BoxRec

HomicideHenry wrote: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.
5'10 and an ideal fighting weight of between 185-190 makes him one of the smallest even for his time he was smaller

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.
no shit day before weigh ins changed things(for the worst IMO) though Martinez has grown into MW and now cuts to make 160

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.
they wouldn't cut to make weight anymore neither would the guys in the heavier weight classes the landscape would pretty much look the same as it is now but everyone would just be in a heavier division. Ie welterweights would now be at middle, middles at LHW etc pretty much everyone cuts now

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.
I have never ever heard anyone say that Marciano was the best amatuer in the country he had a record of 8-4 and never had a dominant run in the amateurs it's true he broke his hand and couldn't compete but it also must be said that he had already had a pro fight by then

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.
pretty sure ray was in the mid 160s when he fought maxim that's really not carrying much extra weight and you have to wonder if the extra weight he was carrying lead to the exhaustion in the heat also he was a guy who started his pro career at LW

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.

I agree with the last few parts there it's well documented how hard Marciano worked to get his weight down the natural LHWs he fought would of still eaten healthy but eaten however much they wanted. He was not a natural LHW for his time though not much bigger than guys who were (now he would be at 168/175 and his body type is great for cutting weight)

Othro wrote:

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?

My memory might be kind of distorted as it was quite awhile ago, but I remember thinking it looked bad for Byrd until Vitali got hurt. I'm a big fan of Byrd and wanted him to win, but I recall thinking that Vitali was winning fairly decisively until that moment.

HomicideHenry wrote: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.

Fantastic post

Othro wrote:

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?

I had him winning the 3rd, 5th and I think the 7th. There were other rounds like the 9th that he lost but he had his moments in. If you want to see a "domination" of Byrd one can watch either of his two fights with Wlad. But Vitali was a different story . . Byrd lost most rounds because (as usual) he was overly focused on defense and not throwing enough . . Vitali was landing some shots but most he was missing.

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?

It's not nonsense. At the time that they fought, they were about the same size and seemed to be close to their best. Archie had fought around that weight many times before and did so again many times after.
Never said Marciano was walking around at 200 or any particular number. I have no idea what weight he normally walked around.

Why would Marciano have tried to make 175 and feasted on the heavies? He could beat any of the heavyweights, which is where the money and attention is.
Archie could because he was ok with going on yo yo diets. He tried to win the heavyweight title and couldn't. He would have given up the light heavyweight title had he been able to win the heavyweight title.

Doesn't matter that Archie started out at middleweight. Most fighters (that aren't heavyweights) move up in weight. They naturally grow into it. Archie did. Middleweight was his worst weight class.

Why aren't these giants getting beat by 6'0 200 pounders? If there were any decent ones they would be. Though it's worth mentioning that Vitaly lost to butterball Byrd who didn't start out his career at heavyweight. Wladimir lost badly to Sanders and Brewster who were not "giants".

Notice how some people keep focusing on the last 10-15 years or so? How about the 100 years before that? Why were these "giants" dominating then?

It doesn't matter how big a guy is. What counts is what can he do. Can he hit hard enough against heavyweights? Can he take a punch from a hard punching heavyweight? How good is his speed, stamina, defense, accuracy, work rate, adaptability etc?

Personally, I've felt that the perfect size for a heavyweight is around 6'3" and 215 pounds. There is really no biological, pathological, physical, mental, emotional, etc. reason what so ever for a heavyweight needing to be any bigger than that to accomplish all you really need in the division.

George Foreman, at his peak, was this size. Muhammad Ali was this size also. Norton, same deal.

Most heavyweights, who amounted to much, throughout the history of the business was about 6'0" and weighed between 195-210 at their peak. Sullivan, Dempsey, Louis were in or around this size. Jim Jeffries was 6'2" and 220, which made him rather large for his era--- though he was certainly not the tallest or the heaviest, even in his time, not by a long shot. Jack Johnson was 6'1" 210 pounds I think, and was considered a man of good size--- but again, he was certainly not the tallest or heaviest competitor around.

