BoxRec

Kalan wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 15:25 I wasn't trying to be factual about your birth... I was being sarcastic about your lack of intelligence and your sheer pomposity.

You think you're clever... You're just a pain in the ain...

If you want to go through points of my above post and dispute them, try that... You lack the reasoning capacity to do that so you broadside.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑05 Dec 2017, 02:15 Yes but the optimal size for heavyweights may shift when people on average get bigger and the population increases. This would lead too a much larger pool of big men. If you have a larger sample size there is a greater probability that exceptional fighters will emerge. Back in the 40s, 50s, 60s people were smaller on average. There would have been far fewer men the size of Anthony Joshua or Wladimir Klitschko in the population.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Dec 2017, 11:38 There is a larger pool of big men. Therefore, you would think there will be a rare exception where one of them will emerge as a exceptional fighter. So far there has been Lewis and and for a shorter time Bowe.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑05 Dec 2017, 20:15 As I have noted numerous times greatness is something that people disagree on (especially people from different generations). Back in the day you could find people who rated Jeffries ahead of Ali (a position that most people on this board would ridicule).

Since the mid-1990s the heavyweight division has been dominated by 240+ heavyweights with the top fighter being 240+ along with numerous other contenders of this size. However, in other eras fighters of this size virtually never could even make it into the top 10, in fact barely any of them even cracked the top 20. The fact that giant heavyweights are vastly more successful these days than in the past seems like fairly compelling evidence that they have improved. Even in eras that were generally regarded as poor eras (1930s and 1980s for example) we see barely any examples of them having success at the top level.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑02 Dec 2017, 00:42 But Burns had a lot of title defenses. That automatically makes him a serious threat against anyone.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 22:22 In any case pointing out that giant heavyweights of more recent times are generally not regarded as ATGs is not terribly relevant. I don't find the arguments against Wladimir's greatness to be very persuasive but some people seem to take issue with some of the erratic performances early in his career.

My basic argument is that regardless of whether you consider them ATGs or not more modern giant heavyweights are clearly an improvement over the giants of earlier eras. These days the top 10 are dominated by giant heavyweights while in the past they rarely entered the top 10 or even the top 20.

For example, in his prime Ike Ibeabuchi weighed about 240 pounds (he was 235 vs Tua and 244 vs Byrd). He clearly seems like an improvement over the big men of the 70s. The best heavyweights of that size back then were guys like Roy Williams and Jack O'Halloran

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 22:22 In any case pointing out that giant heavyweights of more recent times are generally not regarded as ATGs is not terribly relevant. I don't find the arguments against Wladimir's greatness to be very persuasive but some people seem to take issue with some of the erratic performances early in his career.

My basic argument is that regardless of whether you consider them ATGs or not more modern giant heavyweights are clearly an improvement over the giants of earlier eras. These days the top 10 are dominated by giant heavyweights while in the past they rarely entered the top 10 or even the top 20.

For example, in his prime Ike Ibeabuchi weighed about 240 pounds (he was 235 vs Tua and 244 vs Byrd). He clearly seems like an improvement over the big men of the 70s. The best heavyweights of that size back then were guys like Roy Williams and Jack O'Halloran.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017, 12:09
The main reason that big fighters had done well recently is that the division is so weak. There are very few ideally sized heavyweights around. If just about all the heavyweights are big, then yes the top ones are going to be big.

Ibeabuchi is not exactly a great example. He had a grand total of two fights against decent competition.
Not hard at all to imagine Roy Williams winning a WBS title in the last 15 years.
Joe Bugner would have been a long time champion with several WBS title defenses and would have been in the HOF.

Going further back, Willard and Carnera, still would have won titles. Buddy Baer and Buster Mathis would have as well, but they were unable to in their day. fighters like Carl Morris and Abe Simon may have as well.

Kalan wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 15:10They say you should only do something you love and forget about the money aspect...

Tunney said he loved to box and never felt more complete than when sparring or fighting... If you don't love the game, you need tremendous drive and ambition...

APerno wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 17:05

Kalan wrote: ↑21 Dec 2017, 15:10They say you should only do something you love and forget about the money aspect...

Tunney said he loved to box and never felt more complete than when sparring or fighting... If you don't love the game, you need tremendous drive and ambition...

For the most part I agree with you, but how would you fit Dempsey into this picture - by most accounts he hated fighting; whether it was for a $750,000 payday against Tunney (II) or in the early years, a barroom brawl for a mere side-bet, most say Dempsey was driven by the money (by a deep fear of poverty.)

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 01:39 I'm confused by people's logic here. They rightly think Burns size would be a problem against heavyweights of later eras but somehow size isn't a problem for 70s heavyweights like Ali and Frazier? Frazier would be giving up more than 40 pounds and 7 inches in height against Joshua.

Kalan wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 01:44 Frazier wouldn't be in the running today... A short little, wide open, walk-in hooker??? ... I knew Foreman was going to plow him a new one.

Kalan wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017, 02:39

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 22:22 In any case pointing out that giant heavyweights of more recent times are generally not regarded as ATGs is not terribly relevant. I don't find the arguments against Wladimir's greatness to be very persuasive but some people seem to take issue with some of the erratic performances early in his career.

