Just highlights that experience not always a deciding factor. I’ve always wondered if Mike Tyson could’ve beat Berbick in his debut. When a fighter has a unique style then all the experience in the world can’t really prepare you.
What I find interesting is that Nelson is certainly one of the top 5 cruiserweights of all time, or just outside the top 5. He wasn't necessarily a small man either. Nelson was 6'2" and somewhere around 198 pounds when trained down. Muhammad Ali was 6'2.5" in comparison.
When one really thinks about it, Fury has been working with top cruiserweights and small heavyweights like Eddie Chambers for years and years. So when a lot of people are on the hater bandwagon saying Usyk would just run through him, I'm thinking to myself if the teenage boy could make a top 5 all-time cruiserweight like Nelson effectively useless then it's no easy task for Usyk.
Ali was 6'3''
Nelson top 5?!! Where are DeLeon and Warring then? Names that would certainly intimidate Nelson into his shell: Holyfield, Usyk, Haye, Qawi, Toney, Jirov, Mormeck, Norris, Lebedev, Gomez...
BoxRec lists him at 6'2.5"
As for Nelson... if he's not top 5, he's just outside at 6 or 7. He's certainly top 10. Even if he was right at #10 it still doesn't do away with my argument.
A top ten cruiserweight champion struggling with a 16 year old Tyson Fury speaks volumes, along with his training times with other cruiserweights and small heavyweights.
His match with Cunningham, from my perspective, is overblown because he was screwing around and it landed flush and he still got up at "4" after looking more embarrassed than hurt.
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
What I find interesting is that Nelson is certainly one of the top 5 cruiserweights of all time, or just outside the top 5. He wasn't necessarily a small man either. Nelson was 6'2" and somewhere around 198 pounds when trained down. Muhammad Ali was 6'2.5" in comparison.
When one really thinks about it, Fury has been working with top cruiserweights and small heavyweights like Eddie Chambers for years and years. So when a lot of people are on the hater bandwagon saying Usyk would just run through him, I'm thinking to myself if the teenage boy could make a top 5 all-time cruiserweight like Nelson effectively useless then it's no easy task for Usyk.
Ali was 6'3''
Nelson top 5?!! Where are DeLeon and Warring then? Names that would certainly intimidate Nelson into his shell: Holyfield, Usyk, Haye, Qawi, Toney, Jirov, Mormeck, Norris, Lebedev, Gomez...
BoxRec lists him at 6'2.5"
As for Nelson... if he's not top 5, he's just outside at 6 or 7. He's certainly top 10. Even if he was right at #10 it still doesn't do away with my argument.
A top ten cruiserweight champion struggling with a 16 year old Tyson Fury speaks volumes, along with his training times with other cruiserweights and small heavyweights.
His match with Cunningham, from my perspective, is overblown because he was screwing around and it landed flush and he still got up at "4" after looking more embarrassed than hurt.
Contemporaneous tale of the tapes always listed him as 6'3''.
Boxrec used to list him as 6'3''.
Great to know whichever editor opted to change his height has the final say on Muhammad Ali.
Edit: I just checked and, yep, Boxrec lists him as 6'3''. Henry, seriously. Are you ever right about anything?
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
Posted: 02 Jul 2023, 16:00
by Ambling Alp II
Very seldom. Everywhere I have ever checked has him at 6'3.
Loved his little demonstration on physics. A big man who is as fast as a small man (which he didn't mention is rare) automatically punches harder. It's all physics after all. Even though there are scores of examples showing this showing a smaller man who punched harder.
Nobody just has a naturally harder punch. Technique doesn't mean anything.
And of course, if you punch harder, that automatically means you are better.
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
Posted: 02 Jul 2023, 19:24
by Cojimar 1946
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 16:00
Very seldom. Everywhere I have ever checked has him at 6'3.
Loved his little demonstration on physics. A big man who is as fast as a small man (which he didn't mention is rare) automatically punches harder. It's all physics after all. Even though there are scores of examples showing this showing a smaller man who punched harder.
Nobody just has a naturally harder punch. Technique doesn't mean anything.
