Page 5 of 9
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 09:10
by Cap
By the way, in response to an earlier comment. I came across a photo of Harry Wills US passport from the 1920s. In the description he listed himself as 6' 2". So Firpo was likely 6' 3", maybe 6' 3 1/2". Still think Wills would've handled either Klitschko pretty easily, though both are (were?) dominant in a lacklustre division. Neither will be in any one's all time top ten.
Cap
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 09:24
by Ezzard
Ambling Alp wrote:Ezzard wrote:Seamus wrote:If it were really possible for the "Cruiserweights" of the Past to own the "Super Heavyweights" of the Present, some guy from the current ranks of LHW's or CW's would just go up to 200 and clean out the division. All I hear on this forum is how weight and seize doesn't matter once you reach the heavies, yet a look at the weights of the top 100 for the last decade clearly indicates it means plenty. Ten years from now when all the HW champions are over 240 I'll still be hearing how Marciano, Louis and Dempsey would kill these guys.
I know I'm siding with Langford but I do agree with this post.
You could say that Holyfield managed it but that's about it.
Maybe you missed my post. Smaller fighters with ability have moved up and been very successful. Michael Spinks moved up from lightheavyweight and won the heavyweight title. Michael Moorer did it as well. So did Roy Jones. Up until 1985, no lightheavyweight champion moved up and was able to win the heavyweight title against the "smaller" heavyweights, and many tried. Since then 3 have done it and Holyfield did it after moving up from cruiserweight. They did in an era of big heavyweights.
Chris Byrd was a "small" heavyweight and he was one of the top heavyweights for several years. He couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper bag. Why is it hard to imagine smaller heavyweights that could really punch and who were much better than Byrd beating big heavyweights of today?
Of course a significant size advantages is a factor, but you have judge it on a case by case basis. You have to weigh the size advantage against the ability advantage. In some cases, the smaller fighter would win because he has that much more ability.
Seamus' point about why hasn't a current CW moved up and cleaned out the division is a bit misleading.
A talented CW will most likely have bulked up and started at HW simply because the dollars in this division. So we can't be sure that the HWs aren't made up of CWs already.
Spinks beat an old Holmes who no longer had the stamina to sustain an attack to get him out of there. Other than those 2 wins Spinks was not successful in the division.
Alp's right that ability matters too. I wouldn't back Langford against Lewis, Bowe etc...
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 09:43
by Ambling Alp
No, I wouldn't back Langford against Lewis or Bowe either. However, Klitschko is a different story. He isn't nearly as good.
As for Michael Spinks, no he didn't beat a prime Larry holmes. However, even at the stage Holmes was at when Spinks beat him, Holmes was better than the majority of beltholders that have come since.
Remember Holmes beat Mercer and almost beat McCall several years after he lost to Spinks.
It's also important to note that Spinks destroyed big heavyweight Cooney.
Spinks got destroyed by "small" heavyweight Tyson.
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 09:52
by Ezzard
Ambling Alp wrote:No, I wouldn't back Langford against Lewis or Bowe either. However, Klitschko is a different story. He isn't nearly as good.
As for Michael Spinks, no he didn't beat a prime Larry holmes. However, even at the stage Holmes was at when Spinks beat him, Holmes was better than the majority of beltholders that have come since.
Remember Holmes beat Mercer and almost beat McCall several years after he lost to Spinks.
It's also important to note that Spinks destroyed big heavyweight Cooney.
Spinks got destroyed by "small" heavyweight Tyson.
Cooney was really nothing by then though and Tyson was only a small HW by today's standards.
I think is an interesting question. The problem is how big are these men naturally?
I do think Vitali was a decent HW.
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 10:42
by Seamus
Gerry Cooney had fought 1 round of boxing in 2 and a half yrs when he got stopped by Spinks. Spinks beat Holmes the first time, but clearly deserved an L in the rematch, and his other 2 defenses before "Deadman Walking" were ridiculous. Still, the Tyson who slaughtered him was slightly heavier than the Foreman who destroyed Frazier the first time.
