BoxRec

Alp, I would call Holyfields stamina as a HW ordinary at best. That's not relative to his contemporaries, but from a historical perspective. It certainly wasn't bad, although it was much better when he was a CW.

Historically, his stamina was about average for a heavyweight champion/serious challenger.
Not great, but not bad either.
He did fight a fast pace when he first became a heavyweight and didn't seem to tire too much, of course it's a little hard to tell because it wasn't until he fought Foreman that he had to go 12 rounds as a heavyweight. He didn't seem to have stamina problems in the Dokes fight which went until the 10th round and that fight had a lot of action. However, he only weighed 208 for that fight, which is probably the ideal weight for him.

Ambling Alp wrote:Historically, his stamina was about average for a heavyweight champion/serious challenger.

Exactly. I meant to say historically for a world class HW.

Thanks.

David Tua was another fighter who proved heavy weightlifting doesn't ruin stamina. 400 lb + benchpress, and for a time he and Ibeabuchi held the compubox record for punches thrown in a HW bout over 12 rounds.

Tua was a muscle-bound statue in most of his fights. Muscle-building takes away from speed and speed is power. Remember big-muscled Ken Norton? Didn't they call him "the Mummy" because of the way he moved in the ring?

Cap

Cap wrote:Tua was a muscle-bound statue in most of his fights. Muscle-building takes away from speed and speed is power. Remember big-muscled Ken Norton? Didn't they call him "the Mummy" because of the way he moved in the ring?

Cap

No, it was Foreman who Ali dubbed The Mummy.

Cap wrote:Tua was a muscle-bound statue in most of his fights. Muscle-building takes away from speed and speed is power. Remember big-muscled Ken Norton? Didn't they call him "the Mummy" because of the way he moved in the ring?

Cap

So Tua had no power because he was muscle-bound? Give me a fuckin break. Muscle or no muscle, speed is speed and power is power. here are plenty of examples that shoot holes through your theory, but I'll just leave you with Tua's "slowness" due to his mass musculature: http://youtube.com/watch?v=IKDvkcLe0K0
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BlS82LC3fTo

I agree with Dempsey Fire, John L. and other enlightened posters, athletes were better at the turn of the 20 th century. We have done nothing but regress since. Lots of smoking, and heavy drinking produced REAL athletes. They knew how to get into shape and they knew how to fight.

All sports have simply gone downhill over the last 100 + years. Football probably peaked with the Harvard - Yale game of 1900, either team would run over the N.Y. Giants Super Bowl team. In those days, lineman weighed 175 and backs weighed 140, and they weren't loaded down with muscles that made them slow and musclebound.

Like most of the posters here who really understand athletics, I yearn for the days of the real athlete. The guy who could smoke two packs a day, stay out drunk all night before an athletic event and perform at his peak.

Muscles, strength, size, measurables like that are for losers and sissies. Real fighters don't need any of that stuff, and neither do football players or basketball players. Besides, most of the athletes in 1900 were actually bigger than the athletes of today, but they listed them smaller. One writer of the day described John L. Sullivan as a "giant of a man", so he was probably 7-0 or more but in those days, fighters liked to surprise their opponents when they came into the ring. They didn't give their true size because they knew the other old timers were masters of the trade with tricks and techniques that were lost long ago. If one of those guys had a few days to prepare for a particular fighter it would be no contest.

Most of them fought seven days a week, usually more than once a day. And, they fought great competition everytime they fought because they all had 6-700 fights within a year or two. All of them were better than anyone who has fought since. Notice how most of them look slow, unskilled and awkward in the old film? That is because that was a technique that the real old timers used to teach. It has been lost over the years and no trainer knows how to train now.

Where did all of the real trainers go? When did trainers stop teaching the old style? Where did the Corbett g-string boxing trunks go? There is no answer, but like everything, we just regress.

Sports are in a sad state today. All of the good athletes competed when our parents, grandparents, Great-grand parents were young. My grandfather told me that most of the kids in his neighborhood could run faster than any 100 meter runner of today. He laughs at the muscled up 100 meter sprinters and says he would like to see one line up against Slim from the neighborhood. Too many muscles, too much weight lifting, too much scientific crap, the real athlete has no need for that crap, leave it to the guys from Muscle and Fitness. The real athlete is the guy your grandparents told you about.

