BoxRec

IKSRTFO wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

ValMar wrote:
I've never told that size didn't matter, it would be meaningless....On the other side, everyone has to admit that size is not only and decisive factor.
Please, list present day decent HWs 6'6'' /250 lbs. I will attempt to help you : Klitschko & Joshua...The end of story...

In one of your other "fantasy" David vs. Goliath type threads, I went into great statistical detail about how today's best big men would be much bigger than the fighters who competed 40+ years ago.

So I've answered your question, and I refuse to repeat myself.

If size doesn't matter, how would a 185lb Rocky Marciano fare against the current crop of light heavies (as in 175lb-ers), would surely outweigh him once rehydrated?

How would Marciano fare against the likes of Klitschko, Joshua, Wilder & Fury?

Would a 217lb 1973 version of George Foreman be able to decimate today's 250lb-ers like he did against the 205lb-ers that competed 44 years ago? Nostalgia might compel you to say "yes", but reality would surely be the polar opposite.

Would a 207lb version of Larry Holmes be able to out-jab much taller and 40lbs heavier opponents, who would also enjoy a reach advantage, coupled with possessing a similar work-rate?

Do people truly forget how often Holmes got hurt and decked by smaller men than himself? So why do they also believe that much bigger men would be incapable of hurting him?

Size really does matter. It's not simply a mere inconvenience. And there's a reason why there's a saying that claims "a good big 'un nearly always beats a good little 'un".

Of course Foreman could when you consider Tyson was only 5'10 and routinely walked through bigger guys not named Douglas until he was washed up and old. Punching power is punching power and it doesn't always rely on size. Some of the hardest HW punchers weren't always that big. And just because fighters are big doesn't mean they have a "big" chin. Foreman walkes through Wladmir 9 times out of 10 and makes Tyson Fury who isn't a hard puncher for his size look like poo.

Assuming Mike Tyson was at his prime for the first 37 bouts of his career (before he was defeated by ‘Buster’ Douglas), the average weight of his opponents was 212lbs.

George Foreman’s average weight from the start of his career until the end of 1973 was 217lbs. During the same time period, the average weight of his opponents was 206lbs.

Almost every single one of the "victims" of Foreman or Tyson would be competing at cruiserweight had they been in their physical prime and active today.

Check the stats for yourself.

Riddick Blowe wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

ValMar wrote:
I've never told that size didn't matter, it would be meaningless....On the other side, everyone has to admit that size is not only and decisive factor.
Please, list present day decent HWs 6'6'' /250 lbs. I will attempt to help you : Klitschko & Joshua...The end of story...

In one of your other "fantasy" David vs. Goliath type threads, I went into great statistical detail about how today's best big men would be much bigger than the fighters who competed 40+ years ago.

So the same answer applies to this question also, and I refuse to repeat myself.

If size doesn't matter, how would a 185lb Rocky Marciano fare against the current crop of light heavies (as in 175lb-ers), would surely outweigh him once rehydrated?

How would Marciano fare against the likes of Klitschko, Joshua, Wilder & Fury?

Would a 217lb 1973 version of George Foreman be able to decimate today's 250lb-ers like he did against the 205lb-ers that competed 44 years ago? Nostalgia might compel you to say "yes", but reality would surely be the polar opposite.

Would a 207lb version of Larry Holmes be able to out-jab much taller and 40lbs heavier opponents, who would also enjoy a reach advantage, coupled with possessing a similar work-rate?

Do people truly forget how often Holmes got hurt and decked by smaller men than himself? So why do they also believe that much bigger men would be incapable of hurting him?

Size really does matter. It's not simply a mere inconvenience. And there's a very good reason why there's a saying that claims "a good big 'un nearly always beats a good little 'un", because it's true on most occasions.

How many people have to disagree with you before you decide to jettison this ridiculous babble?

Someone has to eloquently articulate a compelling argument that provides evidence-based justification why a 3”+ height and 45lbs+ weight size discrepancy for the bigger man cannot possibly be regarded as a significant physical advantage?

Insulting me won’t persuade me to revaluate my thoughts.

And nor would I find it compelling to believe that fighters possessing really high knockout percentage ratios thirty plus years ago, against the modern day equivalent of cruiserweights, should be considered as irrefutable evidence that they would be equally successful against today’s heavyweight giants that are typically 24% physically larger than themselves.

You say almost every single one of their opponents were small......but that is certainly not the same as "every one".