At the end of the day, you have to ask yourself, how big is too big? How small is too small? And from that point, you draw a line in the proverbial sand--- and do some heavy homework. Reviewing tapes, taking notes, weighing the qualities and weaknesses of challengers, etc. to determine a fighters worth in comparison to their size. What you will find, for the most part, is the bigger most men are--- the less impressive their resumes are. Sure they may have alot of wins, and plenty of kayos, but how many serious names are there in the resume? Outside of Lennox Lewis--- there wasn't really any heavyweight of large proportions, who had a heavy dose of wins over a high quantity of caliber opposition.

You tend to find, directly the opposite, when you do your research. That boxing seems to favor the smaller, quicker, sharper, man who was forced to work harder to overcome his physical limitations and develope superior skills. Tommy Burns was only 5'7" and weighing often times 178 pounds, but made 14 title defenses as heavyweight champion against a mixed bag of good, indifferent, and poor opposition. On his way up towards the title, he was pretty impressive, considering he started out as a middleweight and without an amateur background like his predecessors James Corbett and Fitzsimmons.

No need, to go into Fitzsimmons, as everyone on this board appreciates the magnitude of what he accomplished being boxing's first triple crown champion of the world, while weighing no more than 167 pounds soaking wet. However--- it must be elaborated upon, that size is only an asset in boxing, when one knows how to use every inch and every pound of their frame to the best of their abilities. I dont know how many monster heavyweights I have seen in my life time, utterly burst like a balloon when they first stepped up in competition. They had the fearsome looks, the awe inspiring physiques and could put chills down your neck--- and you would pay out the nose to see them fight in person. Such men as those, inspire the imaginations of fans, and we have grandiose visions of what these colossal men could do if they got near the title--- but then we see someone like Chazz Witherspoon, a proven trialhorse, spark out a giant and then we see the error of our ways.

People, have always been fascinated with men and women of great size. Kings and Queens in medeival England and Europe, used to hire such individuals as their bodyguards or have them around for entertainment purposes. In the 1700's and 19th century, such people were put on tour in circuses and billed as being the tallest, strongest, in the world. In the 20th century, these people were put into the hands of promoters who turned them into prizefighters, professional wrestlers, and athletes on the field. Most failed in these endeavors. But that was besides the point, whether they were successful or not. What mattered was "The giant is in town," and people would flock to see Primo Carnera box some dwarfish pug who was getting paid peanuts. Didn't matter the opponent, all that mattered is you saw the "Real Life Colossus of Rhodes". This same tactic was used when Carnera was a wrestler, all the more so, billing him as being 6'10" in height when he was in fact several inches shorter. They did the same for Jess Willard in his time, and they have done so even in our own time with people like Nicolai Valuev.

Even Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko's and Tyson Fury have been exaggerated in height for specific purposes, to make the public believe in something far grander than what is actually there. What amuses me, when debating with new fans of the sport is how people say "Ah, Carnera, he was just a big bum, nothing but size"--- as if Carnera was still the biggest, heaviest man of all time in boxing. What they fail to realise is that most heavyweights today are Carnera's size--- so what are we to make of our division today, then? Are all of them just big bums, who are all size?

Maybe no better giant killer in boxing was Dempsey, but Joe Louis was not far behind him. Louis met several men, who were as much as fifty pounds heavier than himself. He kayoed Carnera in six. He kayoed Buddy Baer in one. He kayoed the Frankensteinean contender Abe Simon twice. All in all, Joe Louis was 6'1" and 195 pounds in his prime. At the end of his career, he would say--- until the time of his death--- that of all the men he ever fought, it was the 5'11" 187 pound Rocky Marciano who was his toughest fight. Louis also took it a step further, saying that he felt he could of never beaten Marciano even at his best. Fast forward some thirty years later, a young Muhammad Ali would say something very similar of Marciano after the filming of the SUPER FIGHT.

