BoxRec

oogiebe wrote: ↑29 Oct 2021, 19:07 "Love Ali. Absolutely love him.

but to counter Alp's points, when did Ali ever fight a 6' 9" 275 LB guy who can move and had the skills of Fury? Cuts both ways. Sorry to butt in, however I'm getting sick of the weak ass arguments on a definitive outcome.

Not saying Fury is the GOAT, but to say Ali beats him easily without a doubt is just plain stupid.

That's the plain and simple truth. Albeit not for the insane Ali fanatics for whom winning El Intocable Sweet Pea Williams was something extraordinary.

DrDuke wrote: ↑30 Oct 2021, 02:22
not for the insane Ali fanatics for whom winning El Intocable Sweet Pea Williams was something extraordinary

Eh? Sorry you’ve lost me, what does this mean?

in a fury vs cleveland williams thread in the mythical section, alpy was praising slick clev's defensive ability and was saying he was much harder to hit than fury. and of course, even though fury's kd vs cunningham means everything to alp, none of clev's 25 trips to the canvas mattered lol

at first people thought he was joking, but no, he was dead serious about sweet pea williams. williams being compared to an active fighter suddenly blessed clev with that silky smooth defense

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Oct 2021, 10:46
light years better than all those great cruiserweights that Usyk.

So I assume you think the CW division should be scrapped and go back to the 175 limit?

oogiebe wrote: ↑29 Oct 2021, 19:07 "Love Ali. Absolutely love him.

but to counter Alp's points, when did Ali ever fight a 6' 9" 275 LB guy who can move and had the skills of Fury? Cuts both ways. Sorry to butt in, however I'm getting sick of the weak ass arguments on a definitive outcome.

Not saying Fury is the GOAT, but to say Ali beats him easily without a doubt is just plain stupid.

It cuts both ways. Yes I totally agree with that. That is exactly what I have been saying all a long. You have to do what both guys can do when comparing two guys. Yet we constantly hear something like "Fury was 69 and weighed 275. Case closed. Nothing more to see here.

To which I say that you have to look the guy can do. Fury can do some things. He just doesn't compare to Ali. What can he actually do that would cause problems for Ali?
I have asked several times how Fury could handle all the huge advantages that Ali has, and the Fury lovers never answers them.

Controversial wrote: ↑30 Oct 2021, 15:03

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Oct 2021, 10:46
light years better than all those great cruiserweights that Usyk.

So I assume you think the CW division should be scrapped and go back to the 175 limit?

What did I say that makes you that?
I said that Ali's competition far exceeded Usyk's. What does that have to do with scrapping the cruiserweight division?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑31 Oct 2021, 11:58

Controversial wrote: ↑30 Oct 2021, 15:03

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑29 Oct 2021, 10:46
light years better than all those great cruiserweights that Usyk.

So I assume you think the CW division should be scrapped and go back to the 175 limit?

What did I say that makes you that?
I said that Ali's competition far exceeded Usyk's. What does that have to do with scrapping the cruiserweight division?

Just a general question, I wasn’t meaning to refer to Usyk. In terms of the size of HWs and you not really seeing what difference it makes, just assumed you would go back to pre CW times?

I am fine with the cruiserweight division.

This is the point that I have trying to make: At a certain point, size is an advantage. The usual advantages (punching power, ability to take a punch etc.)of being a lot bigger outweighs (pardon the pun) the usual disadvantages (worse speed, stamina etc. ). That is why we have weight classes.

On average, a lightweight is going to beat a flyweight, and a middleweight is going to beat lightweight, etc. I think just about everyone has always agreed with that.

However, at a certain point, it stops being an advantage. At a later point, it actually becomes a disadvantage. for example, the really big guys usually don't have an advantage in punching power, but do have have worse speed and stamina. They are slow, and don't throw as many punches.

Of course there are exceptions. There are flyweights that could beat some lightweights. some lightweights that could beat some middleweights. There are big heavyweights that have decent footwork. There are small-medium size heavyweights that are slow.

A 220 pound heavyweight normally has a big advantage over a guy that weighs 175. However, a guy weighing 265 usually doesn't have those advantages over a guy weighing 220.

We need to talk about what a guy can do. Not does he move well for 260 pounds. That doesn't matter when he is going against someone smaller who moves a lot better than him.

Not can he punch hard or take a punch well for weighing only 200. But can he move well for a heavyweight. Can he punch hard for a heavyweight.
Above all, we got stop with the dumba$$ comments such as "Fighter A has a 45 pound weight advantage. (Case closed.)Not he doesn't. The scale does not win fights.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑31 Oct 2021, 14:16
Above all, we got stop with the dumba$$ comments such as "Fighter A has a 45 pound weight advantage. (Case closed.)Not he doesn't. The scale does not win fights.