John Galt wrote:I agree with Dempsey Fire, John L. and other enlightened posters, athletes were better at the turn of the 20 th century. We have done nothing but regress since. Lots of smoking, and heavy drinking produced REAL athletes. They knew how to get into shape and they knew how to fight.

All sports have simply gone downhill over the last 100 + years. Football probably peaked with the Harvard - Yale game of 1900, either team would run over the N.Y. Giants Super Bowl team. In those days, lineman weighed 175 and backs weighed 140, and they weren't loaded down with muscles that made them slow and musclebound.

Like most of the posters here who really understand athletics, I yearn for the days of the real athlete. The guy who could smoke two packs a day, stay out drunk all night before an athletic event and perform at his peak.

Muscles, strength, size, measurables like that are for losers and sissies. Real fighters don't need any of that stuff, and neither do football players or basketball players. Besides, most of the athletes in 1900 were actually bigger than the athletes of today, but they listed them smaller. One writer of the day described John L. Sullivan as a "giant of a man", so he was probably 7-0 or more but in those days, fighters liked to surprise their opponents when they came into the ring. They didn't give their true size because they knew the other old timers were masters of the trade with tricks and techniques that were lost long ago. If one of those guys had a few days to prepare for a particular fighter it would be no contest.

Most of them fought seven days a week, usually more than once a day. And, they fought great competition everytime they fought because they all had 6-700 fights within a year or two. All of them were better than anyone who has fought since. Notice how most of them look slow, unskilled and awkward in the old film? That is because that was a technique that the real old timers used to teach. It has been lost over the years and no trainer knows how to train now.

Where did all of the real trainers go? When did trainers stop teaching the old style? Where did the Corbett g-string boxing trunks go? There is no answer, but like everything, we just regress.

Sports are in a sad state today. All of the good athletes competed when our parents, grandparents, Great-grand parents were young. My grandfather told me that most of the kids in his neighborhood could run faster than any 100 meter runner of today. He laughs at the muscled up 100 meter sprinters and says he would like to see one line up against Slim from the neighborhood. Too many muscles, too much weight lifting, too much scientific crap, the real athlete has no need for that crap, leave it to the guys from Muscle and Fitness. The real athlete is the guy your grandparents told you about.

:)

classic john galt! yeah, why are basketball players bigger today? must be all those steroids and performance enhancing drugs.

John Galt wrote:I agree with Dempsey Fire, John L. and other enlightened posters, athletes were better at the turn of the 20 th century. We have done nothing but regress since. Lots of smoking, and heavy drinking produced REAL athletes. They knew how to get into shape and they knew how to fight.

All sports have simply gone downhill over the last 100 + years. Football probably peaked with the Harvard - Yale game of 1900, either team would run over the N.Y. Giants Super Bowl team. In those days, lineman weighed 175 and backs weighed 140, and they weren't loaded down with muscles that made them slow and musclebound.

Like most of the posters here who really understand athletics, I yearn for the days of the real athlete. The guy who could smoke two packs a day, stay out drunk all night before an athletic event and perform at his peak.

Muscles, strength, size, measurables like that are for losers and sissies. Real fighters don't need any of that stuff, and neither do football players or basketball players. Besides, most of the athletes in 1900 were actually bigger than the athletes of today, but they listed them smaller. One writer of the day described John L. Sullivan as a "giant of a man", so he was probably 7-0 or more but in those days, fighters liked to surprise their opponents when they came into the ring. They didn't give their true size because they knew the other old timers were masters of the trade with tricks and techniques that were lost long ago. If one of those guys had a few days to prepare for a particular fighter it would be no contest.

Most of them fought seven days a week, usually more than once a day. And, they fought great competition everytime they fought because they all had 6-700 fights within a year or two. All of them were better than anyone who has fought since. Notice how most of them look slow, unskilled and awkward in the old film? That is because that was a technique that the real old timers used to teach. It has been lost over the years and no trainer knows how to train now.

