in the context we are talking about.

As for a recent small heavyweight the last time I can remember a guy in the 190s at HW was Roy Jones and there is a reason why he went after Huggy Bear instead of Lewis.

And Jones was by far the more skilled guy.

If in some crazy world we could have a 6' 1'' Bowe and Lennox I'd back Marciano to beat them.

HomicideHenry wrote:For Dempsey, yes.

For Marciano, I can only speculate.

Why am I so certain of Dempsey's success, and not Marciano's against men such as these?

While I do believe Marciano capable of doing so--- Dempsey had more than enough proof in his life time, that he was more than capable of dealing with men much taller, much heavier, much stronger than himself. In fact, it seemed the bigger they were the easier it was for Jack Dempsey.

Carl Morris (6'4" 240 pounds), Fred Fulton (6'5" 250 pounds), Arthur Pelkey, Gunboat Smith, Jess Willard (6'6" 245 pounds), were all heads and shoulders taller than Dempsey and often times out weighed him by more than fifty pounds--- Dempsey, for instance was 187 pounds when he fought Willard in Toledo, Ohio. Even later in his career as champion, while he seemed more comfortable doing movie serials and bedding Hollywood starlets than defending the title--- once fought 7'2" 280 pound Ben Wray in an exhibition, and Wray was an 'up and coming' prospect allegedly 4-0-0 (4). Dempsey broke the giant's jaw, rendering him unconscious for several minutes, and it took less than 60 seconds for him to do so. Wray never fought again.

I know the pundits and true believers in the philosophy that 'bigger is better' and that 'athletes get better over time', will discredit this by saying Lennox Lewis and others were far superior in ability, agility, skills, etc. than the likes of which Dempsey fought--- however, often times, these big men of today have disappointed even the most hardcore fanatic to their cause. Lewis, lose to the unheralded Hasim Rahman and Oliver McCall--- the Klitschko's lost to Lamon Brewster, Chris Byrd, Corrie Sanders, and Ross Purrity. Of course--- Bowe also went life and death three times with Evander Holyfield, a man who was essentially a blown up light heavyweight (albeit one of the all-time greats). Holyfield, great as he was, determined as he was--- even when passed his best, gave Lewis two competitive fights, and even in old age danced circles and was robbed against 7'0" 328 pound Nicolai Valuev.

If Holyfield, could do it. Then in my mind at least, well conditioned, determined, fighters like Marciano and Dempsey and Louis could have done it as well.

Awesome post

Rocky Marciano: 5'10 1/2", 184

Joe Louis: 6'2", 213 3/4


If Marciano fought most of the heavyweights today, that's what would happen.

p4p1 wrote:IIRC wasn't Vitali kicking Byrds ass until he tore his rotator cuff and retired? Not really that much of a win in the context we are talking about.

He was winning the fight but it was far from an a$$-kicking. Byrd won several rounds and most were competitive. And Byrd is a smaller man than Dempsey or Marciano.

p4p1 wrote:IIRC wasn't Vitali kicking Byrds ass until he tore his rotator cuff and retired? Not really that much of a win in the context we are talking about.

Check some of the posts in other threads. You'll realise you were watching a fight in a parallel universe. I mentioned it because if I hadn't it would have been the next post.

Ezzard wrote:Bowe was clearly not as good as Holyfield. He won the series 2-1... he was bigger...

Mike Spinks would get an all-time higher rank at 175 than Tyson does at heavy. But when they fought...

Fitzsimmons would be higher than Jeffries in a p4p ranking.

Tommy Loughran was like day to nigh in ability with Carnera.

Archie Moore would rank higher than Marciano p4p.

Bob Foster was better than Zora Folley and Ernie Terrell.

I am struggling to remember when a less talented smaller guy moved up to heavy and beat a more talented bigger guy? and I'm not talking about a guy weighing 230 beating a guy who weighs 240.

The only one I can think of is Byrd beating Vitali but nobody here would accept it as they think Byrd is better...just hoping people start posting their scores again.

Moore weighed more than Marciano at heavyweight. You think Moore, who beat huge skilled heavyweights like Bob Baker, lost to Rocky because Marciano was bigger?

Holyfield would've beaten Bowe a 2nd time if he hadn't been sick. I rank Evander over Bowe in every facet, including H2H.

Foster wasn't better than Folley . . Folley was a better boxer, better defense, better counter-puncher.