No one is saying this though, I think we’ve all been clear that size combined with skill is needed, just being big doesn’t count for much. David Price is a prime example.

Constantly see where someone says it right off the bat, "Fighter A has a 40 pound (or whatever) weight advantage."
You are doing close to the same thing. You seem to think that it's simply size plus skill equals greatness. It doesn't work that way.

Excess size doesn't mean anything. A guy weighing 265 with the exact same ability as a guy weighing 220 doesn't have an advantage. The skills that Fury supposedly has is only impressive when compared to weak opponents he has fought.

Fury supposedly moves well. However, he just moves well compared to other way overweight guys. He doesn't moved well compared to Ali. Or many other guys.

A 7 footer in basketball might move well for his size. Doesn't mean that he moves well enough to cover the other teams point guard.

The argument for huge heavyweights being better boils down to this .... bigger heavyweights are better.
That isn't a real argument.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑31 Oct 2021, 14:44 Constantly see where someone says it right off the bat, "Fighter A has a 40 pound (or whatever) weight advantage."
You are doing close to the same thing. You seem to think that it's simply size plus skill equals greatness. It doesn't work that way.

Excess size doesn't mean anything. A guy weighing 265 with the exact same ability as a guy weighing 220 doesn't have an advantage. The skills that Fury supposedly has is only impressive when compared to weak opponents he has fought.

Fury supposedly moves well. However, he just moves well compared to other way overweight guys. He doesn't moved well compared to Ali. Or many other guys.

A 7 footer in basketball might move well for his size. Doesn't mean that he moves well enough to cover the other teams point guard.

The argument for huge heavyweights being better boils down to this .... bigger heavyweights are better.
That isn't a real argument.

You made the post(s) that Ali would easily beat Fury. Don't change direction saying that people are saying bigger heavyweights are better. That is NOT the opinion of any knowledgable boxing fan. However; back to Ali/Fury...Fury isn't just humongous, he moves REALLY well and adjusts well; he can be herky jerky, or bully you in the ribg; has a tremendous ring IQ; etc. I can NEVER say Ali beats him easily,. And I love Ali and don't have any fondness for Fury.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑31 Oct 2021, 14:44 Constantly see where someone says it right off the bat, "Fighter A has a 40 pound (or whatever) weight advantage."
You are doing close to the same thing. You seem to think that it's simply size plus skill equals greatness. It doesn't work that way.

Excess size doesn't mean anything. A guy weighing 265 with the exact same ability as a guy weighing 220 doesn't have an advantage. The skills that Fury supposedly has is only impressive when compared to weak opponents he has fought.

Fury supposedly moves well. However, he just moves well compared to other way overweight guys. He doesn't moved well compared to Ali. Or many other guys.

A 7 footer in basketball might move well for his size. Doesn't mean that he moves well enough to cover the other teams point guard.

The argument for huge heavyweights being better boils down to this .... bigger heavyweights are better.
That isn't a real argument.

It isn't the same thing. Tony Tucker and Buster Douglas were big and skilled, I'm not saying they would beat Ali. I am being specific to Fury because he has a more strings to his bow and his size and weight are things he knows how to use to his advantage. So yes extra size and weight can make a big difference, I don’t agree that anyone weighing more than 220lb is worse off, that makes no sense.

I imagine most people would say the only chance AJ has of beating Usyk is to make use of his physical advantages. Rough him up, bully him, push him back, lean on him and wear him down. In other words use his strength and size to beat him. He isn't going to outbox him. Whether he can or not is another matter but if AJ didn't have those physical advantages then he wouldn't be able to do that. Klitschko was a success because he learnt how to use his size effectively, if he was 6’0” and 15 stone he wouldn’t have achieved anything.

It's not just size, but a combination of things that makes someone like Fury problematic for many if not all past heavyweight greats. There are over 100 different variables or attributes that a boxer has, according to the late Hank Kaplan, and basically whoever has a high rating across the board on such variables and attributes is going to be harder to beat.

I don't know how many people ever collected comic book cards when they were kids but maybe the argument can be a little more nuanced, for example:

Power
Speed
Agility
Durability
IQ

And you go on a scale of 0 to 10 on each person's ability. Let's say Ali (1960s) was basically "10" in 3 out of 5 of those things but was "5" or lower in the power and IQ category. Then you have Fury who is like "7" across the board in those categories, though it's arguable that his ring IQ is as good as it gets "10"--- and then you couple all that with the size that he has.

