BoxRec

oogiebe wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 09:35

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 04:20 I don't think head to head should determine greatness in the heavyweight division. At a certain point the size gap becomes so massive that matchups become a bit unfair. There are plenty of people who rate Marciano ahead of Lennox Lewis but virtually nobody would pick him to win an actual fight.

Why can't everyone have this rationale? It's so true.

The rational is not true at all in real life. That is the problem. Some people just assume the heavier guys always in wins. Case closed. Nothing more to see here. However, look at boxing history and see what has actually happened. Not mythical matches. But real fights.
However, most people have not actually done the research. They assume.
Others just love the modern fighters and point to the size differences as proof, when it's not proof at all.
Actually when the weight gap is massive, the smaller guy usually wins.
In this particular fight (Marciano vs Lewis) I would pick Lewis, but not because what the scale says.
Look at power, speed, skill, defense,, chin, heart. Look at their jab, hook, uppercuts, straight hands etc. Forget the scale.

I personally feel Marciano would be demolished by the top heavyweights from Tyson onwards but for me that doesn't affect his legacy at all. He was great in his day and that should be enough, other people are welcome to disagree of course.

APerno wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 15:55

Kalan wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 15:43

oogiebe wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 09:35

Why can't everyone have this rationale? It's so true.

Because if you're defending the Title against washed up Light Heavyweights you're not going to be ranked over somebody who fought real Heavyweights... That's the main reason Rocky isn't ranked highly... He didn't have an opponent.

I also don't think most people rank Marciano over Lennox Lewis anyway... When you ask people a question like this they the first thing they think about is... "Hmmm, could he beat him?" .... and the answer comes out "no."

Nowadays people say Marciano fought in a weak era... But back when he fought they said the era sucked gas bubbles.

For what it's worth you are suppose to measure a man's greatness/character/morality against the values for the time he lived, not against present circumstances/conditions/beliefs. All this comparing we do, this fighter would beat that fighter, is really just nonsense; holds no historical validity. Too many factors have to be considered, which can't be. Marciano is great because he was great in his time. Same stands for Lewis, that's all there really is to say.

But by god we (me too) love showing off our supposed expertise with the mythical match-ups we conjure. But they really are meaningless.

They're meaningless to you... They're not meaningless to people who argue passionately about who would beat who... Since there are always always a great deal more old timers arguing - things get slanted in favor of the past... They trash and disrespect he Hell out of present day fighters, but woe to you if you speak ill of their sacred heroes.

Since most of these old timers (I'm an old timer myself) are so super confident that Louis, Ali, etc could beat modern day greats, you wonder why they don't bet on fights because they'd make a fortune if they were as good as they think they are.. It's pretty tough to have a rational argument with people who are massively biased - but you can try.

You don't KNOW about a man's character and morality – except for the run-in's he's had with police and the criminal justice system... I've never been arrested, but that doesn't make me a good person. I could still cheat people, mistreat people and be very clever about covering it up and talk about all the money I give to charity and try to polish my public image. You should let people know you're a good person who's kind, generous, thoughtful, and loves people - and sets a good example for your children, friends, and associates. People who are merely acquaintances aren’t going to know your character, much less the general public. Your reputation is public, but it can be real or burnished.

I don't think the general public will ever know the individual that well... If a friend of yours suggests that you cheat on your wives with a couple of really beautiful babes he's lined up, you have to think about that. What did you ever do or say to suggest you might be open to philandering? A dirty joke here or there? A passing remark? I think everybody has areas they really need to work on.

We have to separate the person from the fighter. We don’t know the person. We can’t judge the person. We can judge the boxer because he’s a public figure with a record of accomplishment. We can watch his fights.

Kalan wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 17:26

APerno wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 15:55

Kalan wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 15:43

Because if you're defending the Title against washed up Light Heavyweights you're not going to be ranked over somebody who fought real Heavyweights... That's the main reason Rocky isn't ranked highly... He didn't have an opponent.

I also don't think most people rank Marciano over Lennox Lewis anyway... When you ask people a question like this they the first thing they think about is... "Hmmm, could he beat him?" .... and the answer comes out "no."

Nowadays people say Marciano fought in a weak era... But back when he fought they said the era sucked gas bubbles.