The HW division is evolving just like linemen in the NFL keep getting heavier. James Toney didn't prove that a MW could be competitive in the HW's, he proved that guy who HAD been a MW could. Idealized weights have no bearing on reality because they're hypothetical. Fact is the Toney that fought Rahman and Peter came in over 230. Michael Moorer, had been a LHW belt holder, but he fought at 40-55 lbs heavier as a HW in the 90's, and no one would have called Chris Byrd a little HW as late as the 1980's.
You can go on forever about fighters ideal weights, but my guess is that you'll continue to see Povetkin, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Solis etc stay well above 210.
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 10:44
by dempseyfire
I love how Tyson gets a special pass for some reason in these debates. He was a small HW, 5'10, 71'' reach, 215ish at his best. But then the people who sing Tyson's praises to high heaven and say he KO's every fighter who ever lived, say a 6'2, 205 lb Joe Louis was too small!!!! And people forget that Ali was his best was 210-214. But I never hear people saying he wouldn't be undisputed today.
Makes absolutely no sense.
You are the same people who were claiming Toney faked his achilles injury prior to his fight with McCline b/c he was scared to fight the big man!!! I remember!!
Yes Vitali is a big man but with all that size comes drawbacks. In ridiculously slow fights with Sanders and Williams, both fighters who were woefully out of condition, he was breathing hard with his mouth open by the 5th round and even minutes after the stoppage Vitali couldn't even talk straight after the Sanders fight he looked like he was about to have an asthma attack. Even an old fat Lennox was coming on top in the 6th round as Vitali was tiring out from the pace even though as the younger trimmer man he should've been dominating under those circumstances.
Langford was a guy with a great chin, fantastic ring skills which enabled him as a blind man to knockout big young Heavyweights, knockout power in both hands, and could fight at a fast pace for 20 rounds.
He was short . .anyone see how it might be difficult for a 6'8 guy to land clean heads shots on a man so much shorter who was a master at rolling and slipping shots??? On the contrary Vitali's body would right there for Sam.
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 10:52
by dempseyfire
Seamus wrote:Gerry Cooney had fought 1 round of boxing in 2 and a half yrs when he got stopped by Spinks. Spinks beat Holmes the first time, but clearly deserved an L in the rematch, and his other 2 defenses before "Deadman Walking" were ridiculous. Still, the Tyson who slaughtered him was slightly heavier than the Foreman who destroyed Frazier the first time.
The HW division is evolving just like linemen in the NFL keep getting heavier. James Toney didn't prove that a MW could be competitive in the HW's, he proved that guy who HAD been a MW could. Idealized weights have no bearing on reality because they're hypothetical. Fact is the Toney that fought Rahman and Peter came in over 230. Michael Moorer, had been a LHW belt holder, but he fought at 40-55 lbs heavier as a HW in the 90's, and no one would have called Chris Byrd a little HW as late as the 1980's.
You can go on forever about fighters ideal weights, but my guess is that you'll continue to see Povetkin, Chagaev, Ibragimov, Solis etc stay well above 210.
B/c love handles do so much for finesse and power!!!
HWs today are lazy b/c everyone else is lazy. It's a vicious cycle. When you can win against other fat-asses doing half-ass training, why go the extra mile? that's the thought process today, which is why you haven't had any of these "heir apperents" succeed, b/c they get high on the hog. Look at what some of these guys are coming in weighing in at and looking like in big nationally televised fights?? Evolution?? The evolution to obesity. It is PATHETIC.
Anyone see a prime Evander Holyfied at 210 in today's scene not completely wiping out these Pillsberry Dougboys?? If you don't you need help!!
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 11:02
by Seamus
Wonder who packs a harder punch, Kevin Johnson, who look's like he lives at the gym, or Pudgy Solis ?
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 11:36
by Cap
Toney-Peter would've been interesting if Toney had come in at 190-195 and they'd assigned a ref who wouldn't let Peter lay all over him. Don't know why he and Jones were so willing to sacrifice speed for bulk.
For the record, The Boston Tarbaby was 5' 8" tall and in his prime around 1910-1913 weighed between 180 and 190. As for his punching power, when he really wanted to get them out of there, he was deadly (See Flynn ko'd in one, Gunboat Smith ko'd in 3, George Godfrey ko'd in one, etc.). Sam fought in a day where it didn't always pay to put guys away in a hurry. You had to think of your future. Especially during the period where mixed matches were frowned on by local and provincial/state governments. For a stretch, almost the only fights he could get were with the same few black fighters. They were sometimes asked to give the fans their money's worth and usually complied.