It's then you start to see how competitive such a matchup actually is because all those 10's begin to be nullified. Ali in the 70s had a higher IQ then when he was younger because he had to change tactics because he was no longer as athletic or fast as he was, so he goes down in points in the categories.

Of course you can add in more categories, such as their arsenal of weapons: Jab, Footwork, Ring Generalship, Toughness, etc--- but I think Fury still ranks highly across the board, because if "5" is average overall then Fury is at least "7" or "8" in such categories.

The argument that he is only faster than other super heavyweights around today sounds good on paper, but it has been remarked by people like Teddy Atlas and others that Tyson Fury moves like a light heavyweight--- and he has fought quite a few men 200-230 pounds and was clearly quicker than them.

Were they the cream of the crop 200 pounders? No. But the point still remains that he is an enormous heavyweight who moves awfully quick with his hands and feet and head. No he's not as fast as Ali or Corbett or some others in the past but he's not really all that far behind either.

I don't think anyone is saying that size is everything here. After all Muhammad Ali himself said that of all the past heavyweight champions he wasn't sure he could have beaten Rocky Marciano, who was not only shorter and lighter than him but with a very short reach. Why? Because Marciano was absolutely relentless, incredibly well conditioned, and would not stop until he was dead. "The man with no style at all would be the hardest to beat," as Ali put it in an interview in the early '70s.

At some point, yes, height and weight differentials stop becoming an advantage. But with certain particular fighters, the size certainly benefits them because they know how to use it. If you have an enormous heavyweight who knows how to use their size, and they have a great Ring IQ, and are quite athletic or quick, their size becomes a big problem.

If you are just a big lump relying strictly on power and nothing more then you are just a big target. Perfect example of that was when Jack Dempsey was in Montana training for Tommy Gibbons, and to drum up publicity he fought an exhibition against "Big" Ben Wray a man who was allegedly 4-0-0 (4) but he was 7'2". It took only a minute for Dempsey to not only knock the man unconscious but to break his jaw.

But nobody is talking about big lumps here. We are talking about world class heavyweights who are exceptions to the rule. As I pointed out in earlier posts if you took out the Klitschko brothers, Lennox Lewis, and Tyson Fury out of the last 30 years of boxing--- then you can easily argue that any of the past heavyweights could have successfully made a transition into modern times, because it is true that the vast majority of these super heavyweights are really not all that good.

I do think some people are highly critical when it's unwarranted. I remember the late Bert Sugar saying that Primo Carnera would knock out Wladimir Klitschko, constantly running down the heavyweight champion of the world. As much as I have defended the Italian giant on the forum, he would not have beaten Wladimir Klitschko. A lot of people love to reach back and say someone from the past could have easily run roughshod over modern day athletes.

Mind you I never said that it would be easy for Fury in a hypothetical matchup with the 1960s version of Muhammad Ali, I said it would either be a draw or a split decision win for Fury--- but people want to become outraged at even the slightest thought that anyone could have touched their childhood idols, even when they were clearly on the downside at particular times.

"Oh any version of Ali would have beaten Fury," as Alp has basically said over and over. Or insisting that Ali would have beaten Fury easily. Both remarks are completely laughable and ridiculous. Anyone who knows anything about real boxing or real fighting can tell you nothing comes easily, especially against a guy like Tyson Fury unless he just stands there and let's Ali beat the crap out of him.

Us guys who are saying it would be competitive, very close, are far more reasonable on the matter than those who want to act like Ali really could beat up Superman. It's difficult to have an honest and legitimate debate with people who view certain athletes as untouchable icons when at the end of the day they were just flesh and bone men who could be beaten and were beaten from time to time.

Anyone can be beaten. Every single fighter has flaws. I have been asked in the past what kind of style would it take to defeat someone like Tyson Fury and I have always said it would take a pressure fighter in the style of a Jim Jeffries, Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, Joe Frazier, Mike Tyson, to constantly attack the body never giving him an inch--- the problem is most heavyweights today simply don't have the engine to do perpetual motion attacks either because they are lazy or because they are so big that they use up a lot of energy and burn out quicker.

Can he be out-boxed? Sure. But the only man I can see really doing it is Lennox Lewis. And that's because Lewis had the size and the ring IQ and the power to throw Fury off. But if you don't have the power to really keep a man off you then you are going to have to rely on a lot of defense and you're not going to score as many points as you would like.

The last man I ever saw who relied on speed and elusiveness who was basically the size of Muhammad Ali, mostly throwing jabs like Ali, was Chris Byrd (6'2" and 215) and while he befuddled a lot of men who were taller and heavier than he was--- when it came to the Klitschko brothers, who could be pretty robotic, he basically could do very little with them.