For what it's worth you are suppose to measure a man's greatness/character/morality against the values for the time he lived, not against present circumstances/conditions/beliefs. All this comparing we do, this fighter would beat that fighter, is really just nonsense; holds no historical validity. Too many factors have to be considered, which can't be. Marciano is great because he was great in his time. Same stands for Lewis, that's all there really is to say.

But by god we (me too) love showing off our supposed expertise with the mythical match-ups we conjure. But they really are meaningless.

They're meaningless to you... They're not meaningless to people who argue passionately about who would beat who... Since there are always always a great deal more old timers arguing - things get slanted in favor of the past... They trash and disrespect he Hell out of present day fighters, but woe to you if you speak ill of their sacred heroes.

Since most of these old timers (I'm an old timer myself) are so super confident that Louis, Ali, etc could beat modern day greats, you wonder why they don't bet on fights because they'd make a fortune if they were as good as they think they are.. It's pretty tough to have a rational argument with people who are massively biased - but you can try.

You don't KNOW about a man's character and morality – except for the run-in's he's had with police and the criminal justice system... I've never been arrested, but that doesn't make me a good person. I could still cheat people, mistreat people and be very clever about covering it up and talk about all the money I give to charity and try to polish my public image. You should let people know you're a good person who's kind, generous, thoughtful, and loves people - and sets a good example for your children, friends, and associates. People who are merely acquaintances aren’t going to know your character, much less the general public. Your reputation is public, but it can be real or burnished.

I don't think the general public will ever know the individual that well... If a friend of yours suggests that you cheat on your wives with a couple of really beautiful babes he's lined up, you have to think about that. What did you ever do or say to suggest you might be open to philandering? A dirty joke here or there? A passing remark? I think everybody has areas they really need to work on.

We have to separate the person from the fighter. We don’t know the person. We can’t judge the person. We can judge the boxer because he’s a public figure with a record of accomplishment. We can watch his fights.

I wasn't suggesting that we evaluate a fighter's character, only that in all historical study, whether it be about Caesar's morality OR about Marciano's boxing prowess, we should evaluate the man by the standards of his day,

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 17:23

oogiebe wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 09:35

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 04:20 I don't think head to head should determine greatness in the heavyweight division. At a certain point the size gap becomes so massive that matchups become a bit unfair. There are plenty of people who rate Marciano ahead of Lennox Lewis but virtually nobody would pick him to win an actual fight.

Why can't everyone have this rationale? It's so true.

The rational is not true at all in real life. That is the problem. Some people just assume the heavier guys always in wins. Case closed. Nothing more to see here. However, look at boxing history and see what has actually happened. Not mythical matches. But real fights.
However, most people have not actually done the research. They assume.
Others just love the modern fighters and point to the size differences as proof, when it's not proof at all.
Actually when the weight gap is massive, the smaller guy usually wins.
In this particular fight (Marciano vs Lewis) I would pick Lewis, but not because what the scale says.
Look at power, speed, skill, defense,, chin, heart. Look at their jab, hook, uppercuts, straight hands etc. Forget the scale.

That's not what's being said here at all. As humans grow overtime, the athletes get bigger. They get bigger with the athleticism of their forbears. So we're talking skilled and fast and powerful. It's a natural occurrence simply put. To deny that is absurd.

Sorry I don't think that is automatically true. I don't think it should be taken as a given.

Bigger heavyweights are often harder punchers and can take more punishment. Not always. They are also often slower and have worse stamina. Sometimes they are smarter, sometimes not. Sometimes they have more heart, sometimes not. We should look at what they can do, not what the scale says.

The evidence is overwhelming that you can be too big. Are you really that impressed with the athleticism of Nicolai Valuev and Vitaly Kltischko? Do you think they would beat a prime Ali?

If size is such a huge advantage, why is the biggest heavyweight never the best heavyweight? Is the biggest heavyweight the best right now? Was he the best 20 years ago? 40 years ago? Ever? No.

How many times in boxing history has a heavyweight under 200 lost to one over 225? I have challenged people on this before and we have come up with two examples in 130 years of boxing. We had dozens of examples of the smaller guy winning.

What happened the last time a guy under 200 fought for the heavyweight title? He won.