Ironic, isnt it?

That's kind of a strange correlation to make, in my view. I don't think anyone thinks Carnera was less good because of his size, they think he was less good because he perhaps just wasn't that good, along with the whole potential involvement with fixed fights and so on.

Valuev is significantly bigger than Lewis, and fought in the same time frame. Is Valuev better or worse because of his size? No, he just wasn't as good.

I just don't think the idea that size has always been more or less the same stands when we look at the current era. Everyone from the Klitschko's back to Bowe and Lewis are significantly bigger than that Ali/Foreman size. Does it make them inherently better? I don't know, I think their size has been an advantage in certain cases. I certainly don't think it makes them inherently worse.

I think when we start to have this discussion, some people inevitably start to underestimate size, and overestimate the abilities of past fighters as well. Could Roy Jones have done what Marciano and Burns did? I'm certainly not inclined to argue that they were much better than him. I know that's a bit of a sacred line here in BOTP, but they were facing smaller guys. I don't see any way around that. The point about Louis makes that clear in my view. It sounds absurd today to talk about a 195 pound heavyweight, unless he's otherworldly talented like Jones.

Can a great small fighter beat a giant? Sure. But I don't think for the most part that they were facing giants. People always want to point to Willard and Carnera. Willard and Carnera were not Bowe and Lewis, try as we might to romanticize them.

That is not going to be a popular post, but oh well.

I agree that Willard and Carnera are not Bowe and Lewis. Willard and Carnera were good, but certainly not great. Bowe (at least for a while) and Lewis were great.
The Klitschkos are not anywhere near the level of Bowe and Lewis either.

Bobbyptsd wrote:That's kind of a strange correlation to make, in my view. I don't think anyone thinks Carnera was less good because of his size, they think he was less good because he perhaps just wasn't that good, along with the whole potential involvement with fixed fights and so on.

Valuev is significantly bigger than Lewis, and fought in the same time frame. Is Valuev better or worse because of his size? No, he just wasn't as good.

I just don't think the idea that size has always been more or less the same stands when we look at the current era. Everyone from the Klitschko's back to Bowe and Lewis are significantly bigger than that Ali/Foreman size. Does it make them inherently better? I don't know, I think their size has been an advantage in certain cases. I certainly don't think it makes them inherently worse.

I think when we start to have this discussion, some people inevitably start to underestimate size, and overestimate the abilities of past fighters as well. Could Roy Jones have done what Marciano and Burns did? I'm certainly not inclined to argue that they were much better than him. I know that's a bit of a sacred line here in BOTP, but they were facing smaller guys. I don't see any way around that. The point about Louis makes that clear in my view. It sounds absurd today to talk about a 195 pound heavyweight, unless he's otherworldly talented like Jones.

Can a great small fighter beat a giant? Sure. But I don't think for the most part that they were facing giants. People always want to point to Willard and Carnera. Willard and Carnera were not Bowe and Lewis, try as we might to romanticize them.

That is not going to be a popular post, but oh well.

I admit, it takes an exceptionally talented man, to defeat someone who outweighs them by so much weight, or has so much more of a reach than them--- as I stated before, smaller men were essentially the more talented, superior boxers than their larger counterparts, mainly because they were forced to work harder and adapt in order to maintain their status against such physical differences. Whereas a taller, heavier, stronger man may be more inclined to rely solely on his physical traits and benefits than anything else.

That being said, I never said in any way, shape or form that Willard or Carnera were like Bowe, Lewis, Klitschko brothers, etc. the only similarity and comparison with them is size alone. However, that being said, it was generally thought or accepted that Willard and Carnera were only successful as they were mainly because of their size. If they were cut down to the average, their skill set alone wouldn't of got them anywhere near towards the title. The same cannot be said of Lewis, Bowe, Klitschko, etc. who do have considerable talents.