Ali, Tyson, Holmes, Holyfield, Frazier....in their prime they all fought at least a guy or two that were taller and/or substantially heavier.....and guess what, they dominated them.

Primo Carnera, about 6'7" 260lbs

Joe Louis. 6'2" 195 lbs

Result: Louis KO 6

quite a few of these ridiculous threads on boxing forums these days about Holmes "struggling with todays fighters"....

I dislike Larry . I maintain the Tyson result was a beating for a Holmes not totally shot. Just not in shape that day and rusty and that Mike would beat him in his prime.

That said the notion that Holmes would "struggle" with any of these guys is ridiculous. He beats the unproven Joshua. He beats Wilder.

Fury would be awkward but holmes is far more skilled and much faster and Tyson doesn't throw enough quality punches . His movement wouldn't bother Larry.

Klicthcko I think just had a off night with Fury and is still the same champion of the past few years. He would have the best chance to beat Larry and may well do it.

Size is no problem for Larry at 6'3 and a more athletic 218lbs in todays climate is more than enough. A peak Gerry Cooney beat all these guys apart from Joshua and Wlad

Enlightened-One wrote:

ValMar wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: If size didn't matter, why do hydrated fighters that typically weigh around the 215lbs to 220lbs mark, choose to compete as cruiserweights?

I'm sorry, but when the height discrepancy is 3"+ and the weight difference is 40lbs+, then size really does matter!

It might not be the "be all and end all", but the smaller man should generally be regarded as having to endure a huge disadvantage, regardless of talent.

If the difference was only a couple of inches in height and maybe 10lbs, then for heavyweights, size becomes a non-issue, but to propose that a 207lb man would not be at a huge disadvantage had he faced today's 6'6" 250lbs behemoths, is utter deluded lunacy!

I've never told that size didn't matter, it would be meaningless....On the other side, everyone has to admit that size is not only and decisive factor.
Please, list present day decent HWs 6'6'' /250 lbs. I will attempt to help you : Klitschko & Joshua...The end of story...

In one of your other "fantasy" David vs. Goliath type threads, I went into great statistical detail about how today's best big men would be much bigger than the fighters who competed 40+ years ago.

So the same answer applies to this question also, and I refuse to repeat myself.

If size doesn't matter, how would a 185lb Rocky Marciano fare against the current crop of light heavies (as in 175lb-ers), would surely outweigh him once rehydrated?

How would Marciano fare against the likes of Klitschko, Joshua, Wilder & Fury?

Would a 217lb 1973 version of George Foreman be able to decimate today's 250lb-ers like he did against the 205lb-ers that competed 44 years ago? Nostalgia might compel you to say "yes", but reality would surely be the polar opposite.

Would a 207lb version of Larry Holmes be able to out-jab much taller and 40lbs heavier opponents, who would also enjoy a reach advantage, coupled with possessing a similar work-rate?

Do people truly forget how often Holmes got hurt and decked by smaller men than himself? So why do they also believe that much bigger men would be incapable of hurting him?

Size really does matter. It's not simply a mere inconvenience. And there's a very good reason why there's a saying that claims "a good big 'un nearly always beats a good little 'un", because it's true on most occasions.

You have neglected my question. Would you, please, list current elite HWs 6'6''/250 ? Or better, if you want, include all fighters

ValMar wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:

ValMar wrote:
I've never told that size didn't matter, it would be meaningless....On the other side, everyone has to admit that size is not only and decisive factor.
Please, list present day decent HWs 6'6'' /250 lbs. I will attempt to help you : Klitschko & Joshua...The end of story...

In one of your other "fantasy" David vs. Goliath type threads, I went into great statistical detail about how today's best big men would be much bigger than the fighters who competed 40+ years ago.

So the same answer applies to this question also, and I refuse to repeat myself.

If size doesn't matter, how would a 185lb Rocky Marciano fare against the current crop of light heavies (as in 175lb-ers), would surely outweigh him once rehydrated?

How would Marciano fare against the likes of Klitschko, Joshua, Wilder & Fury?

Would a 217lb 1973 version of George Foreman be able to decimate today's 250lb-ers like he did against the 205lb-ers that competed 44 years ago? Nostalgia might compel you to say "yes", but reality would surely be the polar opposite.

Would a 207lb version of Larry Holmes be able to out-jab much taller and 40lbs heavier opponents, who would also enjoy a reach advantage, coupled with possessing a similar work-rate?

Do people truly forget how often Holmes got hurt and decked by smaller men than himself? So why do they also believe that much bigger men would be incapable of hurting him?