How is it Wilder (who weighed less than Liston did in his second fight with Patterson) beats heavier fighters over and over?

We need to start looking at evidence and not just assume. The bottom line is that so far there have only been two really heavyweights so far who have been great.

I may have helped start something here when I mentioned about Jimmy Ellis fighting boxers that weighed over 200 lbs.

Be that as it may, I will mention here that Jimmy fought 18 guys that weighed over 200. Ellis himself weighed over 200 six times, but his highest was 203 lbs. I will name the guys that were 200+ lbs. that Jimmy fought starting with his losses and the results.

Ellis Losses:

(1) Joe Frazier 205, TKO, 4 Ellis was 30 years old.
(2)Muhammad Ali 220 1/2, TKO 12, Ellis was 31.
(3) Ernie Shavers 206 1/4, KO 1. Ellis was 33.
(4)Boone Kirkman 210, SD10, Ellis was 33.
(5)Ron Lyle, 215, UD12, Ellis was 34.
(6) Joe Bugner, 222, points, Ellis was 34.
(7)Joe Frazier, 211, TKO 9, Ellis was 35.

One draw - Larry Middleton, 208 1/4, Ellis was 34.

Ellis Wins:

(1)Oscar Bonavena 208 1/2, UD
(2)Roberto Davila 203, TKO 7
(3)Tony Doyle 207, KO 10
(4)George Chuvalo, UD
(5)Rico Brooks 213, KO 2
(6)Ollie Wilson 218, TKO6
(7)Bob Felstein 204, KO2
(8)Charlie Harris 222 1/2, TKO 1
(9)Rico Brooks 201, KO5
(10)Al Jones 202, TKO7

These are not all of Jimmy Ellis' fights at heavyweight, just the ones against 200+ lb. boxers, and his only losses at heavyweight.

Shows that everything being equal, the larger man will usually win, but some smaller guys can really fight, and some really big men can't very well.

Jimmy Ellis was not that big, but he was the best of his era (late 60's, early 70's) other than all time greats Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier. His loss to Boone Kirkman may have been a hometown decision because it was a very close split decision in Kirkman's home town of Seattle, Washington. His draw with Larry Mddleton was in Maryland where Middleton lived most or all of his life.

Greatness is not a good criteria because it is so subjective and there are generally massive disagreements across generational lines. What does stand out though is how dominant the big men have been in the last 20+ years. Video evidence also seems indicative of an improvement in performance.

No Marciano-sized heavyweight has held the linear title since Floyd Patterson with the possible exception of Michael Spinks although Spinks was never regarded as the best heavyweight in the world so he is a poor example.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 21:40 The evidence is overwhelming that you can be too big. Are you really that impressed with the athleticism of Nicolai Valuev and Vitaly Kltischko? Do you think they would beat a prime Ali?

If size is such a huge advantage, why is the biggest heavyweight never the best heavyweight?

How many times in boxing history has a heavyweight under 200 lost to one over 225?

First off... Putting Nicolai Valuev in the same sentence as Vitali Klitschko is dumb as HELL.. It's well known that Haye and Chagaev both beat Valuev but would be massive underdogs to Vitali... In fact they were both easily beaten by Wladimir Klitschko... Vitali Klitschko would no doubt clobber the ass off Ali... That's NOT a fight Ali would take -- but Valuev was a terrible athlete with really terrible knees... He refused to fight Vitali and Ali would have a fair chance to beat Valuev...

Valuev's only asset was his size and strength... Vitali had 30 other fistic and athletic assets along with size and strength that made him extremely tough to beat... He was never knocked down -- and he was never behind on points following any fight... No other Heavyweight Champion in the History of Boxing can make both those claims.

How many times in boxing history has a heavyweight under 200 lost to one over 225??? Hundreds of times... Possibly thousands of times---but guys who weigh under 200 AREN'T typically matched with men who weigh over 225... Those are arbitrary numbers that eliminate many thousands of fights where big Heavyweights crushed little guys.

Buddy Baer had little going for him.. He was certainly a terrible boxer and a virtual punching bag... Yet Buddy won the vast majority of his fights. Why?? For the slow of brain it was because he was big and powerful.