Louis, as I pointed out before, was as talented a giant slayer as Dempsey was. But this was due as much for experience with taller, heavier men as it was with their skillset. They were used to facing men who were bigger than they were. Therefore, it was easy for them--- or appeared to be rather easy tackling such tall men. Now, in the case of Jones--- he was a talented fighter, who happened to be facing the weakest link in the chain holding a belt in the division--- sure he was outweighed by forty-fifty pounds, but the opposition was slow, ponderous, and didn't put up much effort following the first round. Ruiz was 6'2" and 230 pounds, roughly. More along the lines of 'average sized', or even small in comparison to most heavyweights. Had Ruiz been, say 6'6" and forty pounds heavier still, maybe Jones wouldn't of been as lucky--- or maybe he would of still beaten him. Who knows.

The fact that Jones never again tried his hand at heavyweight, even when the money was there and many opprotunities were available to do so--- shows Jones own faith in himself as a heavyweight. It was a one night experiment, and I'd venture to say he gauged that had he fought anyone else, with a little more fitness, and skill and size than Ruiz he wouldn't last long in the division. However--- I can say, because of experience alone, both Louis and Dempsey would of been able to do not only what Jones did, but much more in today's time.

I agree with a fair bit of that, save two points mainly:

I wouldn't agree that guys like Dempsey would necessarily be able to do much more, mostly because I don't know. That's like placing Jones in their era. Just too many intangibles.

As to size, you alluded to the fact yourself that there's a difference between say, 6'2'' 230 lbs, and 6'5'' 250 lbs. And that was a big part of my point. Guys from the older eras were beating guys who were, by today's standards, small heavyweights. They never really beat very big guys who were also great. I don't see why I'd expect them to. It's like expecting Jones to beat Lewis. Basically what I'm saying is that the size differential, while important, isn't any bigger than Jones beating Ruiz, comparatively speaking.

I'm rambling. What I'm trying to say is that I believe the size differences aren't as important as they are sometimes made out to be. Holyfield did comparable things against Bowe and others, Byrd had some success, and so on. If a guy is 170 and beating a fighter who is 205, I don't see how that's any more impressive than a 215 lb guy beating a 245 lb one. And I believe the later examples of the comparatively bigger guys, are actually the better ones(as in I believe they are better fighters).

Bobbyptsd wrote: If a guy is 170 and beating a fighter who is 205, I don't see how that's any more impressive than a 215 lb guy beating a 245 lb one. And I believe the later examples of the comparatively bigger guys, are actually the better ones(as in I believe they are better fighters).

For starters, the first example is a smaller % of their total body weight . . of course that's more impressive than the 215er beating the 245. In addition, VERY few heavyweights in true top shape are above 225. Ruiz was a natural cruiser . . it's not like he was a natural 225 lber. Haye was right when he was speaking about Chisora (who weighs in the 230s-40s) and said Derek wasn't any naturally bigger than him but just fatter. And Haye at around 210 demolished him. The only guys who in top shape are around 240 are Lewis and the Klitschkos. Even Bowe's top weight was 225-230.

Again, the likes of Willard, Fulton, Wills, Godfrey, Tate etc. were not "small heavyweights" by any standard . . they were just as big as the big heavyweights of today. Only difference is they didn't carry the fat/extra bulk heavyweights do today and they also fought much more often (and those are inter-related).

dempseyfire wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote: If a guy is 170 and beating a fighter who is 205, I don't see how that's any more impressive than a 215 lb guy beating a 245 lb one. And I believe the later examples of the comparatively bigger guys, are actually the better ones(as in I believe they are better fighters).

