BoxRec

Fat Git wrote:

simon fox wrote:Hey Carlos; I can to some extent really appreciate your point. Living standards are far better for some of us now than they were 80 years ago. Better nutrition, medicine etc has improved our lot.

I would argue though that there were big men years ago and for most of them their physical mass was to the detriment of their boxing skills and ability. I am sure that if Joe Louis and Frank Bruno were to punch a power measuring device then Frank would have the heavier punch. There is far more to a knockout punch than just weight of punch. Max and Biddy Baer were amazing physical specimens with very hard hitting power, much like Frank; by no chalk were they the best of their time though.

There is an argument that the body beautiful approach to boxing has been at the expense of tutoring in important skills. Boxing is an obviously physical sport but it doesn't necessarily follow that the better developed physique always wins, or is necessarily a harder hitter.

There is also an argument that tougher times make for tougher people, with a strong mind set. If a fighter boxes once or twice a year; maybe for £1,000,000 he (she) is not going to be as ring competent as a boxer who's boxed 6 times in the year.

I can see that without an upper weight division limit, Heavyweight boxing is different to the other weight divisions. I would say though that sheer muscle mass and height does not negate the skills involved in serious high level boxing and hitting.
:)

Could any cruiserweight today campaign successfully as a heavyweight staying at 200lbs? Any cruiserweight that does move up like Adamek fights in at 215-220lbs and even at that weight - it just isn't big enough to deal with Vitali Klitsckho. (I know people bring up Chris Byrd but that was a shoulder injury defeat - Klitsckho was dealing with Byrd on the scorecards) I am all for the fact that yesterdays fighters had their own pluses in regards how they fought especially when it comes to ring activity like you alluded to but comparing them how they were to todays fighters who have all the medical, scientific and nutritional advantages - bit unfair to the chaps of yesteryear - again if Joe Louis was born in 1980 with his 1935 skills - he would have hammered the big Ukrainian freak - but not at 197lbs. (Which he wouldn't be if he was born today)

McCannW14 wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

Fat Git wrote:Nat Flesicher always used to say Jim Jeffries would have KO'd Muhammad Ali - would he had done? I doubt it but when we are comparing fighters from the past to the present - the fighter from the past always has that unfair disadvantage with the fact they had inferior training methods, diet and lifestyle habits.

If Muhammad Ali had been born in 1980 instead of 1942 - he would be 6ft 6ins and 16 stone with the same attributes and whatnot then he would be more than a match for Vitali Klitsckho. 6ft 3ins and 216lbs Muhammad Ali would have had a hard time with Vitali Klitsckho - you may hate the thought but that is the truth. And the same goes for a 1939 version of Joe Louis against Frank Bruno.

As for Klitsckho vs Bruno - Vitali would use his long arms to push off Bruno and bomb him out on the outside - it would be over in 2 rounds and I love Frank Bruno - he was my hero growing up but Bruno was criminally overprotected, Mugabi is right when he says no-one at the time thought Bruno was anything other than what he was - a big strong, brave fighter who had heart and character and that is why the British people love him. I always remember when he was at training camp for Tyson I in 1989 and he was on a satellite link on Wogan and his little daughter saw his face on the big screen and went over to kiss the screen - Frank started to cry and was trying to hold back the tears and the whole crowd on Wogan strarted chanting Bruuuuuuuuno. No fighter - not even Ricky Hatton has had that support.

It is a shame we never got to see him against Trevor Berbick, Tony Tubbs, Tim Witherspoon in a rematch over 10 rounds, Francesco Damiani, Hughroy Currie, Funso Banjo and David Pearce, Mike Weaver, Bonecrusher Smith in a rematch, David Bey, Gerry Cooney, Renaldo Snipes etc - he would have beaten all them but instead we got him against Chuck Gardner, Reggie Gross and the likes and it was a damn shame.

What a fuking great post, could not agree more mate.

As much as I like and rate Bruno he would not have beaten Snipes and Cooney. His stamina would have been an issue against Berbick, and I couldnt ever see him beating a fit Witherspoon. Having said that I would never see Haye beating any of these guys either.

I am not sure people really appreciate just how BAD the Heavyweight Division is today. It has NEVER been worse.

Captain Hook wrote:

McCannW14 wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:
What a fuking great post, could not agree more mate.

As much as I like and rate Bruno he would not have beaten Snipes and Cooney. His stamina would have been an issue against Berbick, and I couldnt ever see him beating a fit Witherspoon. Having said that I would never see Haye beating any of these guys either.

I am not sure people really appreciate just how BAD the Heavyweight Division is today. It has NEVER been worse.

You don't think he would have beaten Snipes and Cooney but you believe Bruno v Haye would be a mismatch (in Bruno's favour)

There must be some agenda there, that's just ludicrous IMO.

Syntax Error wrote:
In addition, all this talk about weight is poppycock! If that was so relevant, Tyson would have stood little chance against Bruno in 1996, as Tyson was about 3 stones (28 lb) less than Bruno when they fought & we all know what happened then.

Fat Git wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:
In addition, all this talk about weight is poppycock! If that was so relevant, Tyson would have stood little chance against Bruno in 1996, as Tyson was about 3 stones (28 lb) less than Bruno when they fought & we all know what happened then.