Why did Sonny Liston slaughter Patterson so easily??? Did Sonny have to weigh over 225 to be BIG??? HELL NO!!!

What about George Foreman smashing the much shorter and smaller Joe Frazier??? The size difference wasn't reflected by what they weighed... Foreman's arms and shoulders looked twice as big as Frazier's... Frazier was FAT!! From watching the fight would you expect a 5'11" X 200-pound Foreman to be able to do that??? HELL NO!!!

Was Foreman "Big" at 6'3" X 217??? .... Damned right he was... He looked like a monster chewing up Frazier.

Why is the smallest Heavyweight never the best Heavyweight??? Because they're too small... Why is the biggest Heavyweight never the best Heavyweight??? So far they haven't had the greatest boxing talent of all Heavyweights... It's not their height, weight, and reach that would be holding them back.

There's been very few Heavyweight Champions in the last 50 years who weighed under 200... In the 65 years before that there were a great many Heavyweights who weighed under 200... In fact most of them did... Men are getting bigger and stronger and faster and that is just a fact when you look at ANY sport.

Pitchers who could throw over 100 miles an hour used to be extremely unusual... Now there's 10 X as many.

Nobody in HISTORY ever ran 100 meters in under 10 seconds until 1968... Now dozens of sprinters have done it...

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 23:02 Greatness is not a good criteria because it is so subjective and there are generally massive disagreements across generational lines. What does stand out though is how dominant the big men have been in the last 20+ years. Video evidence also seems indicative of an improvement in performance.

No Marciano-sized heavyweight has held the linear title since Floyd Patterson with the possible exception of Michael Spinks although Spinks was never regarded as the best heavyweight in the world so he is a poor example.

The big men have not dominated the smaller heavyweights in the last 20 years. There simply are not smaller heavyweights around.

The lightest guy around is Wilder. He keeps beating the bigger guys time after time. What a coincidence.

Video evidence seems indicative that there has been a major decline in performance in the heavyweight division. As in it has sucked since Lewis retired.

Scypion wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 22:56 I may have helped start something here when I mentioned about Jimmy Ellis fighting boxers that weighed over 200 lbs.

Be that as it may, I will mention here that Jimmy fought 18 guys that weighed over 200. Ellis himself weighed over 200 six times, but his highest was 203 lbs. I will name the guys that were 200+ lbs. that Jimmy fought starting with his losses and the results.

Ellis Losses:

(1) Joe Frazier 205, TKO, 4 Ellis was 30 years old.
(2)Muhammad Ali 220 1/2, TKO 12, Ellis was 31.
(3) Ernie Shavers 206 1/4, KO 1. Ellis was 33.
(4)Boone Kirkman 210, SD10, Ellis was 33.
(5)Ron Lyle, 215, UD12, Ellis was 34.
(6) Joe Bugner, 222, points, Ellis was 34.
(7)Joe Frazier, 211, TKO 9, Ellis was 35.

One draw - Larry Middleton, 208 1/4, Ellis was 34.

Ellis Wins:

(1)Oscar Bonavena 208 1/2, UD
(2)Roberto Davila 203, TKO 7
(3)Tony Doyle 207, KO 10
(4)George Chuvalo, UD
(5)Rico Brooks 213, KO 2
(6)Ollie Wilson 218, TKO6
(7)Bob Felstein 204, KO2
(8)Charlie Harris 222 1/2, TKO 1
(9)Rico Brooks 201, KO5
(10)Al Jones 202, TKO7

These are not all of Jimmy Ellis' fights at heavyweight, just the ones against 200+ lb. boxers, and his only losses at heavyweight.

Shows that everything being equal, the larger man will usually win, but some smaller guys can really fight, and some really big men can't very well.

Jimmy Ellis was not that big, but he was the best of his era (late 60's, early 70's) other than all time greats Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier. His loss to Boone Kirkman may have been a hometown decision because it was a very close split decision in Kirkman's home town of Seattle, Washington. His draw with Larry Mddleton was in Maryland where Middleton lived most or all of his life.

Nice post.

I think the division has improved from the post-Lewis era. There is a great deal of excitement currently among boxing fans over guys like Joshua, Wilder, etc that was absent in the mid-2000s.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 10:43

Scypion wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 22:56 I may have helped start something here when I mentioned about Jimmy Ellis fighting boxers that weighed over 200 lbs.

