BoxRec

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: We're talking about a 210 ish pound guy vs 250 ish pound guys, that's like a cruiserweight vs a super middleweight. You can't beat that difference.

You certainly can beat that differerence - as has been proved numerous times in the heavyweight division. It's not the same as a super middle vs a cruiser because weight makes less difference the higher you go, which is why the divisions are more packed the lower you go. Once you go above around 220lb, any increases in size are also met with decreases in speed and stamina.

Oke, then give me an example of two similar muscled and similar skilled guys where the smaller boxer (with less weight ) wins.

Generally, the statement that "a good big 'un beats a good little 'un" is true. The point I'm making is that smaller heavyweights can absolutely compete with big heavyweights when they are as tough and as skilled as Evander Holyfield. In most of the cases of a smaller heavy beating a bigger one, the smaller has the better skills.

None of today's top heavyweights - Fury, Wlad, Joshua, Wilder, Parker or Ortiz have proven themselves to be as good as Riddick Bowe, who Evander was very competitive with in their three fights. Add to that the fact that Holyfield went 24 rounds without going down against a prime Lennox Lewis, while he himself was clearly past his best. Lewis was robbed in the first fight, but the second was very competitive and certainly closer than the scorecards indicate. Again, none of today's top heavyweights have proven they are as good as Lennox Lewis and a post-prime Holyfield was able to compete with him.

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
You certainly can beat that differerence - as has been proved numerous times in the heavyweight division. It's not the same as a super middle vs a cruiser because weight makes less difference the higher you go, which is why the divisions are more packed the lower you go. Once you go above around 220lb, any increases in size are also met with decreases in speed and stamina.

Oke, then give me an example of two similar muscled and similar skilled guys where the smaller boxer (with less weight ) wins.

Generally, the statement that "a good big 'un beats a good little 'un" is true. The point I'm making is that smaller heavyweights can absolutely compete with big heavyweights when they are as tough and as skilled as Evander Holyfield. In most of the cases of a smaller heavy beating a bigger one, the smaller has the better skills.

None of today's top heavyweights - Fury, Wlad, Joshua, Wilder, Parker or Ortiz have proven themselves to be as good as Riddick Bowe, who Evander was very competitive with in their three fights. Add to that the fact that Holyfield went 24 rounds without going down against a prime Lennox Lewis, while he himself was clearly past his best. Lewis was robbed in the first fight, but the second was very competitive and certainly closer than the scorecards indicate. Again, none of today's top heavyweights have proven they are as good as Lennox Lewis and a post-prime Holyfield was able to compete with him.

I disagree with pretty much every statement you made lol.

Evander Holyfield would be champion in this era easily.

If he was able to be arguably the top HW of the 90s in argubaly the second best HW era ever, he'd have no problems now.

It wouldn't be plain sailing for Evander due to his lack of size & his propensity to brawl, but he had enough stamina, speed, toughness & skill to come out on top against all the modern heavies.

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:
Oke, then give me an example of two similar muscled and similar skilled guys where the smaller boxer (with less weight ) wins.

Generally, the statement that "a good big 'un beats a good little 'un" is true. The point I'm making is that smaller heavyweights can absolutely compete with big heavyweights when they are as tough and as skilled as Evander Holyfield. In most of the cases of a smaller heavy beating a bigger one, the smaller has the better skills.

None of today's top heavyweights - Fury, Wlad, Joshua, Wilder, Parker or Ortiz have proven themselves to be as good as Riddick Bowe, who Evander was very competitive with in their three fights. Add to that the fact that Holyfield went 24 rounds without going down against a prime Lennox Lewis, while he himself was clearly past his best. Lewis was robbed in the first fight, but the second was very competitive and certainly closer than the scorecards indicate. Again, none of today's top heavyweights have proven they are as good as Lennox Lewis and a post-prime Holyfield was able to compete with him.

I disagree with pretty much every statement you made lol.

Care to elaborate?