Klitschko would've pursued Sam and Langford would've eluded him, racking up points. By the sixth or seventh round, the giant would be breathing like an old man climbing a steep hill. Then Sam would make the big guy pay. I see a points win or Klitschko collapsing in his corner complaining he'd been poisoned or placed under a voodoo curse by Elvis.
Cap
Cap
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 11:40
by dempseyfire
Seamus wrote:Wonder who packs a harder punch, Kevin Johnson, who look's like he lives at the gym, or Pudgy Solis ?
So would Solis lose his power if he wasn't fat???
Butterbean is a hard puncher too you know . . .
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 11:50
by Ambling Alp
One question that should be asked is "Should the heavyweights today be so big"?
Just because everyone is doing it doesn't mean everyone should be doing it.
There are many disadvantages with excess weight. The big heavyweights today are generally slower, easier to hit, and have less stamina.
Watch the fights. How many great heavyweight fights have their been in the last 10 years?
Name one great fight in which both fighters weighed over 240?
I guess we have to throw out Spinks whipping of Cooney because Cooney hadn't been active. It seems to be forgotten that a lot of people thought Cooney would blow out Spinks early. Of course Tyson's win over Spinks counts even though Spinks hadn't fought in a year.
Another issue that I want to address something I have always wondered about: The accurracy of the weights. Tyson supposedly weighed more than Foreman. How can this possible? Foreman was had atleast as big of upper body, bigger legs and was much taller. If you didn't know their official weights you would think Foreman outweighed Tyson by at least 20 pounds. How can a guy 6'3, that big and that solid possibly only weigh 217 pounds?
There are other examples of heavyweights from the past that look much bigger than their weights.
btw-We can keep giving example after example of smaller heavyweights beating bigger heavyweights. Is this just going to be ignored?
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 11:51
by Seamus
In my opinion, Solis would lose some power if he dropped under maybe 230. Fact is, some guys with excess baggage carry a big punch, and some gym rats don't.
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 12:10
by dempseyfire
Seamus wrote:In my opinion, Solis would lose some power if he dropped under maybe 230. Fact is, some guys with excess baggage carry a big punch, and some gym rats don't.
So what? That doesn't mean anything! I'm sure some chubby construction workers a few blocks away from me punch harder than Chris Byrd, they wouldn't win a minute if they boxed him.
Solis "lose power under 230" . . . . .that statement is utterly ridiculous. You don't get punching power from a large amount of excess body mass on your frame. Was Lennox Lewis NOT a knockout puncher when he was a skinny 226 and then became one a much heavier 245?? No, he was a knockout puncher at both weights b/c weight does not equate to power. Above 180 lbs punching power comes down to body mechanics, torque, speed/explosiveness (which is maximized when you carry lean muscle and not excess baggage), timing, and natural God-given ability.
Tyson
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 17:00
by pound per pound
dempseyfire wrote:I love how Tyson gets a special pass for some reason in these debates. He was a small HW, 5'10, 71'' reach, 215ish at his best. But then the people who sing Tyson's praises to high heaven and say he KO's every fighter who ever lived, say a 6'2, 205 lb Joe Louis was too small!!!! And people forget that Ali was his best was 210-214. But I never hear people saying he wouldn't be undisputed today.
Makes absolutely no sense.
You are the same people who were claiming Toney faked his achilles injury prior to his fight with McCline b/c he was scared to fight the big man!!! I remember!!
Yes Vitali is a big man but with all that size comes drawbacks. In ridiculously slow fights with Sanders and Williams, both fighters who were woefully out of condition, he was breathing hard with his mouth open by the 5th round and even minutes after the stoppage Vitali couldn't even talk straight after the Sanders fight he looked like he was about to have an asthma attack. Even an old fat Lennox was coming on top in the 6th round as Vitali was tiring out from the pace even though as the younger trimmer man he should've been dominating under those circumstances.
Langford was a guy with a great chin, fantastic ring skills which enabled him as a blind man to knockout big young Heavyweights, knockout power in both hands, and could fight at a fast pace for 20 rounds.
