Small heavyweights vs Medium Sized Heavyweights

[Kalan]

Of course a GOOD big one always beats a good little one, its just people with agendas ALWAYS want to match a good little one with a mediocre or worse big one. It is laughable to think a Lewis, or a Klitchko brother would treat fighters like Johnson, Marciano, Louis, Patterson, Frazier, or Tyson with anything other than contempt.

That is very true. They would be supremely confident versus those particular opponents... When it comes to style dynamics, size combined with power and skill is a very tough combination for a smaller Heavyweight of any ability to overcome.. Frazier fared well with Ali, but he refused to fight Norton.. Norton knew Frazier from sparring and knew how to use his size and strength against him once he gained the appropriate skills.. The Foreman match-up was a nightmare for a head knocking slugger like Frazier.. as it was a nightmare for the comparatively skinny Norton who had a decent jab and good size, but tended to lead with his head.. Putting your head out there as a target, is a gift for somebody as powerful as Foreman.

Had Foreman been a great boxer he would have been one of the 2 or 3 greatest Heavyweights ever.. His downfall was his relatively slow power-jab, and his inability to slip and duck punches well against a slick boxer -- getting stabbed with the jab and countered with the right in his prime.

This is why I believe AJ is the best so far.. Although AJ seems badly lacking in experience and numbers of rounds and fights, he already mastered the jab and the right counter - and slips punches well.. Klitschko has these same skills to a very high degree, and is a little taller.. So this is the perfect fight for AJ because he's going to learn a lot from this fight, which should go maybe 9 rounds.. He needs to have better timing and anticipation, and make better use of the ring -- and force his pace on Klitschko.. The left hook is the wild card in this fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

How can it be bias or cherry picking when I am just going by what actually happened and letting anyone bring up the fights?
Kalan, golden oldie or anyone else can mention fights.

I am not manufacturing fights that never happened. It's easy to say that fighter A would have beaten Fighter B in a fantasy fight when they never fought each other.

This thread was for listing what happened in the real world. If know of any fights that a smaller great heavyweight (under 200 pounds) lost to someone between 200-220 then mention it. Or vice versa.

[Kalan]

Think about this... In the entire decade of the 1950's no Heavyweight Champion weighed as much as 200 pounds. Only 4 challengers weighed over 200 but all those challengers weighed under 200 for many of their fights.. For instance, Don Cockell weighed a very fat 205 for Marciano... Now, you might assume from looking at the weights that Cockell was a lot bigger than Marciano -- but he actually was a lot SMALLER once you removed the fat... In his 68th fight Cockell weighed 174. For his NEXT fight he weighed 201. He put on and took off weight like a coat. It certainly wasn't muscle.

Many of those small challengers had to do with cherry picking... For instance, Floyd Patterson didn't feel like fighting Sonny Liston during the 1950's so he didn't fight him... He also didn't feel like fighting Zora Folley.. He also didn't feel like fighting Cleveland Williams.. However, he took time out to fight Pete Rademacher, Tom McNeeley, Roy Harris, Brian London, and Tommy Jackson

Larry Holmes,fought in a later era of bigger, stronger Heavyweights... Holmes won 21 of 26 World Heavyweight Title fights and only ONE (1) title opponent weighed under 200 pounds... That was Michael Spinks, who weighed a fraction under 200 for his 1st Holmes fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

Think about this... In the entire decade of the 1950's no Heavyweight Champion weighed as much as 200 pounds. Only 4 challengers weighed over 200 but all those challengers weighed under 200 for many of their fights.. For instance, Don Cockell weighed a very fat 205 for Marciano... Now, you might assume from looking at the weights that Cockell was a lot bigger than Marciano -- but he actually was a lot SMALLER once you removed the fat... In his 68th fight Cockell weighed 174. For his NEXT fight he weighed 201. He put on and took off weight like a coat. It certainly wasn't muscle.