For starters, the first example is a smaller % of their total body weight . . of course that's more impressive than the 215er beating the 245. In addition, VERY few heavyweights in true top shape are above 225. Ruiz was a natural cruiser . . it's not like he was a natural 225 lber. Haye was right when he was speaking about Chisora (who weighs in the 230s-40s) and said Derek wasn't any naturally bigger than him but just fatter. And Haye at around 210 demolished him. The only guys who in top shape are around 240 are Lewis and the Klitschkos. Even Bowe's top weight was 225-230.

Again, the likes of Willard, Fulton, Wills, Godfrey, Tate etc. were not "small heavyweights" by any standard . . they were just as big as the big heavyweights of today. Only difference is they didn't carry the fat/extra bulk heavyweights do today and they also fought much more often (and those are inter-related).

Sure, 170 to 205 is a bigger percentage than 215 to 245. I don't think it's enough to make some huge difference in what we're talking about, but yeah.

I don't know about "natural". I am talking about the weight fighters have fought at. I guess we can sit here all day and decide that Bowe "could have" fought at 210 if he really wanted to, but I don't see much use. Just seems reductionist for the sake of it.

If guys like Willard are as big as Lewis, let alone Vitali Klitschko,we have a drastically different way of measuring things. They are significantly bigger (speaking mainly to frame and mass). And I don't recall seeing those fighters looking too flabby by any stretch of the word. Regardless, the point was mainly that those modern bigger fighters were better than the older big fighters.

As I said earlier, I knew my ideas on this wouldn't be popular here, and that's fine. I don't really feel like discussing it endlessly as it gets tedious. I do respect others' opinions, I could certainly be wrong. I don't think I am or I would't have made the posts I did, but yeah, I'm not trying to be overly argumentative about it.

Bobbyptsd wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote: If a guy is 170 and beating a fighter who is 205, I don't see how that's any more impressive than a 215 lb guy beating a 245 lb one. And I believe the later examples of the comparatively bigger guys, are actually the better ones(as in I believe they are better fighters).

For starters, the first example is a smaller % of their total body weight . . of course that's more impressive than the 215er beating the 245. In addition, VERY few heavyweights in true top shape are above 225. Ruiz was a natural cruiser . . it's not like he was a natural 225 lber. Haye was right when he was speaking about Chisora (who weighs in the 230s-40s) and said Derek wasn't any naturally bigger than him but just fatter. And Haye at around 210 demolished him. The only guys who in top shape are around 240 are Lewis and the Klitschkos. Even Bowe's top weight was 225-230.

Again, the likes of Willard, Fulton, Wills, Godfrey, Tate etc. were not "small heavyweights" by any standard . . they were just as big as the big heavyweights of today. Only difference is they didn't carry the fat/extra bulk heavyweights do today and they also fought much more often (and those are inter-related).

If guys like Willard are as big as Lewis, let alone Vitali Klitschko,we have a drastically different way of measuring things. They are significantly bigger (speaking mainly to frame and mass).
.

You can measure by using an actual measuring tape. By any body measurements Willard was as big or bigger than Lewis and the Klitschkos. Just comparing Willard to Lewis, Jess was taller, had a bigger chest (both at rest and expanded), bigger biceps, practically equal reach (a half inch shorter than Lewis), and bigger fists.

But nowhere near as good.

p4p1 wrote:But nowhere near as good.

Not as good but he'd give Lewis a competitive fight like Vitali did.

Again, the likes of Willard, Fulton, Wills, Godfrey, Tate etc. were not "small heavyweights" by any standard . . they were just as big as the big heavyweights of today. Only difference is they didn't carry the fat/extra bulk heavyweights do today and they also fought much more often (and those are inter-related).[/quote]


If guys like Willard are as big as Lewis, let alone Vitali Klitschko,we have a drastically different way of measuring things. They are significantly bigger (speaking mainly to frame and mass).
.[/quote]

You can measure by using an actual measuring tape. By any body measurements Willard was as big or bigger than Lewis and the Klitschkos. Just comparing Willard to Lewis, Jess was taller, had a bigger chest (both at rest and expanded), bigger biceps, practically equal reach (a half inch shorter than Lewis), and bigger fists.[/quote]

That's a lot of man to hit the floor.

dempseyfire wrote:

p4p1 wrote:But nowhere near as good.