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:
Oke, then give me an example of two similar muscled and similar skilled guys where the smaller boxer (with less weight ) wins.

Generally, the statement that "a good big 'un beats a good little 'un" is true. The point I'm making is that smaller heavyweights can absolutely compete with big heavyweights when they are as tough and as skilled as Evander Holyfield. In most of the cases of a smaller heavy beating a bigger one, the smaller has the better skills.

None of today's top heavyweights - Fury, Wlad, Joshua, Wilder, Parker or Ortiz have proven themselves to be as good as Riddick Bowe, who Evander was very competitive with in their three fights. Add to that the fact that Holyfield went 24 rounds without going down against a prime Lennox Lewis, while he himself was clearly past his best. Lewis was robbed in the first fight, but the second was very competitive and certainly closer than the scorecards indicate. Again, none of today's top heavyweights have proven they are as good as Lennox Lewis and a post-prime Holyfield was able to compete with him.

I disagree with pretty much every statement you made lol.

Rather than spend the time making the list myself, have a look at this thread:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=207301

Again, in most cases, the smaller heavyweight who wins is also more skilled. What we're trying to argue isn't that size doesn't matter, it's that a large size gap can be overcome by a similarly large skill gap. It's very clear that having extra weight at heavyweight isn't the same as having the same percentage weight advantage at lower divisions, because above a certain size, that extra bulk comes with speed and stamina penalties. Not to mention that most of the biggest puncher's in the division's history have been in the 200-225lb range - extra weight over that rarely translates to extra punching power.

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
Generally, the statement that "a good big 'un beats a good little 'un" is true. The point I'm making is that smaller heavyweights can absolutely compete with big heavyweights when they are as tough and as skilled as Evander Holyfield. In most of the cases of a smaller heavy beating a bigger one, the smaller has the better skills.

None of today's top heavyweights - Fury, Wlad, Joshua, Wilder, Parker or Ortiz have proven themselves to be as good as Riddick Bowe, who Evander was very competitive with in their three fights. Add to that the fact that Holyfield went 24 rounds without going down against a prime Lennox Lewis, while he himself was clearly past his best. Lewis was robbed in the first fight, but the second was very competitive and certainly closer than the scorecards indicate. Again, none of today's top heavyweights have proven they are as good as Lennox Lewis and a post-prime Holyfield was able to compete with him.

I disagree with pretty much every statement you made lol.

Rather than spend the time making the list myself, have a look at this thread:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=207301

Again, in most cases, the smaller heavyweight who wins is also more skilled. What we're trying to argue isn't that size doesn't matter, it's that a large size gap can be overcome by a similarly large skill gap. It's very clear that having extra weight at heavyweight isn't the same as having the same percentage weight advantage at lower divisions, because above a certain size, that extra bulk comes with speed and stamina penalties. Not to mention that most of the biggest puncher's in the division's history have been in the 200-225lb range - extra weight over that rarely translates to extra punching power.

holyfield beat bowe, not because he was more skilled, but because he executed a better gameplan, and used his agility and speed advantages. Bowe was just as skilfull, just a different skillset.

asdfjkl wrote:

ValMar wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:
Oke, then give me an example of two similar muscled and similar skilled guys where the smaller boxer (with less weight ) wins.

Tony Thompson vs Odlanier Solis
Malic Scott vs Tony Thompson
etc...etc...

Bigger guy won, skinny guy won?

Bigger guys lost...There are so many examples.The most powerful punchers are usually fighters around 100 kg (220 lb)...

Oké, a skilled dwarf might win against some fat guys, but you're acting like it makes no difference.

You're basically saying, if it's about fighting, it doesn't matter if you're a boy or a girl, because some girls are actually stronger then boys!

asdfjkl wrote:Oké, a skilled dwarf might win against some fat guys, but you're acting like it makes no difference.

You're basically saying, if it's about fighting, it doesn't matter if you're a boy or a girl, because some girls are actually stronger then boys!