Where did all of the real trainers go? When did trainers stop teaching the old style? Where did the Corbett g-string boxing trunks go? There is no answer, but like everything, we just regress.

Sports are in a sad state today. All of the good athletes competed when our parents, grandparents, Great-grand parents were young. My grandfather told me that most of the kids in his neighborhood could run faster than any 100 meter runner of today. He laughs at the muscled up 100 meter sprinters and says he would like to see one line up against Slim from the neighborhood. Too many muscles, too much weight lifting, too much scientific crap, the real athlete has no need for that crap, leave it to the guys from Muscle and Fitness. The real athlete is the guy your grandparents told you about.

best post on the subject yet.

A pint of whatever he's on, I think....

John Galt wrote:I agree with Dempsey Fire, John L. and other enlightened posters, athletes were better at the turn of the 20 th century. We have done nothing but regress since. Lots of smoking, and heavy drinking produced REAL athletes. They knew how to get into shape and they knew how to fight.

All sports have simply gone downhill over the last 100 + years. Football probably peaked with the Harvard - Yale game of 1900, either team would run over the N.Y. Giants Super Bowl team. In those days, lineman weighed 175 and backs weighed 140, and they weren't loaded down with muscles that made them slow and musclebound.

Like most of the posters here who really understand athletics, I yearn for the days of the real athlete. The guy who could smoke two packs a day, stay out drunk all night before an athletic event and perform at his peak.

Muscles, strength, size, measurables like that are for losers and sissies. Real fighters don't need any of that stuff, and neither do football players or basketball players. Besides, most of the athletes in 1900 were actually bigger than the athletes of today, but they listed them smaller. One writer of the day described John L. Sullivan as a "giant of a man", so he was probably 7-0 or more but in those days, fighters liked to surprise their opponents when they came into the ring. They didn't give their true size because they knew the other old timers were masters of the trade with tricks and techniques that were lost long ago. If one of those guys had a few days to prepare for a particular fighter it would be no contest.

Most of them fought seven days a week, usually more than once a day. And, they fought great competition everytime they fought because they all had 6-700 fights within a year or two. All of them were better than anyone who has fought since. Notice how most of them look slow, unskilled and awkward in the old film? That is because that was a technique that the real old timers used to teach. It has been lost over the years and no trainer knows how to train now.

Where did all of the real trainers go? When did trainers stop teaching the old style? Where did the Corbett g-string boxing trunks go? There is no answer, but like everything, we just regress.

Sports are in a sad state today. All of the good athletes competed when our parents, grandparents, Great-grand parents were young. My grandfather told me that most of the kids in his neighborhood could run faster than any 100 meter runner of today. He laughs at the muscled up 100 meter sprinters and says he would like to see one line up against Slim from the neighborhood. Too many muscles, too much weight lifting, too much scientific crap, the real athlete has no need for that crap, leave it to the guys from Muscle and Fitness. The real athlete is the guy your grandparents told you about.

Very well crafted post. Of course it would be more relevant had the poster actually read some of the points made in earlier posts.

BTW, where did all of the boxing trainers go?

John Galt wrote:I agree with Dempsey Fire, John L. and other enlightened posters, athletes were better at the turn of the 20 th century. We have done nothing but regress since. Lots of smoking, and heavy drinking produced REAL athletes. They knew how to get into shape and they knew how to fight.

All sports have simply gone downhill over the last 100 + years. Football probably peaked with the Harvard - Yale game of 1900, either team would run over the N.Y. Giants Super Bowl team. In those days, lineman weighed 175 and backs weighed 140, and they weren't loaded down with muscles that made them slow and musclebound.

Like most of the posters here who really understand athletics, I yearn for the days of the real athlete. The guy who could smoke two packs a day, stay out drunk all night before an athletic event and perform at his peak.