Not as good but he'd give Lewis a competitive fight like Vitali did.

Based in what exactly? Vitali is a far superior fighter than Willard ever was and Lewis was also clearly past his best by then.

p4p1 wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

p4p1 wrote:But nowhere near as good.

Not as good but he'd give Lewis a competitive fight like Vitali did.

Based in what exactly? Vitali is a far superior fighter than Willard ever was and Lewis was also clearly past his best by then.

Based on my review of the film and write-ups of his fights. Vitali was a more refined boxer with better footwork than Willard, but Jess had a better jab, more power, at least equal chin, at least equal (and probably superior) stamina, and was also a far superior in-fighter.

I would say Vitali's footwork is awful. Have you seen him try to move forward while punching? Watch him versus Sanders, Williams, most recently Charr. The man is an amateur. Put a sepia tint on that picture and we're in 1899.

As far as defense, I wouldn't say running backwards, as he did whenever Sanders rattled him, is skillful or brilliantly defensive. Every thing about the man, his brother and their opponents leaves me cold. No other era could have produced a pair of monstrosities that were able to hang around for so long.

I can't even begin to think what's worse. King & Queen K sticking around longer to spear more fatties, or seeing them retire and the belts being tossed about like empty pizza boxes by the drooping lardbuckets that comprise the rest of the division.

I would rather the entire division was suspended until some real fighters show up.

Funny how some label Vitali Klitschko as having no skill when in fact he's statistically lost the fewest number of rounds of any heavyweight champion on record, beat several ring ranked opponents and was pushing ( an albeit aged ) Lennox Lewis's stool in before the stoppage.. Guy has a good jab and decent outside fighting game. He doesn't take too many shots and up until about a few years ago, stopped about 90% of his opponents.

It's funny to see everyone shitting on the current era and granted it's not strong but in what other era has a man started boxing at 27 and gone on to win the world championship, which again could be used to prove what an advantage size is.

Vitaly was 25, if that is who you talking about. It's not like he had no boxing background. If anything, this is just more evidence how pathetic the era is.

Nope I was talking about Wellard. Kiltschko took up boxing at 24 after around 200 kickboxing fights I know it's not pure boxing but it still helps a bunch especially the European style of kickboxing.

It really wasn't size that won the title for Willard. He just outlasted an old man after 26 rounds in the hot sun. He would have lost badly if the fight would have been scheduled for 10, 12, 15, even 20 rounds. No way the Klitschkos would have been able to last that long.

Willard, Carnera, Abe Simon, Buddy Baer, were big. They had some ability, but certainly had their limitations. So did the Klitschkos. They could all do certain things well, but had severe limitations. The Klitschkos were much closer to these guys than Bowe, Lewis, Dempsey, Marciano, and Louis.

Dempsey, Marciano, Louis would have little trouble with these guys.
Bowe ( for a few years) and Lewis were a lot better than the Klitschkos. I would still favor Louis over both of them, but they would have given him a lot more trouble. Would not count Dempsey and Marciano out against either.

p4p1 wrote:Nope I was talking about Wellard. Kiltschko took up boxing at 24 after around 200 kickboxing fights I know it's not pure boxing but it still helps a bunch especially the European style of kickboxing.

Given that Willard won the title by going over 26 rounds in the blistering sun wearing 6 ounce gloves getting regularly pounded by one of the greatest heavyweights ever (whereas the Klitschkos have shown suspect stamina and have brittle skin with histories of other injuries) . .I don't see a good correlation here.

There were other White Hopes around Willard's size who went nowhere. 6'4 Carl Morris (who had moderate success); 6'5 Jim Stewart, and 6'6 Dan Daily. It was not just size.