Size really does matter. It's not simply a mere inconvenience. And there's a very good reason why there's a saying that claims "a good big 'un nearly always beats a good little 'un", because it's true on most occasions.

You have neglected my question. Would you, please, list current elite HWs 6'6''/250 ? Or better, if you want, include all fighters

Sorry, you may include all fighters, active since 2000.....

Homes was a great champion, with the superb jab, decent movement, ability to fight hard 15 rounds and awesome toughness, stubbornness and desire. You'd have to favour a PRIME Holmes against today's crop of big lumps.

But after the big money fight with Cooney, a very entertaining fight with Holmes winning by late stoppage, he wasn't quite the same. I'd say he was going into decline by 1983 and he was struggling with the cute moves of Tim Witherspoon in that other marvellous, fiercely contested fight - and more disconcerting, if we're matching him with today's super sized heavies - he was really struggling to put gloves on Carl Williams in a victory more debatable than even the Witherspoon one. The '80s Holmes wasn't keen on facing good jabbers likePinklon Thomas and big ish guys like Tony Tucker. At this stage he didn't have the same desire or physical attributes and people were starting to figure out his jab heavy style ( tie the right hands Witherspoon dropped over the Hok es jab with serious regularity).

Round and round Fergus goes, where he stops, nobody knows.

I see Fergus avoided the question that told him to list all the decent '6'6 250lb giants' out there.

Probably hard for him to accept the reality that today's fighters may be heavier than those of previous eras because they are mostly FAT SLOBS and not widespread chiselled adonises who benefit from the old BETTER NUTRITION MORE ADVANCED TRAINING METHODS

Hey Fergus, Tye Fields vs Rocky Marciano, who wins?

Riddick Blowe wrote:Round and round Fergus goes, where he stops, nobody knows.

I see Fergus avoided the question that told him to list all the decent '6'6 250lb giants' out there.

Probably hard for him to accept the reality that today's fighters may be heavier than those of previous eras because they are mostly FAT SLOBS and not widespread chiselled adonises who benefit from the old BETTER NUTRITION MORE ADVANCED TRAINING METHODS

Hey Fergus, Tye Fields vs Rocky Marciano, who wins?

With the exception of Wlad, Joshua, Wilder, and a few, most are just fat slobs and even the heavyweights that look in shape struggle to throw more than 20 punches a round. Compare that with Norton, Holyfield, Lewis, or Bowe.

Enlightened-One wrote:[]..


Do people truly forget how often Holmes got hurt and decked by smaller men than himself? So why do they also believe that much bigger men would be incapable of hurting him?
.

So your argument goes:

Size matters
Size matters
Size matters
Holmes got hurt by smaller men
Size matters

????


Quality arguing chief

davie wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:[]..


Do people truly forget how often Holmes got hurt and decked by smaller men than himself? So why do they also believe that much bigger men would be incapable of hurting him?
.

So your argument goes:

Size matters
Size matters
Size matters
Holmes got hurt by smaller men
Size matters

????


Quality arguing chief

In terms of statistical probability, where two combatants are equally skilled, then other factors, such as size, often determines the victor of bouts... hence the existence of the phrase "a good big 'un nearly always beats a good little 'un".

For sure, there are exceptions to every rule, such as when the smaller man defies the odds to defeat the bigger man, but at the end of the day, exceptions don't undermine the general rule.

The point I was trying to make was related to the fact that people were allowing their nostalgia to cloud their judgement, leading them to believe that Holmes would dominate the heavyweight division of the present day, whilst conveniently forgetting that he often struggled to defeat men that were nothing more than the physical equivalent of modern day cruiserweights.

If my claims are so outrageously wrong, then challenge each point directly, head-on, because smart àrse quips ain't going to undermine my beliefs.

Please show me the true extent of your boxing knowledge! I dare you to show "quality arguing chief".

Enlightened-One wrote:

davie wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:[]..


Do people truly forget how often Holmes got hurt and decked by smaller men than himself? So why do they also believe that much bigger men would be incapable of hurting him?
.

So your argument goes:

Size matters
Size matters
Size matters
Holmes got hurt by smaller men
Size matters

????


Quality arguing chief

In terms of statistical probability, where two combatants are equally skilled, then other factors, such as size, often determines the victor of bouts... hence the existence of the phrase "a good big 'un nearly always beats a good little 'un".

For sure, there are exceptions to every rule, such as when the smaller man defies the odds to defeat the bigger man, but at the end of the day, exceptions don't undermine the general rule.