Weight/size is only one element, not so important, less than power, chin,stamina, endurance, skills and cojones.

"Small HW" (100 KG / 220 LB) like Tyson or Holyfield are the best proof.........Should I mention Frazier and Norton, Ali and young Foreman ?

Enough ?

ValMar wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:Oké, a skilled dwarf might win against some fat guys, but you're acting like it makes no difference.

You're basically saying, if it's about fighting, it doesn't matter if you're a boy or a girl, because some girls are actually stronger then boys!

Weight/size is only one element, not so important, less than power, chin,stamina, endurance, skills and cojones.

"Small HW" (100 KG / 220 LB) like Tyson or Holyfield are the best proof.........Should I mention Frazier and Norton, Ali and young Foreman ?

Enough ?

You'll have to realise that most of their opponends were under 220 as well, some of them weren't even 200, or even 190 pound at the time.
All opponends Tyson ever fought above 260 pounds, he lost.
Of Mike his first 40 opponends only 5 were above 230 pounds and he actually lost one of them.
Before the age of 43 Holyfield only fought one boxer with a weight above 250 pounds (George Foreman).

So yea, you can't compare that era against the top contenders of nowadays in my opinion.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

asdfjkl wrote: I disagree with pretty much every statement you made lol.

Rather than spend the time making the list myself, have a look at this thread:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=207301

Again, in most cases, the smaller heavyweight who wins is also more skilled. What we're trying to argue isn't that size doesn't matter, it's that a large size gap can be overcome by a similarly large skill gap. It's very clear that having extra weight at heavyweight isn't the same as having the same percentage weight advantage at lower divisions, because above a certain size, that extra bulk comes with speed and stamina penalties. Not to mention that most of the biggest puncher's in the division's history have been in the 200-225lb range - extra weight over that rarely translates to extra punching power.

holyfield beat bowe, not because he was more skilled, but because he executed a better gameplan, and used his agility and speed advantages. Bowe was just as skilfull, just a different skillset.

Good post, I agree - I'd say Bowe was the more offensively skilled, while Evander had the better defense, when he decided to use it.

ValMar wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:

ValMar wrote:
Tony Thompson vs Odlanier Solis
Malic Scott vs Tony Thompson
etc...etc...

Bigger guy won, skinny guy won?

Bigger guys lost...There are so many examples.The most powerful punchers are usually fighters around 100 kg (220 lb)...

Solis was heavier because he was fat - Thompson was definitely the naturally bigger guy. I agree with you otherwise - some people are putting far too much emphasis on size.

asdfjkl wrote:

ValMar wrote:

asdfjkl wrote:Oké, a skilled dwarf might win against some fat guys, but you're acting like it makes no difference.

You're basically saying, if it's about fighting, it doesn't matter if you're a boy or a girl, because some girls are actually stronger then boys!

Weight/size is only one element, not so important, less than power, chin,stamina, endurance, skills and cojones.

"Small HW" (100 KG / 220 LB) like Tyson or Holyfield are the best proof.........Should I mention Frazier and Norton, Ali and young Foreman ?

Enough ?

You'll have to realise that most of their opponends were under 220 as well, some of them weren't even 200, or even 190 pound at the time.
All opponends Tyson ever fought above 260 pounds, he lost.
Of Mike his first 40 opponends only 5 were above 230 pounds and he actually lost one of them.
Before the age of 43 Holyfield only fought one boxer with a weight above 250 pounds (George Foreman).

So yea, you can't compare that era against the top contenders of nowadays in my opinion.

You mean Danny Williams and Kevin McBride? Tyson was completely shot when he fought them. If you don't think a younger Tyson would have knocked both out with ease, then you're even more deluded than I thought!

Yes, there are more big, heavy guys fighting at heavyweight these days, but very few of them are actually highly skilled boxers. Joshua looks the goods, but he hasn't been tested at the highest level, so it's hard to say how he would fare against an ATG heavyweight like Holyfield.

