Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post Reply
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Controversial »

margaret thatcher wrote: 21 Oct 2021, 21:00 i think fury could give ali problems for sure, in fantasy fights ppl all too often want to make it easy and love claiming one-sided victories against guys really no worse than other fighters who gave them problems.
Exactly that. Even the best fighters struggle, they don't win every round or dominate every fight. Ali didn't always look great, all boxers have off nights or problems with certain styles or opponents. I see Ali having more trouble with Fury than the other way around. A potential weakness for Fury could be to attack his body, easier said than done as you need to get close to him without Fury tying you up or countering you. However Ali rarely threw body punches. I don't accept the argument that someone made that Ali was so good he didn't need to throw body shots, that's just nonsense. Fury wouldn't follow Ali around and walk onto his counterpunches. If Fury kept Ali at distance, which is easier when you have height and reach advantages and the ability to do it like Fury does, switch hit as Fury often does and tied Ali up and leaned on him when he got close, it would make it a hard fight for Ali.

What separates Fury from a lot of heavyweights is his traveller background. Anyone who knows about their lifestyle know they grow up fighting. Many start boxing as young kids. Fury comes from a fighting family, he didn't start boxing aged 18 like AJ who is often referred to as work in progress. Fury knows all the tricks, how to tie guys up, how to slip and grapple, hit on the blind side, how to fight dirty, lean and hold when needed. Fury does these things without thinking about it, these are skills in themselves.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15185
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Every fight that Ali had in his prime was one-sided. Only two win the distance and the won almost ever round in those. None of the KOs were competitive fights.

You don't buy the argument that Ali was so good that he didn't need to throw body punches? Well it is the truth. It happened. Watch his fights.


Again we are talking about Ali's prime. Not the older guy that people like to talk about.
How often do you think Fury is going to hit Ali? Not much. Ali's foot movement was. reflexes, and head movement made him extremely hard to hit. fury doesn't throw many punches in comparison.
Ali could nail Fury with jabs and combinations. Fury never fought anyone whose hand speed was remotely as fast as Ali's.

Imagine Fury trying to chase Ali. Trying to fight at fast pace. Eating jabs and combinations. He would be exhausted by the middle rounds.

Have we really reached this point? The latest champ is always the best of all time?
Tyson Fury is better than a prime Ali? Come on.
It is bad enough that people think Fury was better than a prime Riddick Bowe. This is absurd.
DrDuke
Lightweight
Posts: 13879
Joined: 29 Nov 2017, 09:15

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by DrDuke »

Course Fury would be at least a very hard matchup to Ali. The weak-minded and blindfolded fans of Ali see the object of their sexual attraction as an inevitable superhero. They should watch more than highlight reels on youtube FFS!

Takling about Ali not doing certain things in the ring because he was too good for them is simply laughable. As well as trying to pretend, as if his prime was shorter than Riddick Bowe's one. Leave Smokin' Joe alone, Ali was struggling against the likes of Bonavena, Chuvalo and Doug Jones.

In the 60s he had never faced the level of the opposition like in the 70s and still he wasn't inevitable. While he had never ever faced the likes of the Gypsy King in his life. Imagine what Fury could do, if Chuvalo was able to trap Ali in the corners and score numerous left hooks, while the least thing was possible even for Our 'Enry.
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Controversial »

Ambling Alp II wrote: 22 Oct 2021, 10:50

Have we really reached this point? The latest champ is always the best of all time?
Tyson Fury is better than a prime Ali? Come on.
It is bad enough that people think Fury was better than a prime Riddick Bowe. This is absurd.
This isn't what people are saying. To beat Ali doesn't make you the best of all time. Most ATGs lost, the guys that beat them don't become the greatest fighter ever. We are talking about specific matchups. Ali was great, that doesn't mean he can beat everyone. Unless you are saying in his prime he would beat every HW in the history of the sport?
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15185
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Yes, I am saying that in his prime, Ali would have beaten any heavyweight in the history of the sport.
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by HomicideHenry »

Mind you, I never said it would come easy for Fury. It would be a pretty boring kind of contest where Ali lands mostly on the arms, shoulders, gloves, and Fury occasionally landing jabs to the body and whenever he has Ali in the clinch throwing uppercuts and bodyshots.