Cockell less for the Marciano fight than he did when he beat Roland LaStarza. I will add the Marciano-Cockell fight. Thanks

Many of those small challengers had to do with cherry picking... For instance, Floyd Patterson didn't feel like fighting Sonny Liston during the 1950's so he didn't fight him... He also didn't feel like fighting Zora Folley.. He also didn't feel like fighting Cleveland Williams.. However, he took time out to fight Pete Rademacher, Tom McNeeley, Roy Harris, Brian London, and Tommy Jackson

Yes, everyone knows Paatterson didn't fought several some of the top challengers. Liston, Williams, Folley, and Machen all were controlled by the IBC. I didn't count his wins over Rademacher, McNeeely, London, and Jackson.

Larry Holmes,fought in a later era of bigger, stronger Heavyweights... Holmes won 21 of 26 World Heavyweight Title fights and only ONE (1) title opponent weighed under 200 pounds... That was Michael Spinks, who weighed a fraction under 200 for his 1st Holmes fight.

So going by your last statement, it is an indication that smaller is better. I didn't count that fight because the losing fighter (Holmes) was past his best and weighed over 220 anyway.

[Ambling Alp II]

Of course a GOOD big one always beats a good little one, its just people with agendas ALWAYS want to match a good little one with a mediocre or worse big one. It is laughable to think a Lewis, or a Klitchko brother would treat fighters like Johnson, Marciano, Louis, Patterson, Frazier, or Tyson with anything other than contempt.

I hope you are joking.

[Ambling Alp II]

A few more involving Nino Valdes. Above 200 he beat Charles who below. Lost to Archie Moore twice and once to Harold Johnson. Add those to Marciano's win over Cockell, and it is now 14-13 for the Medium-Sized heavyweights.

[Kalan]

A few more involving Nino Valdes. Above 200 he beat Charles who below. Lost to Archie Moore twice and once to Harold Johnson. Add those to Marciano's win over Cockell, and it is now 14-13 for the Medium-Sized heavyweights.

Cockell wasn't big. He was FAT. His 68th fight he was 174 and his next one over 200. Are you taking FATness into consideration???

[Ambling Alp II]

Of course a GOOD big one always beats a good little one, its just people with agendas ALWAYS want to match a good little one with a mediocre or worse big one. It is laughable to think a Lewis, or a Klitchko brother would treat fighters like Johnson, Marciano, Louis, Patterson, Frazier, or Tyson with anything other than contempt.

I hope you are joking.

Not at all. The 3 I mentioned would swat the rest like flies, until they got bored enough to close the show. Lewis and the K2 brothers have everything that all the others from Johnson to Liston had, plus superior size, strength reach, and power.

Except for hand speed, foot movement, stamina, defense, heart, and several other things I agree with you completely.

[Ambling Alp II]

A few more involving Nino Valdes. Above 200 he beat Charles who below. Lost to Archie Moore twice and once to Harold Johnson. Add those to Marciano's win over Cockell, and it is now 14-13 for the Medium-Sized heavyweights.

Valdez ( who was by no means a great fighter ) lost to 2 great fighters in Moore and Johnson, he also lost to guys who were the same weight or heavier than him, who were far from great fighters, so what is your point. You seem to constantly post instances of great fighters beating ordinary ones who were just bigger, and imply it is some kind of achievement.

Do you seriously think Jones Jr would have been a great Heavyweight purely because he beat an ordinary one, then got out because the only way after that meant fighting far better guys?

The point is to see how well great smaller heavyweights did against medium sized heavyweights. Valdes was no legend, but was a contender. At one time the #1 contender at a time when there was only champion. I am not counting fights against tomato cans or when the losing fighter was not close to his prime.

This is not what I think would have happened in some fight that never occurred. It's about what really happened in fights that really happened.
As I mentioned previously, you are free to add fights yourself that fit the criteria. I'm sure there many more.
This can be fun. Don't worry about any theories. Just research what actually happened.