A lot of these matchups are due as much to styles. Size is just one component. One could say . . "oh, Eddie Chambers . . Wlad was just too big for him." Then he gets dominated even more (sans KO) by cruiserweight Mchunu.

dempseyfire wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Bowe was clearly not as good as Holyfield. He won the series 2-1... he was bigger...

Mike Spinks would get an all-time higher rank at 175 than Tyson does at heavy. But when they fought...

Fitzsimmons would be higher than Jeffries in a p4p ranking.

Tommy Loughran was like day to nigh in ability with Carnera.

Archie Moore would rank higher than Marciano p4p.

Bob Foster was better than Zora Folley and Ernie Terrell.

I am struggling to remember when a less talented smaller guy moved up to heavy and beat a more talented bigger guy? and I'm not talking about a guy weighing 230 beating a guy who weighs 240.

The only one I can think of is Byrd beating Vitali but nobody here would accept it as they think Byrd is better...just hoping people start posting their scores again.

Moore weighed more than Marciano at heavyweight. You think Moore, who beat huge skilled heavyweights like Bob Baker, lost to Rocky because Marciano was bigger?

Holyfield would've beaten Bowe a 2nd time if he hadn't been sick. I rank Evander over Bowe in every facet, including H2H.

Foster wasn't better than Folley . . Folley was a better boxer, better defense, better counter-puncher.

A lot of these matchups are due as much to styles. Size is just one component. One could say . . "oh, Eddie Chambers . . Wlad was just too big for him." Then he gets dominated even more (sans KO) by cruiserweight Mchunu.

True: Folley is a p4p great; Foster isn't.

Marciano campaigned as middleweight too in his early years before moving to 175 and then finally heavyweight. Yes...I'm saying Moore was a better fighter than Marciano...but Rocky was naturally bigger and that tipped it in his favour (and age).

In all those cases the smaller man was the better fighter and lost. I'm trying to think of a situation where the bigger man was the better fighter and lost. I guess there's Gans-McGovern????????!!!!!!!!!!

Marciano wasn't naturally bigger. They were naturally about the same size. Archie's ideal weight was around 190 after he had been fighting for several years. Like most boxers, he naturally grew during his career. He trained down to 175 to fight light heavyweights for much of his career. He also frequently fought at well above 175.

Thorughout boxing history there have been "super heavyweights" around the size of the Klitschkos. Probably many more than most people realize. They weren't ever the best because there were always smaller/normal sized heavyweights who were better. The heavyweight division over the last several years has been awful, regardless of size.

The whole size thing is something that is often misunderstood. Yes, a heavyweight that weighs say 210-220 (assuming he is in shape) has a distinct advantage over a fighter whose best weight is 175 and weighs 175-185 for their fight.

However, a guy that weighs around 250 does not an advantage over the fighter who weighs 210-220. At a certain point, a fighter's normal advantages in power gets eclipsed by getting too slow, getting too easy to get hit, and poor stamina.

There is an ideal size. In the NFL, you don't see many 170 pound running backs. You also don't see many 260 pound running backs either. You need a combination of many things which you don't have if you are too big or too small.

The first bit about Moore and Marciano is nonsense. But if you want to believe it go ahead. You've contradicted yourself when you were saying Marciano was walking around at 200 (or some other number). If Rocky could have made 175 he would have done and he'd have feasted on the lightheavies. He couldn't. But Archie could. Archie started out at middleweight. He peaked at 175. Marciano never weighed below about 185 once he peaked.

It's simple.

Now I will say that you have a point... Quiet possibly a fighter can be too big. I am open to the idea. But I keep wondering why these giants aren't getting beaten by these 6 foot 200 pound guys?

Ezzard wrote:The first bit about Moore and Marciano is nonsense. But if you want to believe it go ahead. You've contradicted yourself when you were saying Marciano was walking around at 200 (or some other number). If Rocky could have made 175 he would have done and he'd have feasted on the lightheavies. He couldn't. But Archie could. Archie started out at middleweight. He peaked at 175. Marciano never weighed below about 185 once he peaked.

It's simple.

Now I will say that you have a point... Quiet possibly a fighter can be too big. I am open to the idea. But I keep wondering why these giants aren't getting beaten by these 6 foot 200 pound guys?

Though wasn't there a lot more money in the heavyweight division to be made?

Don't you think he'd have started at 175 if he could have? This is entry level stuff...