Be that as it may, I will mention here that Jimmy fought 18 guys that weighed over 200. Ellis himself weighed over 200 six times, but his highest was 203 lbs. I will name the guys that were 200+ lbs. that Jimmy fought starting with his losses and the results.

Ellis Losses:

(1) Joe Frazier 205, TKO, 4 Ellis was 30 years old.
(2)Muhammad Ali 220 1/2, TKO 12, Ellis was 31.
(3) Ernie Shavers 206 1/4, KO 1. Ellis was 33.
(4)Boone Kirkman 210, SD10, Ellis was 33.
(5)Ron Lyle, 215, UD12, Ellis was 34.
(6) Joe Bugner, 222, points, Ellis was 34.
(7)Joe Frazier, 211, TKO 9, Ellis was 35.

One draw - Larry Middleton, 208 1/4, Ellis was 34.

Ellis Wins:

(1)Oscar Bonavena 208 1/2, UD
(2)Roberto Davila 203, TKO 7
(3)Tony Doyle 207, KO 10
(4)George Chuvalo, UD
(5)Rico Brooks 213, KO 2
(6)Ollie Wilson 218, TKO6
(7)Bob Felstein 204, KO2
(8)Charlie Harris 222 1/2, TKO 1
(9)Rico Brooks 201, KO5
(10)Al Jones 202, TKO7

These are not all of Jimmy Ellis' fights at heavyweight, just the ones against 200+ lb. boxers, and his only losses at heavyweight.

Shows that everything being equal, the larger man will usually win, but some smaller guys can really fight, and some really big men can't very well.

Jimmy Ellis was not that big, but he was the best of his era (late 60's, early 70's) other than all time greats Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier. His loss to Boone Kirkman may have been a hometown decision because it was a very close split decision in Kirkman's home town of Seattle, Washington. His draw with Larry Mddleton was in Maryland where Middleton lived most or all of his life.

Nice post.

Thanks. I think that if I had the same kind of post with Floyd Patterson, it would look very much like the Jimmy Ellis post. Patterson fought 14 heavyweights who weighed over 200 lbs. with 2 losses to Sonny Liston and 2 losses to Muhammad Ali. Floyd also lost to 3 heavyweights that weighed less than 200 lbs., Ingemar Johansson, Jerry Quarry, and Jimmy Ellis. There was also the draw with Quarry.

True that Patterson probably got robbed against Ellis, but Jimmy may have got the short end against Kirkman and Middleton.

Anyway, Patterson and Ellis' records are kind of similar in some ways.

Kalan wrote: ↑13 Apr 2018, 13:01 I think Ellis hurt himself draining down to Middleweight well into his 20's.

Ellis had an short prime as a Heavyweight... It started with the Waqa fight and ended with Quarry....basically 8 fights... Ellis had a lot of fire and drive for the Leotis Martin fight. That was his best effort... He made a decent amount of money winning the Elimination Tournament and becoming World Champion... He relaxed and enjoyed life a bit... He also made good money fighting Patterson, Frazier and Ali, but he was far from the fiery Ellis who fought Martin for those fights.

Ellis did not have a real great financial deal going with Angelo Dundee... I don't know how much Dundee took, but it was a lot... Ellis made a much smaller cut than Ali did for their fight -- but Dundee's cut of Ellis's cut was so big that Dundee trained Ellis for the Ali fight because he did so much better financially.

The Ellis who fought Martin would have blitzed Archie Moore like Patterson did... Ellis would have easily beaten Machen... I'm sure Ellis would have beaten any 1950's Heavyweight except Sonny Liston... Sonny was too big and strong.

Jimmy Ellis probably made about a million dollars in the ring. I wonder how much he got to keep after taxes and Angelo's cut?

I guess that getting Dundee to manage and train him was a double edged sword. Jimmy did get to be the WBA Heavyweight Champion and probably had some good times fighting on Ali's undercards and traveling to Europe a few times.

In Dundee's camp Ellis would always be a second banana to Muhammad Ali, and Dundee would sometimes use Jimmy to fight some of Ali's future opponents and kind of see what they got for Ali. For instance, Joe Frazier, Ron Lyle, Joe Bugner, and maybe George Chuvalo.