[Ambling Alp II]

A few more involving Nino Valdes. Above 200 he beat Charles who below. Lost to Archie Moore twice and once to Harold Johnson. Add those to Marciano's win over Cockell, and it is now 14-13 for the Medium-Sized heavyweights.

Cockell wasn't big. He was FAT. His 68th fight he was 174 and his next one over 200. Are you taking FATness into consideration???

No, I am not taking into consideration whether or not you think the guy was fat.

[Ambling Alp II]

Found a couple more where the medium sized heavyweight won.

Jim Maloney (203.5) beat Jack Delaney (172)
Harry Wills (211.75) beat Kid Norfolk (176)

Medium-Sized heavyweights now lead 16-13.

[Kalan]

A few more involving Nino Valdes. Above 200 he beat Charles who below. Lost to Archie Moore twice and once to Harold Johnson. Add those to Marciano's win over Cockell, and it is now 14-13 for the Medium-Sized heavyweights.

Cockell wasn't big. He was FAT. His 68th fight he was 174 and his next one over 200. Are you taking FATness into consideration???

No, I am not taking into consideration whether or not you think the guy was fat.

How about if he WAS fat??? ... So basically, when Duran and Hatton went up to 206 between fights they were medium sized Heavyweights... And When James Toney fought 80 pounds over his prime Middleweight Championship condition, he was a big Heavyweight ... and because I thought he was FAT doesn't change that.

[Ambling Alp II]

Valdez ( who was by no means a great fighter ) lost to 2 great fighters in Moore and Johnson, he also lost to guys who were the same weight or heavier than him, who were far from great fighters, so what is your point. You seem to constantly post instances of great fighters beating ordinary ones who were just bigger, and imply it is some kind of achievement.

Do you seriously think Jones Jr would have been a great Heavyweight purely because he beat an ordinary one, then got out because the only way after that meant fighting far better guys?

The point is to see how well great smaller heavyweights did against medium sized heavyweights. Valdes was no legend, but was a contender. At one time the #1 contender at a time when there was only champion. I am not counting fights against tomato cans or when the losing fighter was not close to his prime.

This is not what I think would have happened in some fight that never occurred. It's about what really happened in fights that really happened.
As I mentioned previously, you are free to add fights yourself that fit the criteria. I'm sure there many more.
This can be fun. Don't worry about any theories. Just research what actually happened.[/quoote]

And my point is to see how " GREAT " smaller Heavyweights got on against bigger, medium sized, or gigantic GREAT Heavyweights.

I think you will find that the good big one beats the good little one every time philosophy wins EVERY time.

There has never been a fight between a gigantic great heavyweight and a small heavyweight who was great. Actually there has never been one with a gigantic heavyweight and great medium sized heavyweight near his prime. (No, Holyfield was not near his prime when he fought Lewis)
There have been some matches with medium-sized heavyweights who were great and small heavyweights who were great. I have mentioned several already.

Maybe the bigger man wins more than half the time if both fighters are great. However, there have already been many examples of the smaller man winning against not only against very good bigger fighters but great bigger opponents.

[Ambling Alp II]

There has never been a fight between a gigantic great heavyweight and a small heavyweight who was great. Actually there has never been one with a gigantic heavyweight and great medium sized heavyweight near his prime. (No, Holyfield was not near his prime when he fought Lewis)
There have been some matches with medium-sized heavyweights who were great and small heavyweights who were great. I have mentioned several already.

Maybe the bigger man wins more than half the time if both fighters are great. However, there have already been many examples of the smaller man winning against not only against very good bigger fighters but great bigger opponents.

So how do you explain the medium sized Holy losing twice to the far bigger and heavier Bowe then?

Well if you want to count Bowe as great, (he was for short time) then that would count. Bowe won the first, Holyfield the second. Holyfield was clearly past it by the third fight. That makes it 1-1 between Medium-Sized heavyweights and Heavyweights. Don't believe there are any others. However, if you can think of any, let me know.