There seems to be a gross misunderstanding among boxing fans and would be historians, who assume Rocky Marciano was the smallest heavyweight champion, or one of the smallest. There also seems to be a gross misunderstanding of size pertaining to earlier eras--- and comparing sizes with later eras, especially our own. There is also a gross misunderstanding of training regiments of earlier eras, in comparison with our own.

Fact is, the majority of "welterweights" and "middleweights" today, are in fact cruiserweights and light heavyweights in civilian life. The only fighters today, off the top of my head, who are in fact 'small' for their weight classes--- but are in reality suited to weight classes they compete in, like fighters from the era of Marciano--- are Mayweather, Pacquiao, Marquez and Martinez. The latter, for being the middleweight king is often times 160 in civilian life and fights at no higher than 154-157. Mayweather, despite being the Junior Middleweight and Welterweight king, is often no more than 155 in civilian life and competes at 147-152 for most fights. Etc.

They are exceptions, it seems to the rule. Take Chavez Junior as an example. Here he is competing at 160, when the man walks around 195-210 pounds in civilian life. Possibly even higher. The man I fought, J'Leon Love, competes anywhere between Junior Middleweight and Super Middleweight, but in civilian life walks around at 195. The size differentials are astounding---- and also makes me suppose, in my mind at least, that had these men existed in earlier eras where you were forced to compete the same night as the weigh in, that these men would find themselves too dehydrated and too weak to compete as welterweights and middleweights, and therefore have to rebuild themselves at Cruiserweight and Heavyweight--- where they would ultimately be destroyed by genuine articles.

Rocky Marciano, in civilian life, walked around at 240-250 pounds. And at this weight, he was obviously fat, but not grossly fat. When he competed, as an amateur, he trimmed down to 195-210 and in less than a dozen matches was considered one of the best in the country--- only a broken hand kept him out of competing in the Olympic trials, which he more than likely would of won. As a professional, he trimmed down as low as 176 and found himself quicker, but less powerful. He went as high as 198 pounds, but found while he had power, he lacked sufficient speed and reflexes. So there he found his happy medium in the 180's. He found what worked for him. And it took years for him to find what was best for him as a fighter.

This argument of him that "he coulda fought 175" or "he coulda fought 160", is altogether ridiculous in my view. Marciano, through alot of experimentation, found what made him THE BEST THAT HE COULD EVER BE. Anything less than 180 pounds, made him a sitting duck. Anything over 180 pounds, made him a sitting duck. True--- there was some discussion in his reign as champion--- to fight the legendary Sugar Ray Robinson, as Sugar Ray had fought for the LHW title against Maxim and proved he could carry the weight. After all, back then 176+ was considered heavyweight then. But even Ray had the sense of mind, to know, that he was not a true heavyweight as Marciano was and flat out refused, saying there wasn't enough money in the world for him to get killed.

And of course, Marciano proved, he was a true heavyweight when he dismantled Ezzard Charles twice. He solidified it, when he kayoed Moore. Men, who carved out their legend at 175, simply could not of handled Marciano. He was capable of making the weight--- yes--- but to what benefit? He was Cruiserweight in size, with the work rate of a modern day welterweight, with the power of a super heavyweight. A very dangerous combination. What you are arguing for--- is to strip Marciano of his power, to strip him of his peak conditioning, to strip him of his energy, by making him smaller than what he was comfortable with. Qualities that made him an all time great.

It would be the same mindset, as saying, that Muhammad Ali was 175 in the amateurs, and had he stayed at that weight he could of been also the greatest light heavyweight to of ever lived. I don't believe it would of been so, considering Ali as a heavyweight floated around at 215 pounds on average. The older he would of gotten, the more it would of been a struggle to lose the weight. The body matures, as we age, and it gets heavier. Which is why--- Hopkins moved to 175, rather than try and stay at 160 or even attempt 168. He was too old, slow, for it. It would of been the same for Ali.

Fact being, since Archie Moore keeps being brought up--- yes he was indeed heavier than Marciano, and he was also slightly taller. However, Moore as a heavyweight was competing at his civilian life weight. Marciano, wasn't. Simple as that.

One of the best posts i have ever read...hh

Great post henry

dempseyfire wrote:

p4p1 wrote:IIRC wasn't Vitali kicking Byrds ass until he tore his rotator cuff and retired? Not really that much of a win in the context we are talking about.

He was winning the fight but it was far from an a$$-kicking. Byrd won several rounds and most were competitive. And Byrd is a smaller man than Dempsey or Marciano.

Would you care to share which several rounds Byrd won?