He was short . .anyone see how it might be difficult for a 6'8 guy to land clean heads shots on a man so much shorter who was a master at rolling and slipping shots??? On the contrary Vitali's body would right there for Sam.
I'll match Vitali punch stats vs just about anyone. Don't confuse breathing techniques with being tired as they are different things. In truth, Vitlai's punch out put is more than Ali's, Foreman’s or Frazier’s.
Sometimes Marciano threw more punches. I did see him arm weary vs Archie Moore late in the fight.
Tyson wasn’t small. He was extremely compact and at 215 pounds weighed about 40 pounds more than Langford. Tyson also hit much harder than Langford. Do you really think Tyson takes journeyman the distance like Langford did?
Right
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 17:10
by pound per pound
Seamus wrote:If it were really possible for the "Cruiserweights" of the Past to own the "Super Heavyweights" of the Present, some guy from the current ranks of LHW's or CW's would just go up to 200 and clean out the division. All I hear on this forum is how weight and seize doesn't matter once you reach the heavies, yet a look at the weights of the top 100 for the last decade clearly indicates it means plenty. Ten years from now when all the HW champions are over 240 I'll still be hearing how Marciano, Louis and Dempsey would kill these guys.
Exactly. Some people in this forum are delousional. Curser weights on average get paid far less than heavyweights. If 176-200 pound cruisers felt they could compete at heavyweight they would do so.
The last sub 200 pound heavyweight champion was Mike Spinks, and that happened in the mid 1980's. How many years have passed since? About 22 years. This is a clear trend. Face facts, small heavies are out of the game. There are not top ten heavies under 210 pounds today. In fact, it might have been years since we saw one.
Fans of football, basketball, wrestling, MMA and other sports with a good amount of physical contact understand that size matters. In boxing understand this too. This is why we have 17 different weight divisions. The odd thing is a select few fans who don’t like who the current heavyweight are act like 175 pound men from decades ago could clean the floor with them.
I have seen some very good light heavies and cruiser try to move up. Most of them fail, with the exception of Holyfield who might be guilty of riods.
Bob foster for my money was one of the best all time light heavies. His chin was fine at light heavy. At heavy, he was taken out many times.. Foster said, “ The heavyweight jab felt like the light heavyweight knock out punch….and he was fighting heavies that would be considered small today.
Re: Tyson
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 17:43
by dempseyfire
pound per pound wrote:dempseyfire wrote:I love how Tyson gets a special pass for some reason in these debates. He was a small HW, 5'10, 71'' reach, 215ish at his best. But then the people who sing Tyson's praises to high heaven and say he KO's every fighter who ever lived, say a 6'2, 205 lb Joe Louis was too small!!!! And people forget that Ali was his best was 210-214. But I never hear people saying he wouldn't be undisputed today.
Makes absolutely no sense.
You are the same people who were claiming Toney faked his achilles injury prior to his fight with McCline b/c he was scared to fight the big man!!! I remember!!
Yes Vitali is a big man but with all that size comes drawbacks. In ridiculously slow fights with Sanders and Williams, both fighters who were woefully out of condition, he was breathing hard with his mouth open by the 5th round and even minutes after the stoppage Vitali couldn't even talk straight after the Sanders fight he looked like he was about to have an asthma attack. Even an old fat Lennox was coming on top in the 6th round as Vitali was tiring out from the pace even though as the younger trimmer man he should've been dominating under those circumstances.
Langford was a guy with a great chin, fantastic ring skills which enabled him as a blind man to knockout big young Heavyweights, knockout power in both hands, and could fight at a fast pace for 20 rounds.
He was short . .anyone see how it might be difficult for a 6'8 guy to land clean heads shots on a man so much shorter who was a master at rolling and slipping shots??? On the contrary Vitali's body would right there for Sam.
I'll match Vitali punch stats vs just about anyone. Don't confuse breathing techniques with being tired as they are different things. In truth, Vitlai's punch out put is more than Ali's, Foreman’s or Frazier’s.
Sometimes Marciano threw more punches. I did see him arm weary vs Archie Moore late in the fight.
Tyson wasn’t small. He was extremely compact and at 215 pounds weighed about 40 pounds more than Langford. Tyson also hit much harder than Langford. Do you really think Tyson takes journeyman the distance like Langford did?