[Ambling Alp II]

Not at all. The 3 I mentioned would swat the rest like flies, until they got bored enough to close the show. Lewis and the K2 brothers have everything that all the others from Johnson to Liston had, plus superior size, strength reach, and power.

Except for hand speed, foot movement, stamina, defense, heart, and several other things I agree with you completely.

So you seriously don't think Lewis or Vladimir had as good or better hand speed than Johnson, Louis, Marciano, Liston, never mind the plums they fought and beat. Joe Louis shuffled around the ring like a saturday night drunk, I don't believe the words defense, footwork and Marciano should be mentioned in the same book. David Haye had better footwork than any of the guys you mentioned, and he proved it by running like a hare against Vlad. Lewis and the K2 brothers ability to take out much bigger guys than those smaller guys beat and quicker can hardly be seen as a criticism of their stamina, unless you have an agenda. As for claiming any of them lacked heart, that is beyond stupid.

Makes you wonder how Louis did when fought guys that big. If only we knew.

[Kalan]

Poor "past it" Holyfield... Gets beaten up twice by punching bag Bowe -- but beats the living crap out of the medium sized (teeny sized to Lewis) Tyson.

[evrenb]

Poor "past it" Holyfield... Gets beaten up twice by punching bag Bowe -- but beats the living crap out of the medium sized (teeny sized to Lewis) Tyson.

Styles make fights Drongo

[Ambling Alp II]

So how do you explain the medium sized Holy losing twice to the far bigger and heavier Bowe then?

Well if you want to count Bowe as great, (he was for short time) then that would count. Bowe won the first, Holyfield the second. Holyfield was clearly past it by the third fight. That makes it 1-1 between Medium-Sized heavyweights and Heavyweights. Don't believe there are any others. However, if you can think of any, let me know.

So after 33 fights, and coincidentally 33 years old Holy was suddenly past it when he fought Bowe for the 3rd time was he? Tell me was it the points defeat to Moorer that suddenly finished him, or the win over Mercer? Yet funnily enough he was able to carry on and win the WBA, IBF, titles after he was " past it " as you claim.

No he wasn't suddenly past it. It didn't happen overnight.
But, Yes, just about everyone could tell he was past his best by the third Bowe fight. He had been in a lot of very tough fights, going back to his cruiserweight days. Simply watch the video of the 3rd Bowe fight and compare them to the first two. He is not the same fighter.
It wasn't just one fight; it was an accumulation of punishment he had taken over his career and he was starting to get old. 33 is not a young fighter.
He was not completely shot. He had something left. However, he clearly was not the fighter he once was.

You can still win titles after you are past your best. Foreman was 45 when he won the title for example. He was way, way past his best. Tyson was not at this best when he came back from prison, yet he won a title. Many other fighters have done the same.

[Kalan]

Poor "past it" Holyfield... Gets beaten up twice by punching bag Bowe -- but beats the living crap out of the medium sized (teeny sized to Lewis) Tyson.

Styles make fights Drongo

And height, weight, and reach, combined with skills, speed, and punching power lays those little forkers out Clarabelle

[Ambling Alp II]

So after 33 fights, and coincidentally 33 years old Holy was suddenly past it when he fought Bowe for the 3rd time was he? Tell me was it the points defeat to Moorer that suddenly finished him, or the win over Mercer? Yet funnily enough he was able to carry on and win the WBA, IBF, titles after he was " past it " as you claim.

No he wasn't suddenly past it. It didn't happen overnight.
But, Yes, just about everyone could tell he was past his best by the third Bowe fight. He had been in a lot of very tough fights, going back to his cruiserweight days. Simply watch the video of the 3rd Bowe fight and compare them to the first two. He is not the same fighter.
It wasn't just one fight; it was an accumulation of punishment he had taken over his career and he was starting to get old. 33 is not a young fighter.
He was not completely shot. He had something left. However, he clearly was not the fighter he once was.