Most of the time I think they would be either circling each other, mocking each other, and trying to figure out each other. Ali would really start to feel the weight of Fury and Fury would really start to feel the pace--- but since both men do have a great engine, and take great shots, they last the entire distance.

I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that Fury either gets a legitimate draw or just barely edges Ali. Especially against the 1970s version who was slower, more flat footed, and relied on punch resistance more and more as time went on.

Styles make fights. I already said previously that I think Lennox Lewis, George Foreman and Larry Holmes would've been very difficult for Tyson Fury. They were bigger than Ali, and more aggressive than Ali, and two out of three were just as good or close to Ali in boxing ability.

I also said in a series it's difficult to say if Fury could win against Ali because Ali was better in returns, and so is Fury better in rematches. In a one-off contest, I can see Ali either drawing or losing to Tyson Fury--- because how the hell do you really prepare for something you've never really faced before in your entire career?

It'd take rounds just to get into a rhythm and groove, finally figuring out your opponent enough to really start getting more work done, and that's four or five rounds right there that goes to Fury. In a scheduled 12 rounder that's bad news. The middle rounds Ali gets more aggressive and Fury resorts to the clinching, mauling, uppercutting, and while Fury is possibly losing rounds Ali is starting to get tired. So now the fight is basically even--- four more rounds to go, and maybe Fury wins two & Ali wins two and it's a draw, or Fury wins two & Ali wins one & one round is even, or Fury wins three & Ali wins one.

It's possible Ali could win three and Fury wins one, but I think Fury goes for broke in such a situation and it becomes a grueling affair where I can invision Ali possibly getting dropped because of all that weight having been on him for so long. Of course he'd get up, and probably quickly, but the damage would have been done. Fury at that point could lose a round and still win the fight.

Sure, Ali could have Fury rocking and reeling in the last two rounds, but I think Fury's long arms and clinch game and his own recuperating powers would save him from falling, especially if he's near the ropes or corner.

Of course all this means nothing. We will never know because it will never happen. But that is a lot of the fun of boxing is fantasy matchups and debates. I think it's especially difficult to debate this matchup because one figure is a larger than life personality who has taken on mythic proportions, and the other man certainly has all the size and abilities to be a tough assignment for anyone in boxing history but is dismissed by different groups for different reasons.

I can only imagine that when Joe Louis came along and people debated how well he would have done against Jack Dempsey, etc that it was the same kind of arguments, often times heated. There's always somebody from a certain time period hypothetically matched to somebody from an earlier time period, and depending on who it is there is a lot of resistance to the idea that they could have possibly ever lost to somebody.

Ali's so-called best years were taken from him, but I look at it from a different view. If he never was banned from boxing he would have had more wear and tear put on him, and he still would have gotten slower around 1970-1971 and he would've burned out long before 1978.

There probably never would have been the fights with Shavers, Spinks, Young, and possibly even Frazier in Manila. Or worse, he would have lost those fights in dramatic fashion. 1975 onwards it's quite visible that he was declining fast, so could you imagine if he had never been banned from boxing how much faster he would have declined? Ron Lyle very well could have been the heavyweight champion of the world in such a scenario as that.

Anyway sorry for such a lengthy post. This whole debate about size and how well Fury would match up to people from the past is probably the most fun I have had on the forum in a long time.
evrenb
Super Middleweight
Posts: 3410
Joined: 16 Feb 2013, 09:47

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by evrenb »

Ambling Alp II wrote: 22 Oct 2021, 15:40 Yes, I am saying that in his prime, Ali would have beaten any heavyweight in the history of the sport.
I agree 100%
margaret thatcher
Featherweight
Posts: 39272
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by margaret thatcher »

he just needs to get over his drug addiction so he stops getting suspended

or at least cover up his use better......get better masking protocol
bollocks
Super Lightweight
Posts: 1409
Joined: 18 Oct 2016, 04:54

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by bollocks »

When the 6'5, 245 lbers came about it seemed to me their optimum size had been overstepped. Too much bulk and weight to lug around and stay sharp the full. Anything over 6'3 and 225 seemed too big to maximise effectiveness
margaret thatcher
Featherweight
Posts: 39272
Joined: 22 Jul 2019, 15:43