Of course, Jimmy Ellis likely never would have been WBA champ if it were not for Ali's legal trouble in the 60's. To give Ellis credit, he did win the 8 man elimination tournament to get the WBA title.

In their 1971 bout, Muhammad Ali got either 45% of the gross or $450,000. Jimmy Ellis got 20% or $200,000.

Ellis was a struggling fighter before Dundee became his trainer. Then his career took off. Also worth mentioning that Dundee was in Ellis' corner vs Ali.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Apr 2018, 15:35 Ellis was a struggling fighter before Dundee became his trainer. Then his career took off. Also worth mentioning that Dundee was in Ellis' corner vs Ali.

True, Jimmy should have started out more like Patterson did, fighting as a light heavyweight and not fighting contenders right away. He needed someone like Cus D'Amato or Angelo to manage and train him.

Dundee was Ellis' manager and trainer whereas he was Ali's trainer only, so he made more money being in Ellis' corner for the Ali fight.

It's also worth pointing out that the disappearance of the Marciano sized heavyweights precedes Lewis's retirement by more than 30 years. The division supposedly sucking since 2003 does not explain the lack of success by Marciano sized heavyweights in the 1990s, the 1980s, 1970s and 1960s. Since Patterson-Liston no heavyweight as small as Marciano has ever even once won recognition as the best heavyweight on earth.

It's also worth noting that Marciano would be facing a much bigger size disadvantage vs Lewis, Wlad, Vitali, etc than Wilder has. Against Lewis Marciano is conceding 14 inches in reach, 5 1/2 inches in height and nearly 60 pounds in weight. Against Joshua Marciano would be conceding 7 inches in height. Wilder is not facing a size disparity anywhere close to this and is generally taller than his opponents.

Before Marciano was champion, there was only one champion shorter than him, and only a few close to his weight. Marciano was an exception. His success has something to do with how good he was. He had incredible power in both hands, underrated intelligence, tremendous drive, great cardiovascular fitness, and a very high work rate.

That's not the case at all, prior to Liston there were many champions roughly the size of Marciano and very few significantly bigger. Floyd Patterson, Ezzard Charles, Jimmy Braddock, Max Schmelling, Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, and Jim Corbett all weighed about the same as Marciano. Against prior champions Marciano would in general not be at a weight disadvantage and would only be giving away 1-1 1/2 inches in height.

Depends on what you consider roughly the same.

Jeffries, Willard, Baer, Carnera, all easily outweighed him. All were at least 4 inches taller and normally outweighed him by 25-75 pounds. Johnson, Dempsey, Sharkey, Walcott, Louis normally outweighed him by several pounds.

Charles, Braddock, Tunney did not start out at light heavy. After they were at heavyweight for a while, they generally outweighed Marciano.

Burns is the only champion shorter than Marciano. All had longer reaches and most by a significant margin.

Patterson came after Marciano.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑17 Apr 2018, 21:33 Depends on what you consider roughly the same.

Jeffries, Willard, Baer, Carnera, all easily outweighed him. All were at least 4 inches taller and normally outweighed him by 25-75 pounds. Johnson, Dempsey, Sharkey, Walcott, Louis normally outweighed him by several pounds.

Charles, Braddock, Tunney did not start out at light heavy. After they were at heavyweight for a while, they generally outweighed Marciano.

Burns is the only champion shorter than Marciano. All had longer reaches and most by a significant margin.

Patterson came after Marciano.

With Dempsey that would only be three or four pounds. (As you said, only 'several.') Dempsey at his peak/youth (187) matched against a young Marciano at 184 (his lowest weight) or Dempsey at the end (192 1/2) against Marciano's 188. (I am ignoring the Dempsey-Sharkey (194 1/2) fight, don't believe Dempsey showed up prepared for that fight; Marciano's heaviest was 189 1/2.)

I just don't see three to four pounds being a significant factor to add in unless you are talking bantamweights.