If you want an example of skills overcoming size, then watch Eddie Chambers vs Alexander Dimitrenko. Then keep in mind that Chambers is significantly smaller and lighter hitting than Holyfield, not to mention past greats like Louis and Frazier.

Holyfield fought very weak comp at Cruiser. His main weapon was the top of his head -- and he later got knocked out by a Middleweight Champion.

Usyk is a very slick southpaw who doesn't need dirty stuff... He's never lost and it looks like nobody could compete with him... I don't rank Holyfield up there with Haye, Usyk, and Toney -- EH was a little too easy to hit -- but he's definitely among the Top-10 Cruiserweights of all time.

In a Heavyweight matchup, Joshua would crush Holy like a roach... You thought Foreman-Frazier was a stompfest??? Pity poor Mr. Evan Fields.

Kalan wrote:Holyfield fought very weak comp at Cruiser. His main weapon was the top of his head -- and he later got knocked out by a Middleweight Champion.

Usyk is a very slick southpaw who doesn't need dirty stuff... He's never lost and it looks like nobody could compete with him... I don't rank Holyfield up there with Haye, Usyk, and Toney -- EH was a little too easy to hit -- but he's definitely among the Top-10 Cruiserweights of all time.

In a Heavyweight matchup, Joshua would crush Holy like a roach... You thought Foreman-Frazier was a stompfest??? Pity poor Mr. Evan Fields.

I haven't seen enough of Usyk to make a call in that matchup, but your assessment of Holyfield is laughable. I agree he was easy to hit at times, but he had a cast iron jaw, power that was very good at cruiserweight and decent at heavyweight, and at his best, very good footspeed and handspeed. Not a chance Haye or Toney beats him in his prime, at cruiser or at heavy.

jezzamundo wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
Rather than spend the time making the list myself, have a look at this thread:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=207301

Again, in most cases, the smaller heavyweight who wins is also more skilled. What we're trying to argue isn't that size doesn't matter, it's that a large size gap can be overcome by a similarly large skill gap. It's very clear that having extra weight at heavyweight isn't the same as having the same percentage weight advantage at lower divisions, because above a certain size, that extra bulk comes with speed and stamina penalties. Not to mention that most of the biggest puncher's in the division's history have been in the 200-225lb range - extra weight over that rarely translates to extra punching power.

holyfield beat bowe, not because he was more skilled, but because he executed a better gameplan, and used his agility and speed advantages. Bowe was just as skilfull, just a different skillset.

Good post, I agree - I'd say Bowe was the more offensively skilled, while Evander had the better defense, when he decided to use it.

It was Evanders footwork and combination punching was the difference, he was a moving target, and able to get in, land 3-4 punch combinations, and get out before Bowe 'got set.'

Evander was always in position to punch, one of the best counter punchers ever. Astounding footwork.

Kalan wrote:Holyfield fought very weak comp at Cruiser. His main weapon was the top of his head -- and he later got knocked out by a Middleweight Champion.

Usyk is a very slick southpaw who doesn't need dirty stuff... He's never lost and it looks like nobody could compete with him... I don't rank Holyfield up there with Haye, Usyk, and Toney -- EH was a little too easy to hit -- but he's definitely among the Top-10 Cruiserweights of all time.

In a Heavyweight matchup, Joshua would crush Holy like a roach... You thought Foreman-Frazier was a stompfest??? Pity poor Mr. Evan Fields.

EH was / is among top 3 CW all time, surely. There is no need to debate about that.

jezzamundo wrote:

Kalan wrote:Holyfield fought very weak comp at Cruiser. His main weapon was the top of his head -- and he later got knocked out by a Middleweight Champion.

Usyk is a very slick southpaw who doesn't need dirty stuff... He's never lost and it looks like nobody could compete with him... I don't rank Holyfield up there with Haye, Usyk, and Toney -- EH was a little too easy to hit -- but he's definitely among the Top-10 Cruiserweights of all time.