Muscles, strength, size, measurables like that are for losers and sissies. Real fighters don't need any of that stuff, and neither do football players or basketball players. Besides, most of the athletes in 1900 were actually bigger than the athletes of today, but they listed them smaller. One writer of the day described John L. Sullivan as a "giant of a man", so he was probably 7-0 or more but in those days, fighters liked to surprise their opponents when they came into the ring. They didn't give their true size because they knew the other old timers were masters of the trade with tricks and techniques that were lost long ago. If one of those guys had a few days to prepare for a particular fighter it would be no contest.

Most of them fought seven days a week, usually more than once a day. And, they fought great competition everytime they fought because they all had 6-700 fights within a year or two. All of them were better than anyone who has fought since. Notice how most of them look slow, unskilled and awkward in the old film? That is because that was a technique that the real old timers used to teach. It has been lost over the years and no trainer knows how to train now.

Where did all of the real trainers go? When did trainers stop teaching the old style? Where did the Corbett g-string boxing trunks go? There is no answer, but like everything, we just regress.

Sports are in a sad state today. All of the good athletes competed when our parents, grandparents, Great-grand parents were young. My grandfather told me that most of the kids in his neighborhood could run faster than any 100 meter runner of today. He laughs at the muscled up 100 meter sprinters and says he would like to see one line up against Slim from the neighborhood. Too many muscles, too much weight lifting, too much scientific crap, the real athlete has no need for that crap, leave it to the guys from Muscle and Fitness. The real athlete is the guy your grandparents told you about.

Name a modern heavyweight who has good stamina. Just one

It's simply the law of averages. A 200 lb HW can beat a 230 and up lb HW, but if you have 100 fights between 200 lb HW's and 230+lb HW's, the bigger guys are going to win a high pct of the fights. You can try somehow to say that's all wrong, but as I keep saying, a look at the top 100 heavyweights in the World right now or 5 years ago, and what they weighed proves this point. There was no 205 lb supper fast and fit HW ready to take the division by storm 5 yrs ago, and there isn't one now. And, I don't believe it's a coincedence either. Dominant 200 lb HW's have gone the way of 245 lb offensive linemen in the NFL.

Did 195 lb HW's throw more punches in a fight than 245 lb HW's ? Of course they did, and 145 lb Welterweights through more punches than the 195 lber's. Doesn't mean the guy who throws more wins. Just because a 245 lber does some holding and takes a breather, it doesn't mean he still can't suddenly throw a punch with alot of power behind it.

I'll never argue the point that 70's HW's weren't more exciting to watch, but exciting doesn't always add up to effectiveness.

John Galt wrote:I agree with Dempsey Fire, John L. and other enlightened posters, athletes were better at the turn of the 20 th century. We have done nothing but regress since. Lots of smoking, and heavy drinking produced REAL athletes. They knew how to get into shape and they knew how to fight.

All sports have simply gone downhill over the last 100 + years. Football probably peaked with the Harvard - Yale game of 1900, either team would run over the N.Y. Giants Super Bowl team. In those days, lineman weighed 175 and backs weighed 140, and they weren't loaded down with muscles that made them slow and musclebound.

Like most of the posters here who really understand athletics, I yearn for the days of the real athlete. The guy who could smoke two packs a day, stay out drunk all night before an athletic event and perform at his peak.

Muscles, strength, size, measurables like that are for losers and sissies. Real fighters don't need any of that stuff, and neither do football players or basketball players. Besides, most of the athletes in 1900 were actually bigger than the athletes of today, but they listed them smaller. One writer of the day described John L. Sullivan as a "giant of a man", so he was probably 7-0 or more but in those days, fighters liked to surprise their opponents when they came into the ring. They didn't give their true size because they knew the other old timers were masters of the trade with tricks and techniques that were lost long ago. If one of those guys had a few days to prepare for a particular fighter it would be no contest.

Most of them fought seven days a week, usually more than once a day. And, they fought great competition everytime they fought because they all had 6-700 fights within a year or two. All of them were better than anyone who has fought since. Notice how most of them look slow, unskilled and awkward in the old film? That is because that was a technique that the real old timers used to teach. It has been lost over the years and no trainer knows how to train now.