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by margaret thatcher »

bollocks wrote: 23 Oct 2021, 03:27 When the 6'5, 245 lbers came about it seemed to me their optimum size had been overstepped. Too much bulk and weight to lug around and stay sharp the full. Anything over 6'3 and 225 seemed too big to maximise effectiveness
do you still feel that way
bollocks
Super Lightweight
Posts: 1409
Joined: 18 Oct 2016, 04:54

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by bollocks »

margaret thatcher wrote: 23 Oct 2021, 03:32
bollocks wrote: 23 Oct 2021, 03:27 When the 6'5, 245 lbers came about it seemed to me their optimum size had been overstepped. Too much bulk and weight to lug around and stay sharp the full. Anything over 6'3 and 225 seemed too big to maximise effectiveness
do you still feel that way
There are always exceptions but generally..yep
pound per pound
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1605
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 14:36

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by pound per pound »

Controversial wrote: 11 Oct 2021, 04:47 Always a topic of debate. Quite often argued that guys like Marciano and Frazier could compete with todays heavyweights, has anyone changed their mind on this? We can point to blown up CW Usyk beating man mountain AJ but then we see Fury weighing 20 stone and making a 6’7” 17 stone Wilder look fairly small. Are today’s heavyweights now too big when it comes to fairly comparing eras like the 1950s etc ? Or do you think the skill sets outweighs the physical advantages?
Usyk is no a small man, he six foot three inches tall, 220 pounds and has a 78 " reach. Much bigger than Frazier or Marciano. No fat on him either.
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Controversial »

pound per pound wrote: 24 Oct 2021, 00:12
Controversial wrote: 11 Oct 2021, 04:47 Always a topic of debate. Quite often argued that guys like Marciano and Frazier could compete with todays heavyweights, has anyone changed their mind on this? We can point to blown up CW Usyk beating man mountain AJ but then we see Fury weighing 20 stone and making a 6’7” 17 stone Wilder look fairly small. Are today’s heavyweights now too big when it comes to fairly comparing eras like the 1950s etc ? Or do you think the skill sets outweighs the physical advantages?
Usyk is no a small man, he six foot three inches tall, 220 pounds and has a 78 " reach. Much bigger than Frazier or Marciano. No fat on him either.
Yes I said this later on the thread, he isn't really small, same dimensions as a young Foreman, just small compared to guys like Fury etc.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15185
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Yep. He is bigger than some heavyweight champions of the past. About the same as others. Smaller than some. For his height, close to the ideal size. And he he beat the legendary Anthony Joshua.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15185
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

HomicideHenry wrote: 22 Oct 2021, 16:29 Mind you, I never said it would come easy for Fury. It would be a pretty boring kind of contest where Ali lands mostly on the arms, shoulders, gloves, and Fury occasionally landing jabs to the body and whenever he has Ali in the clinch throwing uppercuts and bodyshots.

Most of the time I think they would be either circling each other, mocking each other, and trying to figure out each other. Ali would really start to feel the weight of Fury and Fury would really start to feel the pace--- but since both men do have a great engine, and take great shots, they last the entire distance.

I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that Fury either gets a legitimate draw or just barely edges Ali. Especially against the 1970s version who was slower, more flat footed, and relied on punch resistance more and more as time went on.

Styles make fights. I already said previously that I think Lennox Lewis, George Foreman and Larry Holmes would've been very difficult for Tyson Fury. They were bigger than Ali, and more aggressive than Ali, and two out of three were just as good or close to Ali in boxing ability.

I also said in a series it's difficult to say if Fury could win against Ali because Ali was better in returns, and so is Fury better in rematches. In a one-off contest, I can see Ali either drawing or losing to Tyson Fury--- because how the hell do you really prepare for something you've never really faced before in your entire career?

It'd take rounds just to get into a rhythm and groove, finally figuring out your opponent enough to really start getting more work done, and that's four or five rounds right there that goes to Fury. In a scheduled 12 rounder that's bad news. The middle rounds Ali gets more aggressive and Fury resorts to the clinching, mauling, uppercutting, and while Fury is possibly losing rounds Ali is starting to get tired. So now the fight is basically even--- four more rounds to go, and maybe Fury wins two & Ali wins two and it's a draw, or Fury wins two & Ali wins one & one round is even, or Fury wins three & Ali wins one.

It's possible Ali could win three and Fury wins one, but I think Fury goes for broke in such a situation and it becomes a grueling affair where I can invision Ali possibly getting dropped because of all that weight having been on him for so long. Of course he'd get up, and probably quickly, but the damage would have been done. Fury at that point could lose a round and still win the fight.

