Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

[margaret thatcher]

deontay wilder, at 6'7 with an 83 inch reach, averaging a lean and ripped 225 pounds , and still ripped at in the 230s, historically he's a pretty big heavy

[Caractacus]

some of the "Man-sters" of the earlier days were
1910's
Jess Willard
1930's
Primo Carnera
Abe Simon
Buddy Baer
1960'S
Jack O'Halloran
1970's
Lee Canolito


Some Tall fighters were
Bob Armstrong
Ernie Terrell
Jim .J Beattie

[evrenb]

deontay wilder, at 6'7 with an 83 inch reach, averaging a lean and ripped 225 pounds , and still ripped at in the 230s, historically he's a pretty big heavy

Ernie Terrell

[Controversial]

I’ve never really understood the argument that Wilder is small. Wilder is one of the tallest HW champs in history. He has a very athletic build and very top heavy, his legs are fairly spindly. But even at 240 he didn’t have an ounce of fat on him. But his real danger is his power which often cancels out his lack of skill. We can all point to big fighters from decades ago that didn’t beat smaller fighters, not sure what that proves though. The proof is in the pudding and it’s rare for small HWs around 6’ and under 15 stone to be successful today.

[HomicideHenry]

Cooney was like 6'5"-6'7" and 230 pounds, and was absolutely monstrous in comparison to other heavyweights. Wilder is basically the same size as Cooney. He just looks small compared to Tyson Fury. Wilder is a big heavyweight.

I generally define a big heavy weight as someone 6'5"+ and in excess of 230+ pounds. Historically we haven't seen that many successful big heavyweights. It's quite a rarity but in the passed 20 years it has become more frequent.

Usyk (6'3" 220) looked small compared to Joshua (6'6" 240) so that height and weight differential would just be magnified against Fury. Of course Joshua demonstrated that size doesn't mean much when a big heavyweight is gun shy--- but Fury has a higher ring IQ and willingness to get down and dirty than Joshua, so that definitely would make the difference in a head-to-head matchup.

The only time I recall enormous heavyweights being a big deal was during the reign of Jack Johnson, where several large men came out of the woodwork: Wells, McLaglen, Willard, McCarty, Morris, Fulton, etc--- but they simply lacked athleticism and skills they relied strictly on size and strength, with maybe Luther McCarty being the exception to the rule in that era.

[Ambling Alp II]

I’ve never really understood the argument that Wilder is small. Wilder is one of the tallest HW champs in history. He has a very athletic build and very top heavy, his legs are fairly spindly. But even at 240 he didn’t have an ounce of fat on him. But his real danger is his power which often cancels out his lack of skill. We can all point to big fighters from decades ago that didn’t beat smaller fighters, not sure what that proves though. The proof is in the pudding and it’s rare for small HWs around 6’ and under 15 stone to be successful today.

I think people are going by weight. He was tall but not bulky. He didn't weigh over 230 until his last two fights. And we saw how that turned out for him. He did better against Fury when he was lighter.
He only weighed 214 when he fought Ortiz the first time.

[Ambling Alp II]

Just wanted to make some general comments:

I think people would be surprised how many have been big heavyweights there have been in the past.

In the 1930s for example, besides Carnera , there was George Godfrey, Victor Campolo, Jose Santa, Seal Harris, Ray Impellatiere among others. They had varying degrees of success.

Joe Louis fought Carnera on his way up. As champion he defended the title against Abe Simon and Buddy Baer.

[Bodyshot3]

Probably still comes down to what you can do with your package in terms of skills and attitude?
Smaller guys can still slay some giants and huge guys can get stopped, humiliated and exposed.

Cooney and Carnera would still be massive today - especially Carnera - but they'd still get beaten soundly.
Same with the gigantic Valuev who Haye pretty much humbled and an ancient Holyfied almost unseated.

There are still openings and oppotunities for the smaller heavyweight against a huge opponent.

But having said that there has also been a critical swing as well. There are far more bigger guys with good engines-stamina, tidy boxing skills when it comes to jabbing, moving and blocking shots. Some of these big guys can box and do it well.

Fury feels like that guy but I would I love to see him tangle with Usyk who is sharper but resilient and not so small and has some bite on his punches.

[Controversial]

David Price was huge, bigger than Fury and punched a lot harder but he lacked in other areas. So pointing to other big fighters who were unsuccessful doesn't make it an irrelevant argument.