Where did all of the real trainers go? When did trainers stop teaching the old style? Where did the Corbett g-string boxing trunks go? There is no answer, but like everything, we just regress.

Sports are in a sad state today. All of the good athletes competed when our parents, grandparents, Great-grand parents were young. My grandfather told me that most of the kids in his neighborhood could run faster than any 100 meter runner of today. He laughs at the muscled up 100 meter sprinters and says he would like to see one line up against Slim from the neighborhood. Too many muscles, too much weight lifting, too much scientific crap, the real athlete has no need for that crap, leave it to the guys from Muscle and Fitness. The real athlete is the guy your grandparents told you about.

The irony (lost on the poor fool who posted this & his, "media-educated" friends) is that the criticism made is there is a blind acceptance of the, "good ole days," when the perception of ever-improving boxers (especially at Heavyweight) is equally-baseless faith.

Seamus I must agree. I shall say one thing.

An athletic 230lber hits hard, even with little skill.
A 190lber may be faster, more 'crisp' but that avalanche of
flesh and bone behind the glove makes a lot of difference.

I prefer to watch boxers of the past, but there is no denying
the fact of mass. I would really like to see a small HW clean
up shop with skill, finesse.

Byrd was not that small historically, but in the mid 90s to nowish
he is 'small'. Would you say that he is an untalented hack ?
his last fight not withstanding...

As for endurance, yes being lighter makes one go longer.
There is no denying that fact.

My arguments at the begining of this thread are about
people getting bigger and athletes reflecting this trend.

Big people have alaways existed, and they always shall
but our average size is getting bigger (taller and rounder).

Robinson wrote:Seamus I must agree. I shall say one thing.

An athletic 230lber hits hard, even with little skill.
A 190lber may be faster, more 'crisp' but that avalanche of
flesh and bone behind the glove makes a lot of difference.

I prefer to watch boxers of the past, but there is no denying
the fact of mass. I would really like to see a small HW clean
up shop with skill, finesse.

Byrd was not that small historically, but in the mid 90s to nowish
he is 'small'. Would you say that he is an untalented hack ?
his last fight not withstanding...

As for endurance, yes being lighter makes one go longer.
There is no denying that fact.

My arguments at the begining of this thread are about
people getting bigger and athletes reflecting this trend.

Big people have alaways existed, and they always shall
but our average size is getting bigger (taller and rounder).

Robinson,

Who are the hardest hitting heavyweights of all time and how much did they weigh around their peaks? In no particular order:

Jack Dempsey - around 185lbs to 190
Joe Louis - around the 200 mark
Rocky Marciano - around 185
Earnie Shavers - around 205
even a peak Tyson was around 215.

So who are the monster hitters at 230lbs + that you mention? George Foreman is one, certainly, but I'm not sure there are too many more.

It all depends on natural frame and size too.

Boosting yourself up from 210 to 270 isn't going to massively increase your power. You might be able to bench press more but so what?

A natural big man will have more advantages than a smaller man this is true but these can always be negated by tactics, skill, etc...

If you have genetically identical twins that both way 200. Twin A remaisn at 200 whilst twin B bulks up to 250 i'm not sure twin B punches any harder.

In terms of lack of stamina I think that bigger size does decrease stamina BUT to be fair to contemporary HWs (Holyfield included) they are older than they were 20-30-40 etc years ago and age does decrease stamina.

Yes, if everything else is even, then the 230 pound heavyweight is going to beat a 200 pound heavyweight more often than not. I don't think too many people are going to argue with that.

Here is where the arguement falls apart:
Everything usually isn't even. The great (smaller) heavyweights of the past had better speed, stamina, technique etc. than the lumbering heavyweights we have today.

You can just as easily say, if everything else is even, the guy with faster handspeed will usually win. But of course, what if everything isn't even and the other guy is better in other areas?

There were big (though not as many) heavyweights in every era.

Ed Dunkhorst weighed anywhere from 230-260 and fought in the late 1800's. He lost to Fitzsimmons and Choynski who weighed in the 160-170 range during their career. He was never even a top contender.