And of course, if you punch harder, that automatically means you are better.
In the 60s he was frequently listed as 62 1/2. That height fits with him being shorter than legit 6'3 guys like Foreman and Holmes
Also nobody is addressing the massive change in the size of dominant champions
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 16:00
Very seldom. Everywhere I have ever checked has him at 6'3.
Loved his little demonstration on physics. A big man who is as fast as a small man (which he didn't mention is rare) automatically punches harder. It's all physics after all. Even though there are scores of examples showing this showing a smaller man who punched harder.
Nobody just has a naturally harder punch. Technique doesn't mean anything.
And of course, if you punch harder, that automatically means you are better.
In the 60s he was frequently listed as 62 1/2. That height fits with him being shorter than legit 6'3 guys like Foreman and Holmes
Also nobody is addressing the massive change in the size of dominant champions
Thank you.
He was listed off and on for a long time as 6'2.5"
I think a lot of times people round-up heights. I'm reminded of Richard Kiel (Jaws) where he was seven feet one and 1/16th inches, but they always said seven foot two because it was just easier to say and also more impressive.
In boxing it seems heights are just as exaggerated as professional wrestling, although I will say it seems people love to undermine certain heights (ie, Harry Wills) when in fact they were taller than what's listed.
It's like George Foreman. People would say he was 6'4" but the reality was he was in that 6'3" range, but he was still visibly taller than Muhammad Ali, so Ali had to of been in that 6'2" range.
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
Posted: 02 Jul 2023, 23:36
by Cojimar 1946
Also a lot of boxrec heights are way off. The following heights are probably more realistic
Fury 6'7
Wilder 6'6
Joshua 6'5 1/2
Wladimir Klitschko 6'5
etc
Normally lower listed heights are more likely to be accurate.
Does anyone know why boxrec lists Fury at 6'9 when he is like at max 6'7 1/2. That listing is clearly off
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
Posted: 02 Jul 2023, 23:47
by HomicideHenry
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 23:36
Also a lot of boxrec heights are way off. The following heights are probably more realistic
Fury 6'7
Wilder 6'6
Joshua 6'5 1/2
Wladimir Klitschko 6'5
etc
Normally lower listed heights are more likely to be accurate.
Does anyone know why boxrec lists Fury at 6'9 when he is like at max 6'7 1/2. That listing is clearly off
I think Fury is roughly 6'8", because my friend Frank Stea who works at TopRank is basically 5'8"-5'9" and Fury is clearly a foot taller than him. He's to Fury's left.
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
he definitely isn't 6'9 and himself used to claim shorter. either way he's very tall and itsn't exaggerating by too much, some guys give themself 3-4 inches extra. bizarrely i know a 5'10 woman who claims to be 6'2
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
Posted: 02 Jul 2023, 23:57
by HomicideHenry
margaret thatcher wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 23:49
david price is taller than him
Price might be taller than what he's listed.
I remember years ago on ESPN RINGSIDE and their special on Lennox Lewis that Emmanuel Stewart said that Lewis was actually taller than 6'5" because they wanted to under sell Lewis's dimensions so opponents couldn't find sparring partners to properly prepare for him, or something to that effect.
Akinwande was always said to be 6'7"-6'8" but Lewis didn't look much shorter than he was. I'd venture to say Lewis looks to be 6'6" if anything else. But who knows. I'm reminded of Andre The Giant being billed 7'4"-7'5" but his passport said 7'2", and near the end of his career I would say he was 6'10"-6'11".
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 16:00
Very seldom. Everywhere I have ever checked has him at 6'3.
Loved his little demonstration on physics. A big man who is as fast as a small man (which he didn't mention is rare) automatically punches harder. It's all physics after all. Even though there are scores of examples showing this showing a smaller man who punched harder.
Nobody just has a naturally harder punch. Technique doesn't mean anything.
And of course, if you punch harder, that automatically means you are better.