You can still win titles after you are past your best. Foreman was 45 when he won the title for example. He was way, way past his best. Tyson was not at this best when he came back from prison, yet he won a title. Many other fighters have done the same.

You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. Mine is Holyfield was no more " past it " than Bowe was when they fought for the 3rd time.

Bowe was 28, Holyfield was 33.That is a crucial difference; enough to make a difference.
Holyfield had been in more tough fights than Bowe and had taken more punishment.
Bowe had shown no signs of declining before the fight. Holyfield had.
Anyone watching the fight could tell that Holyfield was not as good as he once was. He was fighting in occasional spurts. In some rounds, he hardly threw a punch. Bowe looked about the same.

[evrenb]

Poor "past it" Holyfield... Gets beaten up twice by punching bag Bowe -- but beats the living crap out of the medium sized (teeny sized to Lewis) Tyson.

Styles make fights Drongo

And height, weight, and reach, combined with skills, speed, and punching power lays those little forkers out Clarabelle

And tiny Holyfield beat Bowe, Douglas, Foreman, your lover Holmes, Rahman..Dokes...
And tiny Tyson beat Bruno x 2, bone crusher, tucker, your lover Holmes, tubbs, ruddock, savarese , green, Berbick etc etc with ease..most of them were 8 inches taller than Mike.
Styles make fights...don't lie to benefit your argument.

[evrenb]

And height, weight, and reach, combined with skills, speed, and punching power lays those little forkers out Clarabelle

And tiny Holyfield beat Bowe, Douglas, Foreman, your lover Holmes, Rahman..Dokes...
And tiny Tyson beat Bruno x 2, bone crusher, tucker, your lover Holmes, tubbs, ruddock, savarese , green, Berbick etc etc with ease..most of them were 8 inches taller than Mike.
Styles make fights...don't lie to benefit your argument.

1. No one considers Holyfield a tiny Heavyweight. He would be medium sized.

2. Plenty of tiny heavies have KO'd B class fighters like Tyson did.

3. His problem was both big, and medium sized GOOD heavies KO'd him, as did some bigger lower level guys.[/quote

1.Kalan considers him tiny...don't say nobody...you can't tell me what everyone thinks??
2. Are you saying Tyson victories were against bad rate fighters??
3. If you are talking Holyfield...not in his prime they didn't??

[Kalan]

And tiny Holyfield beat Bowe, Douglas, Foreman, your lover Holmes, Rahman..Dokes...
And tiny Tyson beat Bruno x 2, bone crusher, tucker, your lover Holmes, tubbs, ruddock, savarese , green, Berbick etc etc with ease..most of them were 8 inches taller than Mike.
Styles make fights...don't lie to benefit your argument.

1. No one considers Holyfield a tiny Heavyweight. He would be medium sized.

2. Plenty of tiny heavies have KO'd B class fighters like Tyson did.

3. His problem was both big, and medium sized GOOD heavies KO'd him, as did some bigger lower level guys.[/quote

1.Kalan considers him tiny...don't say nobody...you can't tell me what everyone thinks??
2. Are you saying Tyson victories were against bad rate fighters??
3. If you are talking Holyfield...not in his prime they didn't??

1. I don't consider Tyson tiny... He was medium sized for his day... But he looked pretty teeny versus Lewis, just saying -- LL was HUGE for that day.

2. Not bad rated in some cases... They just weren't big, tall, strong, brutal punching, fast, skilled, and smart -- like the boys who laid MIke out.

3. Holyfield built himself up into a 218-pound rock hard heavy for Tyson... And with his strength, skills, and chin, not a boy Tyson was happy to meet.

[evrenb]

All pointless arguments...just people's opinions.. going around in circles..some have more time to argue harder...I don't.

[Kalan]

Holyfield really had it going for Tyson... Too bad Ev couldn't keep that strength and body going... Too many bitches and kids slowed him down maybe