The point I was trying to make was related to the fact that people were allowing their nostalgia to cloud their judgement, leading them to believe that Holmes would dominate the heavyweight division of the present day, whilst conveniently forgetting that he often struggled to defeat men that were nothing more than the physical equivalent of modern day cruiserweights.

If my claims are so outrageously wrong, then challenge each point directly, head-on, because smart àrse quips ain't going to undermine my beliefs.

Please show me the true extent of your boxing knowledge! I dare you to show "quality arguing chief".

I think I asked you this before you got banned the first time, but do you ever get a little dispirited that noone agrees with you? Does it not make you think that your position may be a little wide of the mark?

I agree with a lot he says makes sense if you actually think about it.

I have to repeat....Please, list all elite HWs 6'6'' / 250 (active nowadays, and all which were active since 2000).
Please, answer this question ! It is not difficult question, at all............

ValMar wrote:I have to repeat....Please, list all elite HWs 6'6'' / 250 (active nowadays, and all which were active since 2000).
Please, answer this question ! It is not difficult question, at all............

Seems like a good time for him to self ban and emerge with a new identity again

Riddick Blowe wrote:

ValMar wrote:I have to repeat....Please, list all elite HWs 6'6'' / 250 (active nowadays, and all which were active since 2000).
Please, answer this question ! It is not difficult question, at all............

Seems like a good time for him to self ban and emerge with a new identity again

I'll be waiting for his answer....

Riddick Blowe wrote:I think I asked you this before you got banned the first time, but do you ever get a little dispirited that noone agrees with you? Does it not make you think that your position may be a little wide of the mark?

I've never been banned and you're acting a bit silly.

Enlightened-One wrote:

Riddick Blowe wrote:I think I asked you this before you got banned the first time, but do you ever get a little dispirited that noone agrees with you? Does it not make you think that your position may be a little wide of the mark?

I've never been banned and you're acting a bit silly.

Elite HW (since 2000) 6'6'' / 250 ? Why do you avoid to answer ?

Enlightened-One wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote: In one of your other "fantasy" David vs. Goliath type threads, I went into great statistical detail about how today's best big men would be much bigger than the fighters who competed 40+ years ago.

So I've answered your question, and I refuse to repeat myself.

If size doesn't matter, how would a 185lb Rocky Marciano fare against the current crop of light heavies (as in 175lb-ers), would surely outweigh him once rehydrated?

How would Marciano fare against the likes of Klitschko, Joshua, Wilder & Fury?

Would a 217lb 1973 version of George Foreman be able to decimate today's 250lb-ers like he did against the 205lb-ers that competed 44 years ago? Nostalgia might compel you to say "yes", but reality would surely be the polar opposite.

Would a 207lb version of Larry Holmes be able to out-jab much taller and 40lbs heavier opponents, who would also enjoy a reach advantage, coupled with possessing a similar work-rate?

Do people truly forget how often Holmes got hurt and decked by smaller men than himself? So why do they also believe that much bigger men would be incapable of hurting him?

Size really does matter. It's not simply a mere inconvenience. And there's a reason why there's a saying that claims "a good big 'un nearly always beats a good little 'un".

Of course Foreman could when you consider Tyson was only 5'10 and routinely walked through bigger guys not named Douglas until he was washed up and old. Punching power is punching power and it doesn't always rely on size. Some of the hardest HW punchers weren't always that big. And just because fighters are big doesn't mean they have a "big" chin. Foreman walkes through Wladmir 9 times out of 10 and makes Tyson Fury who isn't a hard puncher for his size look like poo.

Assuming Mike Tyson was at his prime for the first 37 bouts of his career (before he was defeated by ‘Buster’ Douglas), the average weight of his opponents was 212lbs.

George Foreman’s average weight from the start of his career until the end of 1973 was 217lbs. During the same time period, the average weight of his opponents was 206lbs.

Almost every single one of the "victims" of Foreman or Tyson would be competing at cruiserweight had they been in their physical prime and active today.

Check the stats for yourself.

That might be true of Foreman's victims, but not of Tyson's surely?

The CW division was around during Tyson's time & OK, the weight limit was lower, but it was a dead division.

Evander Holyfield couldn't wait to come up.

Michael Spinks bypassed it altogether, so it's very unlikely that any of Tyson's early opponents would have wanted to fight at the weight.

Admitted the CW division is quite hot at the moment, but every great CW wants to be an HW.

Williams and cooney were better than Joshua right now and better than fury......klitchko is the only one who would have beaten larry.