I think it's arguable that Fury is just as good or better than the Klitschko brothers. For those who don't accept that, his career is not yet over and it's likely he will demonstrate that he is. Ali is certainly better than Byrd, but--- if a guy in the style of Ali (basically) loses virtually every single round to the Klitschko's then you have to figure that it'd be competitive for Ali against them.

I know somebody will jump on my ass and say, "Byrd was more like Jimmy Young than Muhammad Ali it's a bad comparison," but the attributes are similar nevertheless: Speed, Elusiveness, Durability, Ring IQ and (imho) Young was not only robbed in his fight with Ali he was also robbed against Norton.

Ali sure would throw more punches and mix it up more than Byrd, but to do so is to risk getting caught up in clinches by men who will put 40-50 pounds on you and maul you. To do so is leaving yourself open to be countered too. The 1970s version of Ali certainly can't afford to do that for too long--- so the best version from the 1960s would have to rely on constantly moving, just like Byrd.

I find the whole 'skill' element interesting. Fury gets criticised for being knocked down by Wilder when Foreman was almost stopped by Lyle. Lyle had Foreman going in the first round, knocked him down twice and hurt him several times. Was Lyle a highly skilled fighter or just a tough hard punching HW? I'd say the latter. Most good HWs have specific skillsets that make them difficult to beat and they all differ. Frazier, Foreman and Ali were three completely different fighters but they were all successful. Furys 'skill' is his underrated boxing ability, speed for a big man and ability to adapt in fights. His size just adds to the problem he poses and that cannot be ignored or dismissed as being irrelevant.

Today Joe Joyce has had success, he isn't a master boxer and he doesn't have silky skills but his size, strength, work-rate and ability to throw and take hard shots wins him fights. If he wasn't as big then he wouldn't be such a tough opponent.

Yes Foreman got knocked down by Lyle. Not his proudest moment. Worth mentioning when evaluating Foreman. That is fair enough. It all counts for everybody. (Assuming the fighters were close to their prime). The good and the bad. Thier strengths and weaknesses.

Was Lyle particularly skillful? Not really. Was he better than Wilder? Of course.

"Speed for a big man". That is faulty reasoning which I recently pointed out. Speed for a big man doesn't help you when you are fighting a guy who has great speed, period.

Ability to adapt? How do we know that? The only win he ever had worth mentioning is Wilder. One guy who has a lot of weaknesses. Ali had to adapt to a lot of different opponents who had ability. Fury has not.

There is no evidence that Joyce would be worse if he weighed less. What specifically would make him worse if he was smaller? He probably would be harder to hit.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑01 Nov 2021, 10:57 The only win he ever had worth mentioning is Wilder.

A one of the most outrageous anti-Fury biases is taking away the Klitschko win away from him.

DrDuke wrote: ↑01 Nov 2021, 11:04

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑01 Nov 2021, 10:57 The only win he ever had worth mentioning is Wilder.

A one of the most outrageous anti-Fury biases is taking away the Klitschko win away from him.

The Klitschko win was a good victory to be fair.

lol alp, jesus dude

oogiebe wrote: ↑31 Oct 2021, 17:25

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑31 Oct 2021, 14:44 Constantly see where someone says it right off the bat, "Fighter A has a 40 pound (or whatever) weight advantage."
You are doing close to the same thing. You seem to think that it's simply size plus skill equals greatness. It doesn't work that way.

Excess size doesn't mean anything. A guy weighing 265 with the exact same ability as a guy weighing 220 doesn't have an advantage. The skills that Fury supposedly has is only impressive when compared to weak opponents he has fought.

Fury supposedly moves well. However, he just moves well compared to other way overweight guys. He doesn't moved well compared to Ali. Or many other guys.

A 7 footer in basketball might move well for his size. Doesn't mean that he moves well enough to cover the other teams point guard.

The argument for huge heavyweights being better boils down to this .... bigger heavyweights are better.
That isn't a real argument.

You made the post(s) that Ali would easily beat Fury. Don't change direction saying that people are saying bigger heavyweights are better. That is NOT the opinion of any knowledgable boxing fan. However; back to Ali/Fury...Fury isn't just humongous, he moves REALLY well and adjusts well; he can be herky jerky, or bully you in the ribg; has a tremendous ring IQ; etc. I can NEVER say Ali beats him easily,. And I love Ali and don't have any fondness for Fury.