In a Heavyweight matchup, Joshua would crush Holy like a roach... You thought Foreman-Frazier was a stompfest??? Pity poor Mr. Evan Fields.

I haven't seen enough of Usyk to make a call in that matchup, but your assessment of Holyfield is laughable. I agree he was easy to hit at times, but he had a cast iron jaw, power that was very good at cruiserweight and decent at heavyweight, and at his best, very good footspeed and handspeed. Not a chance Haye or Toney beats him in his prime, at cruiser or at heavy.

You are right, but I would correct you, slightly - Holyfield power at CW was excellent, at HW very good...

ValMar wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:

Kalan wrote:Holyfield fought very weak comp at Cruiser. His main weapon was the top of his head -- and he later got knocked out by a Middleweight Champion.

Usyk is a very slick southpaw who doesn't need dirty stuff... He's never lost and it looks like nobody could compete with him... I don't rank Holyfield up there with Haye, Usyk, and Toney -- EH was a little too easy to hit -- but he's definitely among the Top-10 Cruiserweights of all time.

In a Heavyweight matchup, Joshua would crush Holy like a roach... You thought Foreman-Frazier was a stompfest??? Pity poor Mr. Evan Fields.

I haven't seen enough of Usyk to make a call in that matchup, but your assessment of Holyfield is laughable. I agree he was easy to hit at times, but he had a cast iron jaw, power that was very good at cruiserweight and decent at heavyweight, and at his best, very good footspeed and handspeed. Not a chance Haye or Toney beats him in his prime, at cruiser or at heavy.

You are right, but I would correct you, slightly - Holyfield power at CW was excellent, at HW very good...

he punched harder than vitali.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
I haven't seen enough of Usyk to make a call in that matchup, but your assessment of Holyfield is laughable. I agree he was easy to hit at times, but he had a cast iron jaw, power that was very good at cruiserweight and decent at heavyweight, and at his best, very good footspeed and handspeed. Not a chance Haye or Toney beats him in his prime, at cruiser or at heavy.

You are right, but I would correct you, slightly - Holyfield power at CW was excellent, at HW very good...

he punched harder than vitali.

definitely

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

ValMar wrote:

jezzamundo wrote:
I haven't seen enough of Usyk to make a call in that matchup, but your assessment of Holyfield is laughable. I agree he was easy to hit at times, but he had a cast iron jaw, power that was very good at cruiserweight and decent at heavyweight, and at his best, very good footspeed and handspeed. Not a chance Haye or Toney beats him in his prime, at cruiser or at heavy.

You are right, but I would correct you, slightly - Holyfield power at CW was excellent, at HW very good...

he punched harder than vitali.

I'd say their punching power is comparable, but I'd agree Holy's best punches would be harder than Vitali's. The difference was that Holyfield has great punching technique and put everything into his punches, while Vitali was a heavy-handed arm puncher. Neither was a great heavyweight puncher - though Vitali's KO percentage indicates he was, watching footage of him fight tells another story. He landed lots of flush power punches on the average-chinned Lennox Lewis and only really wobbled him at one point and never put him down. On the other hand, Holyfield was literally teeing off on George Foreman's grill and was unable to put him down - Foreman had a good chin, but replace Holy's power with that of a true heavyweight puncher like Ron Lyle, Joe Frazier or Joe Louis, and Foreman gets stopped.

He hurt old George more than anyone else. Floored mercer, Tyson, qawi & bowe with one punch. I don't know of any other fighter that did that to any of them past wlad with ancient mercer.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Rexob wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Fury would be on his ass the first time he tried a body jab.

You really don't rate Fury do you?

No, I like him. He's hilarious, the only attributes he has are size and balls.

You give him too much credit by saying he has balls.

gilgamesh wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Rexob wrote:
You really don't rate Fury do you?

No, I like him. He's hilarious, the only attributes he has are size and balls.

You give him too much credit by saying he has balls.

Lol, you may be right. But after wlad, anyone would.