Fury beat klit

Enlightened-One wrote:

davie wrote:

Enlightened-One wrote:[]..


Do people truly forget how often Holmes got hurt and decked by smaller men than himself? So why do they also believe that much bigger men would be incapable of hurting him?
.

So your argument goes:

Size matters
Size matters
Size matters
Holmes got hurt by smaller men
Size matters

????


Quality arguing chief

In terms of statistical probability, where two combatants are equally skilled, then other factors, such as size, often determines the victor of bouts... hence the existence of the phrase "a good big 'un nearly always beats a good little 'un".

For sure, there are exceptions to every rule, such as when the smaller man defies the odds to defeat the bigger man, but at the end of the day, exceptions don't undermine the general rule.

The point I was trying to make was related to the fact that people were allowing their nostalgia to cloud their judgement, leading them to believe that Holmes would dominate the heavyweight division of the present day, whilst conveniently forgetting that he often struggled to defeat men that were nothing more than the physical equivalent of modern day cruiserweights.

If my claims are so outrageously wrong, then challenge each point directly, head-on, because smart àrse quips ain't going to undermine my beliefs.

Please show me the true extent of your boxing knowledge! I dare you to show "quality arguing chief".

I actually agree with some of what you said, I just found it ironic you used Holmes being hurt by a smaller man as an integral part of your argument that he'd lose against todays bigger men.

Where I really feel your argument struggles is the good big un beats a good little un.
Not because I disagree with the sentiment but because I don't feel it's relevant to the case being discussed.

In this case we are discussing a great big un vs a bunch of good really big uns.
I'm neither in the modern "big guys always win" camp or the old timers "ATGs could beat Godzilla" camp who think 6" of height and reach isn't a game changer

There is a level between Holmes, who I personally rank around 4 all time in the HW and the current batch, all of whom I suspect might not ever make my top ten. He was an elite level skilled heavyweight who has forgotten more about boxing than many these guys will ever know

The size, strength, height is a bit of a leveller and makes it a few difficult calls to make.
Does Holmes advantage in skill and ring intellegence outgun the physical advantages of the giants of today? That's a difficult question (or it should be outwith this polarised forum)

I lean toward Holmes to beat most of them as he is still a big powerful guy and is probably too clever and skilled for most of them but wouldn't say many of them are foregone conclusions. It would take an individual analysis of each match up.

But just as some might not give enough credit to the advantages the modern day super heavyweight would have in physical attributes, I feel that many like you can't see past size and take into account just how much better Holmes was technically than the likes of Wlider.
Even when you use "a smaller man hurt him" in your own argument

I'd give a prime Larry Holmes at least 45% chances of beating any heavyweigh in history (and the only fighter Id'd favour to beat him is Joe Louis). Prime Holmes vs prime Ali would be 50/50 fight IMO as well as Holmes vs peak Riddick Bowe. Against any other HW in history I'd favour Larry Holmes. Prime Wlad could probably give him a lot of problems, but not the washed up 40-41 y.o. version of Klitschko. And even against prime Wlad I'd clearly favour Holmes. Tyson Fury's size and style might be pretty hard for Larry, but Holmes had very good hanspeed, excellent accuracy, timing and if he'd catch Fury with the same punch as Cunnigham did, the fight would likely be over. Holmes wasn't a great puncher, but he difinitely hit way harder than Cunningham. Joshua? We don't know how good he is yet. He is definitely not Michael Grant, but he wasn't tested on the highest level yet. Holmes vs Wilder would be a mismatch and Larry would easily outbox Povetkin.

Boxing Writer wrote:I'd give a prime Larry Holmes at least 45% chances of beating any heavyweigh in history (and the only fighter Id'd favour to beat him is Joe Louis). Prime Holmes vs prime Ali would be 50/50 fight IMO as well as Holmes vs peak Riddick Bowe. Against any other HW in history I'd favour Larry Holmes. Prime Wlad could probably give him a lot of problems, but not the washed up 40-41 y.o. version of Klitschko. Tyson Fury's size and style might be pretty hard for Larry, but Holmes had very good hanspeed, excellent accuracy, timing and if he'd catch Fury with the same punch as Cunnigham did, the fight would likely be over. Holmes wasn't a great puncher, but he difinitely hit way harder than Cunningham. Joshua? We don't know how good he is yet. He is definitely not Michael Grant, but he wasn't tested on the highest level yet. Holmes vs Wilder would be a mismatch and Larry would easily outbox Povetkin.

OMG ! Lennox Lewis ?