Definitive regarding the lack of reach advantage. I think his reach was a whopping 67" Liston 84" Wow! -- Even Two Ton Tony Galento had 72"

Dempsey was 192 1/2 vs Firpo, 188 vs Gibbons, 188 vs Carpentier,, 188 1/4 vs Brennan, 188 vs Miske, 187 vs Willard and 185 against Morris. He was no heavier than Marciano in most of his prime fights and I would say at his peak he was 185-192 1/2 vs Marciano's 184-192 1/2 so they weigh about the same with Dempsey maybe 1-2 pounds heavier. Max Schmelling was 192 vs Lewis, 189 in his revenge win over Steve Hamas, 189 against Max Baer and 189 when he stopped Young Stribling. His weight in his prime was from 185-196 so again about the same as Marciano.

I know that you found a fight where Marciano weighed 192 but he usually weighed several pounds less than that. As mentioned he was short and had the shortest reach of any champion. He was considered small for a heavyweight at the time was the champion.
Yet people rated him on how good he was. He certainly wasn't perfect and most people realized that. However they rated him how good he was, not what the scale said. Until not that long ago that was the norm. You know rating fighters on how good they actually were. Stuff like power, speed, endurance, smarts, chin, defense etc. You know, stuff that actually matters.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑18 Apr 2018, 16:00 I know that you found a fight where Marciano weighed 192 but he usually weighed several pounds less than that. As mentioned he was short and had the shortest reach of any champion. He was considered small for a heavyweight at the time was the champion.
Yet people rated him on how good he was. He certainly wasn't perfect and most people realized that. However they rated him how good he was, not what the scale said. Until not that long ago that was the norm. You know rating fighters on how good they actually were. Stuff like power, speed, endurance, smarts, chin, defense etc. You know, stuff that actually matters.

You mean stuff we don't seem to discuss anymore? lol! (sad actually)

Scypion wrote: ↑15 Apr 2018, 22:56 I may have helped start something here when I mentioned about Jimmy Ellis fighting boxers that weighed over 200 lbs.

Be that as it may, I will mention here that Jimmy fought 18 guys that weighed over 200. Ellis himself weighed over 200 six times, but his highest was 203 lbs. I will name the guys that were 200+ lbs. that Jimmy fought starting with his losses and the results.

Ellis Losses:

(1) Joe Frazier 205, TKO, 4 Ellis was 30 years old.
(2)Muhammad Ali 220 1/2, TKO 12, Ellis was 31.
(3) Ernie Shavers 206 1/4, KO 1. Ellis was 33.
(4)Boone Kirkman 210, SD10, Ellis was 33.
(5)Ron Lyle, 215, UD12, Ellis was 34.
(6) Joe Bugner, 222, points, Ellis was 34.
(7)Joe Frazier, 211, TKO 9, Ellis was 35.

One draw - Larry Middleton, 208 1/4, Ellis was 34.

Ellis Wins:

(1)Oscar Bonavena 208 1/2, UD
(2)Roberto Davila 203, TKO 7
(3)Tony Doyle 207, KO 10
(4)George Chuvalo, UD
(5)Rico Brooks 213, KO 2
(6)Ollie Wilson 218, TKO6
(7)Bob Felstein 204, KO2
(8)Charlie Harris 222 1/2, TKO 1
(9)Rico Brooks 201, KO5
(10)Al Jones 202, TKO7

These are not all of Jimmy Ellis' fights at heavyweight, just the ones against 200+ lb. boxers, and his only losses at heavyweight.

Shows that everything being equal, the larger man will usually win, but some smaller guys can really fight, and some really big men can't very well.

Jimmy Ellis was not that big, but he was the best of his era (late 60's, early 70's) other than all time greats Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier. His loss to Boone Kirkman may have been a hometown decision because it was a very close split decision in Kirkman's home town of Seattle, Washington. His draw with Larry Mddleton was in Maryland where Middleton lived most or all of his life.

Actually, Jimmy Ellis weighed 207 1/2 lbs. against a boxer named Dick Gosha. That was his high weight. That was in Jimmy's first fight after his bout with Muhammad Ali, about 10 months later. I don't think that Ellis was training very hard, which was maybe part of the reason for his high weight. After losing to Ali, Jimmy took some easy fights. There was really nowhere for him to go leading to a championship fight at that time, so he was just making some easy money and scored 8 KO's or stoppages in a row before fighting Ernie Shavers.