Punch-stats don't mean jack . . .they count paws and pit-pats as full punches. Here's Vitali
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOCavvbMY2A
Here's Ali-Frazier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPBYhXBBYwg
If you can't tell the difference,
http://www.ispectacle.com/
Re: Right
Posted: 05 Oct 2007, 17:46
by dempseyfire
pound per pound wrote:Seamus wrote:If it were really possible for the "Cruiserweights" of the Past to own the "Super Heavyweights" of the Present, some guy from the current ranks of LHW's or CW's would just go up to 200 and clean out the division. All I hear on this forum is how weight and seize doesn't matter once you reach the heavies, yet a look at the weights of the top 100 for the last decade clearly indicates it means plenty. Ten years from now when all the HW champions are over 240 I'll still be hearing how Marciano, Louis and Dempsey would kill these guys.
Exactly. Some people in this forum are delousional. Curser weights on average get paid far less than heavyweights. If 176-200 pound cruisers felt they could compete at heavyweight they would do so.
.
You just answered the post for me. the 190-200 lbers? They are called Holyfield, Solis, Ibragimov, Povetkin, Byrd, Toney, Moorer, Ruiz etc.
If you have any real talent and aren't just a puffed up light HW who can't make it down to 175, you go WHERE THE MONEY IS, the HW division and put on some lbs.
Cruiserweights were created to charge more sanctioning fees, the whole division is a load of BS.
Re: Right
Posted: 06 Oct 2007, 01:23
by dempseyfire
Decagon wrote:dempseyfire wrote:Cruiserweights were created to charge more sanctioning fees, the whole division is a load of BS.
Do you really think that old fighters who can't make 175 anymore should be getting in the ring with 265-pounders?
They're called Saul Montana . . .
Posted: 06 Oct 2007, 01:30
by Tantum
Funny you use the Vitali - Williams fight as a reference...
Vitali fought the fight very efficiently, didn't waste punches, landed at will against a man who was much smaller than him, and just couldn't do shit.
And Danny Williams is 80lbs, and half a foot bigger than Sam Langford.
Posted: 06 Oct 2007, 01:34
by dempseyfire
Tantum wrote:Funny you use the Vitali - Williams fight as a reference...
Vitali fought the fight very efficiently, didn't waste punches, landed at will against a man who was much smaller than him, and just couldn't do shit.
And Danny Williams is 80lbs, and half a foot bigger than Sam Langford.
That fact that you are comparing an extremely overweight lead-footed journeyman like Danny Williams to Sam Langford says it all right there.
Posted: 06 Oct 2007, 02:22
by Tantum
Only their size...
I was going to mention the fact that obviously Langford was more talented, but I thought that was a given... So I didn't bother.
I guess I should have known you'd be clutching at straws trying to discredit any information you can.
Who really gives a f'uck?
Sam Langford would have beat Vitali "Bitchass" Quitschko 5 million times in 3 fights... The man was god.
Does that make you happy?
Posted: 06 Oct 2007, 02:27
by Tantum
re
Posted: 06 Oct 2007, 06:47
by barry
>>>Sam was a great fighter, but in sports a good big man almost always beats a good little man.<<<
This is true, but rarely does a good big man beat a great little man!!!!
Posted: 06 Oct 2007, 07:03
by BoxBuzz
Dempseyfire.....I have to say that by posting the Vitali-Williams and the Ali Frazier films you have really shown some differences. One thing for sure Ali-Frazier looked like a couple of focused pit bulls who had contempt for each other, compared to Vitali-Williams who seemed more like two old ladies taking a summer walk in a local park.
I don't quite know what else to take from it....the intensity of those seventies fighters vs the lackadaisacal efforts of the newer fighters is startling. Boxing vs Chess, Fighting vs Flirting, The Big Time vs The Bush Leauge. I was pretty amazed....definately made an impression and I only have one working eye.
Posted: 06 Oct 2007, 08:16
by tennessee
langford was a skilled fighter, from what i read, and his record against tough opponets was good. vitali is the best ko puncher ever in the history of heavyweight boxing. if they both had 4 oz. gloves, then the fight would not last but a few seconds. it would be like tossing sam into a wood chipper