My basic argument is that regardless of whether you consider them ATGs or not more modern giant heavyweights are clearly an improvement over the giants of earlier eras. These days the top 10 are dominated by giant heavyweights while in the past they rarely entered the top 10 or even the top 20.

For example, in his prime Ike Ibeabuchi weighed about 240 pounds (he was 235 vs Tua and 244 vs Byrd). He clearly seems like an improvement over the big men of the 70s. The best heavyweights of that size back then were guys like Roy Williams and Jack O'Halloran

That's a great comment... Ike Ibeabuchi, LennoxLewis, the Vitali Klitschko, Wladimir Klitschko, and Anytony Joshua are obviously better than woefully inept large men such as Jess Willard, Primo Carnea, Abe Simon, Buddy Baer, Riddick Bowe, and Andrew Golota... The human race is evolving and players in the NBA and NFL are getting bigger, stronger, and faster as well.... Because most all the best big men haven't been Americans they've been down played as well...

Kalan wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017, 17:49

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑13 Dec 2017, 12:09
The main reason that big fighters had done well recently is that the division is so weak. There are very few ideally sized heavyweights around. If just about all the heavyweights are big, then yes the top ones are going to be big.

Ibeabuchi is not exactly a great example. He had a grand total of two fights against decent competition.
Not hard at all to imagine Roy Williams winning a WBS title in the last 15 years.
Joe Bugner would have been a long time champion with several WBS title defenses and would have been in the HOF.

Going further back, Willard and Carnera, still would have won titles. Buddy Baer and Buster Mathis would have as well, but they were unable to in their day. fighters like Carl Morris and Abe Simon may have as well.

The Heavyweight Division is easily the strongest it’s ever been talent wise.

In fact... scores of Heavyweights in the 21st Century have been massive in height, weight, and reach---but lacked the overall physical and mental gifts, coaching, skills, athleticism, heart, and ambition to approach a Heavyweight Title.. Dominic Breazeale... Alexander Dimitrenko.... Mariusz Wach.... Robert Helenius.... Michael Grant.... Tye Fields... David Price.... Julius Long.... and scores of lesser big Heavyweights just can't make the grade today because there are so many huge men who are so much better and work harder than any of the big fellows who came before them.

And it’s not how many fights Ike Ibeabuchi had against world class Heavyweights... It’s WHEN Ike took those fights (when he had 16 and 19 fights experience) and HOW improved he looked destroying master boxer Chris Byrd only 3 fights after beating David Tua by impressive UD when he had only 16 fights... Ike slipped punches well and ripped Byrd with extremely sharp combinations to head and body.. Ike was having a wonderful time in there - because he was completely at ease against the powerless putz Byrd – much like Wlad was when he easily mastered the mismatched, 6’2” X 213-pound tyke who had nothing whatever to show him.

And as for the miserable athletes you're trying to offer up as talented big men who could win a title.

Joe Bugner was about the clumsiest punching bag there ever was.. He couldn’t slip or duck a punch.. Little bitty Marvis Frazier, who was 9-0 and only 200 pounds, easily boxed the ass off of Bugner, who was as easy to hit as a speed bag.. Jess Willard was even worse.. He was so easy to punch Dempsey said, “I swung as hard as I could to club him down. Hitting Jess was like throwing a pine cone at the side of a barn.” Tell me - how good are you going to be if you have 1 fight in the previous 4 years??? What a goldbrick Willard was.

Buddy Baer was another Abe Simon/Joe Bugner type, but without a jab.. He didn’t care about skills.. He swung away like a raw amateur and never even tried to box or defend himself well... His whole thing was being able to absorb punches until he was able to bang some incompetent opponents out. If they could box he was helpless..

Carnera was a little different in that he had a tremendous work ethic.... He was a true professional and defended the Title successfully a few times.... He fought over 100 fights and always did his very best... Unfortunately he had the worst talent of anybody.... No coordination, balance, reflexes, or ability to slip punches... He tried really hard.

Buster Mathis was by far the most talented of your sad lot… But Mathis wasn’t big... Mathis was FAT.... This fact was proven when Mathis weighed in at 220 and still had excess FAT on his body at that low weight.... Mathis had a great deal of physical talent, but NO ambition, brains, or work ethic... How in Hell can you weigh in for 1 fight at 280 and another fight at 220 if you have any desire to be World Champion???

If you marry Buster Mathis's raw talent with Primo Carnera's work ethic and heart... You probably have an ATG.

MrGuy wrote: ↑03 Jan 2018, 17:47

Kalan wrote: ↑04 Dec 2017, 01:44 Frazier wouldn't be in the running today... A short little, wide open, walk-in hooker??? ... I knew Foreman was going to plow him a new one.

The guys you see now aren't on the level of Foreman. Not close.. Unless these guys were allowed to jab and grab, Frazier mows most down with no problem

MrGuy wrote: ↑03 Jan 2018, 19:29 You're entitled to your opinion. But this is one of the worst eras ever. If it was one of thr best, where are all the great fighters and fights since Lewis retired?