Weight difference in heavyweights is not poppycock - and 27 pounds is not three stone!

Of course, you have to factor different attributes and abilities in regards weighing up two fighters but if anyone thinks Steve Cunningham at 200lbs would stand a chance against Cris Arreola at 250lbs is sorely misguided.

simon fox wrote:There have always been big heavyweights. A good class boxer around 200 lbs who has speed, skill and power has enough pop to really shake someone 30lbs heavier. There have been heavyweights around 200lb who just about murdered much bigger men. In the 1930's there were so many big heavyweights that it was mooted that a 'Dreadnought' division be established; above heavyweight. The bigger men though, to a man were knocked off by the skilled and tough men of the day. A big man is a bigger target to a skilled fighter; the bigger man is also generally slower. The fact that the smaller heavyweights of today cannot do much of anything against the big men at the top of the division does not mean that the great fighters who weighed 200lbs; even less in some cases; would have done ever so well against them.

Scottrf wrote:So because 100m runners are a couple of tenths faster (probably peds and faster tracks) a great champion loses to one with the same pro fights as he had title defenses in a round in a skills based sport. I really hope that was a late April fools.

Noone is ever able to name these improved training techniques either. Boxing training is the same today as its always been.

Captain Hook wrote:

McCannW14 wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:
What a fuking great post, could not agree more mate.

As much as I like and rate Bruno he would not have beaten Snipes and Cooney. His stamina would have been an issue against Berbick, and I couldnt ever see him beating a fit Witherspoon. Having said that I would never see Haye beating any of these guys either.

I am not sure people really appreciate just how BAD the Heavyweight Division is today. It has NEVER been worse.

You don't think he would have beaten Snipes and Cooney but you believe Bruno v Haye would be a mismatch (in Bruno's favour)

There must be some agenda there, that's just ludicrous IMO.

Captain Hook wrote:Maybe James, and don't get me wrong I liked Bruno and loved watching him as a kid, but Haye is a level above anyone he beat.

McCannW14 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:So because 100m runners are a couple of tenths faster (probably peds and faster tracks) a great champion loses to one with the same pro fights as he had title defenses in a round in a skills based sport. I really hope that was a late April fools.

Noone is ever able to name these improved training techniques either. Boxing training is the same today as its always been.

I totally agree. The notion that Haye or anyone else boxing today for that matter could have beaten Louis is utter bollocks and deserves nothing but total contempt.

Remember Jesse Owens ran on uneven cinder tracks with cow hide shoes.

Jon Saxon wrote:

McCannW14 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:So because 100m runners are a couple of tenths faster (probably peds and faster tracks) a great champion loses to one with the same pro fights as he had title defenses in a round in a skills based sport. I really hope that was a late April fools.

Noone is ever able to name these improved training techniques either. Boxing training is the same today as its always been.

I totally agree. The notion that Haye or anyone else boxing today for that matter could have beaten Louis is utter bollocks and deserves nothing but total contempt.

Remember Jesse Owens ran on uneven cinder tracks with cow hide shoes.

Mate get your head out your arse, these fuking old sports records havent just been beaten by a fraction they have been obliterated,hell the Roger Bannister 1 mile has had 15 (yes 15) seconds shaved off of it.

You think Jocky wilson competes with Phil Taylor?
Steve Davis with todays guys?
Joe Lous with Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson or even Haye (who's not great btw) If so you are mad.
We get better at things all the time it's human nature
You think that Haye woulnt bang out this slow puncher?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPQlNhGMlGQ
his record was great...WAS great.

Time moves on so should you.

Scottrf wrote:Did you know Bannister was an amateur, as was all athletics back then? At the same time there were more boxers than today and fighting more often than today. Boxing is skills based, running isn’t. Being slightly quicker is no match for experience. Other sports aren't comparable.

McCannW14 wrote:

Jon Saxon wrote:

McCannW14 wrote: I totally agree. The notion that Haye or anyone else boxing today for that matter could have beaten Louis is utter bollocks and deserves nothing but total contempt.

Remember Jesse Owens ran on uneven cinder tracks with cow hide shoes.

Mate get your head out your arse, these fuking old sports records havent just been beaten by a fraction they have been obliterated,hell the Roger Bannister 1 mile has had 15 (yes 15) seconds shaved off of it.

You think Jocky wilson competes with Phil Taylor?
Steve Davis with todays guys?
Joe Lous with Lewis, Holyfield, Tyson or even Haye (who's not great btw) If so you are mad.
We get better at things all the time it's human nature
You think that Haye woulnt bang out this slow puncher?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPQlNhGMlGQ
his record was great...WAS great.

Time moves on so should you.

A prime Steve Davis was about as good a snooker player there has eveer been

the truth wrote:You say valuev was one of the worst belt holders but what was his win loss record .....
Bruno was a half decent strong boxer but he would of shit himself v valuev I think
Haye would stop Bruno in about 6,7 rounds
Too fast and hits too hard , yes Bruno would of been dangerous but he too slow to land on haye.

Scottrf wrote:Your ignorance is staggering. So Eddie Futch, Emmanuel Steward, Ray Arcel and Freddie Roach are idiots? I suppose their limited knowledge of the sport is no match for your wikipedia links on unrelated sports.