Wasn't changing direction. The name of the the Thread is actually "Thoughts Now on Size of HWs compared to other eras?"
I agree that it isn't the opinion of any "knowledgeable" boxing fan. But it is the opinion of many boxing fans.

Back to Fury and Ali: fury doesn't move well compared to Ali. Ali would have little trouble catching up to him.
On the hand, Fury would have a lot trouble landing on a prime Ali. He isn't going to bully a guy that he can't catch up to. His ring IQ may be better than Wilder but it isn't better than Ali's was.

Not sure if he could "bully" any great heavyweights. He couldn't even bully the ancient, glass jaw Klitschko, in a terrible fight.

he lacks cleveland william's silky boxing skills and defense too, doesnt he

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑01 Nov 2021, 11:23 he lacks cleveland william's silky boxing skills and defense too, doesnt he

And the depth of Toney's monumental CW resume!

yes! a win over long time #1, hof'er wlad means nothing , but hallelujah for vassy jirov and all those '10 round fighters' !

People who know the sport make allowances for the stages of a fighter's career. Klitschko was 39 years old and clearly past his best. Think about what you are saying. If you consider this a big win for Fury, then you have to do the following:

It's has to a big loss for Klitschko. You can't use the past his prime excuse for this fight when rating Klitischko. Maybe Klitschko (gasp) wasn't that good.

You also have to go back and do this for countless fights throughout boxing history.

John Ruiz's win over Holyfield? It's now a huge win for Ruiz. Maybe should start giving Holyfield consideration for being a a great fighter. Maybe Holyfield was not that good.

Tyson's win over Holmes? It's now a huge win for Tyson. It's now an embarrassing loss for Holmes.
Marciano's win over Louis? Is now a huge win for Marciano. Bad loss for Louis.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑01 Nov 2021, 15:51 People who know the sport make allowances for the stages of a fighter's career. Klitschko was 39 years old and clearly past his best. Think about what you are saying. If you consider this a big win for Fury, then you have to do the following:

It's has to a big loss for Klitschko. You can't use the past his prime excuse for this fight when rating Klitischko. Maybe Klitschko (gasp) wasn't that good.

You also have to go back and do this for countless fights throughout boxing history.

John Ruiz's win over Holyfield? It's now a huge win for Ruiz. Maybe should start giving Holyfield consideration for being a a great fighter. Maybe Holyfield was not that good.

Tyson's win over Holmes? It's now a huge win for Tyson. It's now an embarrassing loss for Holmes.
Marciano's win over Louis? Is now a huge win for Marciano. Bad loss for Louis.

A good win for a fighter doesn't make the loss a bad one for his opponent. Stop making such outrageous notions.

Alp.... Context is everything.

Klitschko was the reigning undisputed champion of the world when he lost to Tyson Fury. It's not at all comparable to "Ruiz vs Holyfield," or, "Louis vs Marciano," or, "Tyson vs Holmes." Why? Easy.

Holyfield was already considered passed his prime when he fought Ruiz the first time. He wasn't even champion anymore. Nevermind the fact that his "win" over Ruiz was pretty controversial. Heck he was kinda considered passed it when he fought Lennox Lewis.

Louis hadn't been champion in four years. He had already lost to Ezzard Charles in his comeback. And even though he managed into getting into being the #1 contender for Jersey Joe Walcott, he was clearly not the Brown Bomber of old.

Holmes hadn't been champion in three years, and hadn't fought for two years. No tune ups, nothing. How he was ever gifted a title shot can only be summed up in two words: Don King.

It's not the same situation as Klitschko vs Fury. Yes, Klitschko was showing some signs of slowing down in his previous contest with Bryant Jennings but prior to that he kayoed Kubrat Pulev in five rounds--- there was no real idea or notion that Klitschko would absolutely, positively lose especially here on the BoxRec forums.

In fact most people thought that Klitschko would either knock out Fury late or would win a decision over Fury, especially since the fight was being held in the country that hosted the most Klitschko fights.

Klitschko also got Fury to use the same gloves that Wladimir was using (hard foam), and there was also the debacle with the padding in the ring being too thick--- even with extra padding removed beneath the canvas it was still too much canvas, as Fury ended up with massive blisters on his feet trying to move around in the ring away from Klitschko.

Besides the fact that Fury prior to the contest stated that he wasn't going out to knock out Klitschko but to out-box him, because everybody else who ever beat Wladimir did it by knockout. It was a bigger challenge to try and school Klitschko tactically than to engage in a brawl, as far as Fury was concerned.

Which is why the match was "boring", although Fury did throw 327 punches in the contest. Compare Joshua's punch total against an older, inactive Klitschko it was 355 so it was not much different statistically.