In the 60s he was frequently listed as 62 1/2. That height fits with him being shorter than legit 6'3 guys like Foreman and Holmes
Also nobody is addressing the massive change in the size of dominant champions
Foreman was listed at 6'3 for most of his career. In his comeback, he magically grew to 6'4. And Holmes was listed sometimes at 6'4 as well. Ken Norton was listed at 6'3 and Ali looks just as tall. Joe Louis was listed at 6'1 and 1/2. Ali seems more than inch taller. But really, do we have to keep going on about half an inch?
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
margaret thatcher wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 23:49
david price is taller than him
Price might be taller than what he's listed.
I remember years ago on ESPN RINGSIDE and their special on Lennox Lewis that Emmanuel Stewart said that Lewis was actually taller than 6'5" because they wanted to under sell Lewis's dimensions so opponents couldn't find sparring partners to properly prepare for him, or something to that effect.
Akinwande was always said to be 6'7"-6'8" but Lewis didn't look much shorter than he was. I'd venture to say Lewis looks to be 6'6" if anything else. But who knows. I'm reminded of Andre The Giant being billed 7'4"-7'5" but his passport said 7'2", and near the end of his career I would say he was 6'10"-6'11".
You do realize that in pro wrestling they routinely list guys bigger than they were? Hulk Hogan was not 6'8.
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
margaret thatcher wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 23:49
david price is taller than him
Price might be taller than what he's listed.
I remember years ago on ESPN RINGSIDE and their special on Lennox Lewis that Emmanuel Stewart said that Lewis was actually taller than 6'5" because they wanted to under sell Lewis's dimensions so opponents couldn't find sparring partners to properly prepare for him, or something to that effect.
Akinwande was always said to be 6'7"-6'8" but Lewis didn't look much shorter than he was. I'd venture to say Lewis looks to be 6'6" if anything else. But who knows. I'm reminded of Andre The Giant being billed 7'4"-7'5" but his passport said 7'2", and near the end of his career I would say he was 6'10"-6'11".
You do realize that in pro wrestling they routinely list guys bigger than they were? Hulk Hogan was not 6'8.
I know this, lol.
I would say at one point Hogan was probably 6'6" but would say he's probably 6'3" these days due to all the back surgeries.
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
Posted: 08 Jul 2023, 00:49
by dmckenzie
Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑02 Jul 2023, 23:36
Does anyone know why boxrec lists Fury at 6'9 when he is like at max 6'7 1/2. That listing is clearly off
He'd have been standing on his tip toes when Boxrec measured him
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
No one gets measured officially, the measurements are made up or guesses
No matter how they happen, Tyson Fury will have been standing on his tip toes that day
I like how his dad describes him as almost 7’0”
Had this conversation recently and someone said this all stems from his dad telling everyone his son was 6'9", when he wasn't and now Fury goes around standing on his tip toes next to other tall people to make himself seem taller. Because in spite of being absolutely ridiculously tall he's now insecure about it only being 6'7"
Big dosser
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
Posted: 08 Jul 2023, 18:49
by HomicideHenry
Some people wear lifts in their shoes, like Klitschko did when he did face offs with Fury prior to their fight. I remember years ago before the Klitschko's had a stranglehold on the division that the magazines had Vitali listed as 6'8" and Wladimir as 6'7" when the reality was Wladimir is roughly 6'5"-6'6" and Vitali is 6'6"-6'7".
Re: Early 60's seems like a very weak era in boxing where Liston thrived
Posted: 19 Jan 2024, 09:04
by Ascended
Son and his whole era looks very basic and flawed as the video shows, which clearly guys never have seen other era's in full apparently, or don't compare as I have here, what was the basis for ever picking Son when he never even fought guys as advanced as the even the no names who were way more advanced in the 80s? see how it doesn't make any sense picking him people online aren't very sane ,
I just never have understood picking obviously very outdated people as if the people they fought were as advanced when they clearly weren't, as if video doesn't exist showing they weren't as advanced,very odd
It's fact liston best win was a lhw floyd, I could've put a video of basically a lhw mercer faced who was way more advanced than Floyd was and how Mercer destroyed him way easier than Liston did Floyd, see how this doesn't make any sense as I said at all, people clearly pick son from legend status alone, he never fought guys as advanced as even the average guy in 80s-90s, let alone mid carders