Sure, Ali could have Fury rocking and reeling in the last two rounds, but I think Fury's long arms and clinch game and his own recuperating powers would save him from falling, especially if he's near the ropes or corner.

Of course all this means nothing. We will never know because it will never happen. But that is a lot of the fun of boxing is fantasy matchups and debates. I think it's especially difficult to debate this matchup because one figure is a larger than life personality who has taken on mythic proportions, and the other man certainly has all the size and abilities to be a tough assignment for anyone in boxing history but is dismissed by different groups for different reasons.

I can only imagine that when Joe Louis came along and people debated how well he would have done against Jack Dempsey, etc that it was the same kind of arguments, often times heated. There's always somebody from a certain time period hypothetically matched to somebody from an earlier time period, and depending on who it is there is a lot of resistance to the idea that they could have possibly ever lost to somebody.

Ali's so-called best years were taken from him, but I look at it from a different view. If he never was banned from boxing he would have had more wear and tear put on him, and he still would have gotten slower around 1970-1971 and he would've burned out long before 1978.

There probably never would have been the fights with Shavers, Spinks, Young, and possibly even Frazier in Manila. Or worse, he would have lost those fights in dramatic fashion. 1975 onwards it's quite visible that he was declining fast, so could you imagine if he had never been banned from boxing how much faster he would have declined? Ron Lyle very well could have been the heavyweight champion of the world in such a scenario as that.

Anyway sorry for such a lengthy post. This whole debate about size and how well Fury would match up to people from the past is probably the most fun I have had on the forum in a long time.
Yes you should be sorry for lengthy post. No reason for you to babble on and on.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15185
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

evrenb wrote: 22 Oct 2021, 18:36
Ambling Alp II wrote: 22 Oct 2021, 15:40 Yes, I am saying that in his prime, Ali would have beaten any heavyweight in the history of the sport.
I agree 100%
If we use are eyes and our brain, it's a pretty easy conclusion to come to.
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Controversial »

Ambling Alp II wrote: 24 Oct 2021, 12:36
evrenb wrote: 22 Oct 2021, 18:36
Ambling Alp II wrote: 22 Oct 2021, 15:40 Yes, I am saying that in his prime, Ali would have beaten any heavyweight in the history of the sport.
I agree 100%
If we use are eyes and our brain, it's a pretty easy conclusion to come to.

Boxing isn’t that black and white though. No fighter is guaranteed to beat every fighter they face.
HomicideHenry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by HomicideHenry »

Alp, just because you're like 50 or 60 years old doesn't mean that you're right :lol: and quite frankly I'm tired of the rudeness. You need to be more self aware because people are making threads about you being deceptive or fraudulent or being a troll so it isn't just me calling you out on you're crap.
gregregegg
Lightweight
Posts: 9161
Joined: 29 Sep 2017, 04:08

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by gregregegg »

Ambling Alp II wrote: 24 Oct 2021, 12:36
evrenb wrote: 22 Oct 2021, 18:36
Ambling Alp II wrote: 22 Oct 2021, 15:40 Yes, I am saying that in his prime, Ali would have beaten any heavyweight in the history of the sport.
I agree 100%
If we use are eyes and our brain, it's a pretty easy conclusion to come to.
I dont see how you can conclude that when nearly Alis entire resume would of been cruisers or even light heavys in this era. Ali is a great, no doubt, mabey the greatest...

But what has Ali done to prove he could beat fury. How do you think he beats fury? whats his stratergy. Not saying Fury is the best ever. I just can not see how Ali is favourite in that matchup, If you can, How?, whats his path to certain victory?
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9186
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Controversial »