Besides beating Carnera who weighed a muscular 260, Joe Louis also knocked out Buddy Baer who and Abe Simon who both weighed around 250. Louis usually weighed around 200.

Other lesser fighters beat these guys as well.

Leroy Jones weighed around 260. He didn't dominate the 1980's.

How many bigger heavyweights did Holyfield and Tyson beat in the 1980's and 1990's?

As for why "smaller" heavyweights don't dominate the divsion today, well right now there doesn't happen to be a great "smaller" heavyweight right now. There also isn't a big heavyweight that dominates today.

If bigger is better, why doesn't Valuev dominate everyone?
If bigger is better, why in more than 100 years the biggest heavyweight at any one time almost never been the best heavyweight?

Just because the current trend is for heavyweights to be big, doesn't mean that they should be.

If a feather punching Chris Byrd can do as well as he did, if a 193 pound Roy Jones can win the heavyweight title, if James Toney can do as well as he has, why in the world wouldn't Dempsey, Marciano,Louis, etc. be the champion today?

Ambling Alp wrote:Yes, if everything else is even, then the 230 pound heavyweight is going to beat a 200 pound heavyweight more often than not. I don't think too many people are going to argue with that.

Here is where the arguement falls apart:
Everything usually isn't even. The great (smaller) heavyweights of the past had better speed, stamina, technique etc. than the lumbering heavyweights we have today.

You can just as easily say, if everything else is even, the guy with faster handspeed will usually win. But of course, what if everything isn't even and the other guy is better in other areas?

There were big (though not as many) heavyweights in every era.

Ed Dunkhorst weighed anywhere from 230-260 and fought in the late 1800's. He lost to Fitzsimmons and Choynski who weighed in the 160-170 range during their career. He was never even a top contender.

Besides beating Carnera who weighed a muscular 260, Joe Louis also knocked out Buddy Baer who and Abe Simon who both weighed around 250. Louis usually weighed around 200.

Other lesser fighters beat these guys as well.

Leroy Jones weighed around 260. He didn't dominate the 1980's.

How many bigger heavyweights did Holyfield and Tyson beat in the 1980's and 1990's?

As for why "smaller" heavyweights don't dominate the divsion today, well right now there doesn't happen to be a great "smaller" heavyweight right now. There also isn't a big heavyweight that dominates today.

If bigger is better, why doesn't Valuev dominate everyone?
If bigger is better, why in more than 100 years the biggest heavyweight at any one time almost never been the best heavyweight?

Just because the current trend is for heavyweights to be big, doesn't mean that they should be.

If a feather punching Chris Byrd can do as well as he did, if a 193 pound Roy Jones can win the heavyweight title, if James Toney can do as well as he has, why in the world wouldn't Dempsey, Marciano,Louis, etc. be the champion today?

I think Alp has made all the points that need to be made.

Ambling Alp - Exactly, Ed Dunkhorst was probably an Olympic champion like Wlad, and he was probably more skilled,bigger and better. Fitzsimmons cut him down to size. Smaller is better. That proves it.
We all know that stamina is not affected by bigger people leaning on smaller people or bigger people hitting much smaller ones. All of the smaller fighters in history would not tire from pushing, pulling, supporting a much larger fighter. They just had great stamina and nothing would affect that stamina. The long, slow jog is the ONLY way to condition a boxer.
Muscles, size, strength mean nothing. Fitzsimmons beat Dunkhorst and that proves it.
Oh, and don't try that crap about athletes have improved in measurable sports. The stop watch, the tape measure, pounds mean nothing and all have been manipulated by the media and the "modern is better" crowd. Big deal, Ambling Alp, John L. and I know that 10-11 seconds in 1900 or 1910 is 8-9 seconds now. The old watches kept REAL time, today the watches run slower to make it look like athletes are better. We all know better.
Ed Dunkhorst would dominate today, probably in a number of sports, not just in boxing. Ambling Alp knows conditioning and he knows boxing, good to find such an enlightened man.

.
STEROIDS , anyone?
.

yeah, let's not have any weight classes at all since it doesn't matter how much a fighter weighs.