Ambling Alp II wrote: 24 Oct 2021, 12:31 Yep. He is bigger than some heavyweight champions of the past. About the same as others. Smaller than some. For his height, close to the ideal size. And he he beat the legendary Anthony Joshua.
And AJ goes to show that size can be an advantage at HW. He isn't a natural fighter but athletic, strong, hard-hitting and big and that was enough in lots of his fights. Fury calls him a bodybuilder and that's what he looks like. AJ didn't start boxing until he was 18 but had the benefit of Team GB behind him so access to great training facilities, world class sparring partners, medics, physios, coaches and not having to work so being able to dedicate himself to boxing. Lots of HWs are just out of shape, fat, pretty basic in skill or just don't have access to world class facilities or ability to train full-time like AJ does. Klitschko wasn't particularly skilled or great to watch but again learnt to use his size to his advantage and had a good team around him. Valuev wouldn't have been HW champ if he was 6'3" and 15 stone. The difference with Fury is he has the size but can actually fight too. Usyz can also fight so hardly surprising he handled AJ who seems to be learning the ropes still. Size alone isn't enough and no one is saying it is. People just pointing to big unsuccessful HWs as proof it has no advantage is like comparing Hagler to some random middleweight journeyman and saying they are both the same size so as good as each other.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15185
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

No, Joshua is an indication that a certain point, size is a disadvantage. He just lost to someone else who is smaller. Why? Because Usyk is better.
Fury has some ability, not a lot. Good enough to be at the best in weak era? Yes. good enough o beat a great fighter, no. Fury would better than he is if he lost weight.
Cojimar 1946
Super Welterweight
Posts: 1704
Joined: 01 Mar 2015, 05:00

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Cojimar 1946 »

Fury threw over 600 punches against Wallin I believe.

Where is this notion Ali throws 3x the punches that Fury does coming from besides nostalgia?
There seems to be multiple fights where Fury threw more than 60 punches per round. All I can guess is onetimeonly is focusing on the Wilder trilogy and ignoring Fury's other fights.
Last edited by Cojimar 1946 on 25 Oct 2021, 10:52, edited 1 time in total.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15185
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

gregregegg wrote: 25 Oct 2021, 03:18
Ambling Alp II wrote: 24 Oct 2021, 12:36
evrenb wrote: 22 Oct 2021, 18:36

I agree 100%
If we use are eyes and our brain, it's a pretty easy conclusion to come to.
I dont see how you can conclude that when nearly Alis entire resume would of been cruisers or even light heavys in this era. Ali is a great, no doubt, mabey the greatest...

But what has Ali done to prove he could beat fury. How do you think he beats fury? whats his stratergy. Not saying Fury is the best ever. I just can not see how Ali is favourite in that matchup, If you can, How?, whats his path to certain victory?
No, his entire career was not against fighters who would be cruisers or light heavyweights today. That simply isn't true. At all.

What has Ali done to prove he could beat Fury? Well he beat great fighters. Fury didn't.
His path to victory? He would move around. With fury's punch rate and Ali's defense, he would seldom hit Ali.
With Ali's speed, accuracy, combinations, a he would have little trouble hitting Fury.

By the mid rounds Fury would be dead tired.
Cojimar 1946
Super Welterweight
Posts: 1704
Joined: 01 Mar 2015, 05:00

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Cojimar 1946 »

Ambling Alp II wrote: 25 Oct 2021, 10:51
gregregegg wrote: 25 Oct 2021, 03:18
Ambling Alp II wrote: 24 Oct 2021, 12:36

If we use are eyes and our brain, it's a pretty easy conclusion to come to.
I dont see how you can conclude that when nearly Alis entire resume would of been cruisers or even light heavys in this era. Ali is a great, no doubt, mabey the greatest...

But what has Ali done to prove he could beat fury. How do you think he beats fury? whats his stratergy. Not saying Fury is the best ever. I just can not see how Ali is favourite in that matchup, If you can, How?, whats his path to certain victory?
No, his entire career was not against fighters who would be cruisers or light heavyweights today. That simply isn't true. At all.

What has Ali done to prove he could beat Fury? Well he beat great fighters. Fury didn't.
His path to victory? He would move around. With fury's punch rate and Ali's defense, he would seldom hit Ali.
With Ali's speed, accuracy, combinations, a he would have little trouble hitting Fury.

By the mid rounds Fury would be dead tired.
I think every top 10 opponent Ali faced could make cruiserweight with early weigh ins and rehydration given guys are known to rehydrate 25 pounds or more.

There is a guy currently fighting at cruiserweight called Okolie who is as big as Riddick Bowe.
Ambling Alp II
Super Middleweight
Posts: 15185
Joined: 04 Nov 2012, 18:31

Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

Post by Ambling Alp II »

Liston, Foreman, Lyle, Norton, etc. would not be cruiserweights. Come on.
Post Reply