Also it should also be remembered that you only had to be over 175lb to be a HW up to 1979. Can you imagine no CW division and a 175lb+ fighter being HW champ now and actually box around that weight range? Thats like saying Beterbiev could challenge Wilder, AJ, Fury etc by just adding a few pounds.

[HomicideHenry]

They're always has been giant heavyweights nobody is denying that--- Charles Freeman was somewhere between 6'9"-7'0" and 300 pounds when he fought William Perry in the 1800s. There's always been large heavyweights.

Then again in all fairness there are differences to what constitutes as big for different time periods, as I pointed out in my earlier post with Jeffries, Burns and Squires. However, let me go back even further--- "The Giant" Isaac Perrins in the Georgian period was 6'2" and 240 pounds, and that certainly would be considered average, if not small, by today's heavyweight standards.

There's always been large heavyweights, but what there wasn't in the past was giant heavyweights who were not only mobile but skilled and athletic and nimble and possessed great ring generalship. Today there's many big men who are athletic, nimble, skilled and have great conditioning.

The only tall, rangy, big heavyweight that really comes to mind from ages ago was Luther McCarty (6'4" and 220-230 pounds) who threw his jab like a whip and moved around the ring. Unfortunately he died young and never really got to see how good he could have really been.

Most of the big men of yesteryear were plodders and stalkers who threw one punch at a time, which is why men like Jack Dempsey usually chewed them up and spit them out with perpetual motion attacks.

Much as I love Joe Louis the fact is all of those giant men he fought were slower than molasses, and were there for the taking. Just big targets. Large brutes with little know-how.

Is it any wonder that in the bare knuckle era and early gloved era we often saw welterweights and middleweights knocking out heavyweights. Bob Fitzsimmons, all 167 pounds of him, once knocked out a man named Louis The Giant who was 6'7" and nearly 400 pounds like he was nothing--- and that is most likely because the man was nothing more than just a big man with nothing else to offer.

Size means absolutely nothing if the much larger man doesn't possess any skills or abilities beyond hitting hard. I once knew a tiersman who weighed maybe 150 pounds who knocked out a heavyweight tiersman in a sparring session--- when the skillset is not really there, all the bigger man is is a big target that can be easily dealt with.

But this debate doesn't include the likes of Lennox Lewis, the Klitschko brothers and Tyson Fury. Why? Because they actually had high ring IQs, and great skills, and conditioning. They weren't just big lumps.



Good example of a good/great little man against an average at best big man is Moorer against White. "The Giant" (6'10" 275) was Art Dore's original protege before Butterbean came along.

[Ambling Alp II]

Nimble , athletic, movement? Where?
Why have so many fights been so awful for the last 20 years? Fury supposedly moves well, but that is mostly just comparison to most of the other current fighters who can't move at all.

Look at the punch out put for most fights. The last 20 years have been full of guys looking to land one punch. Lots of clinching. Little movement. Lots of pacing themselves.

[evrenb]

Is anyone seriously suggesting Prime Mike Tyson and Holyfield wouldn't do well now. ??? Rubbish. Their skill set was miles ahead of today's fighters.

[margaret thatcher]

i do wonder, why we don't see the 5'11 190-200 pounders doing much at hw these days

greats like jack johnson, dempsey marciano, frazier, all around this size

today, guys who are about 6'1 and 190 boil down to fight at light heavy, but why do that when they could become hw champ vs these larger guys who are burdened by their size?

[Controversial]

Is anyone seriously suggesting Prime Mike Tyson and Holyfield wouldn't do well now. ??? Rubbish. Their skill set was miles ahead of today's fighters.

They would do well but is it coincidental they both lost their first fights to tall, large skilful HWs (Douglas and Bowe). Tyson and Holyfield both had unique skills that made them successful as smaller fighters. Tyson was blindingly fast, two handed, powerful and intimidating. Holyfield was a great fighter with an iron chin and fitness. Plus Holyfield was of similar dimensions to Ali so not really small compared to someone like Marciano. But as had been said before, being big alone means nothing if you can't fight. The advantage comes when you can fight and know how to use that extra height, weight and reach.

As great as Ali was he was often the bigger man in most of his fights, so he had speed, movement, jab, chin, determination and all his other skills plus, more often than not, a weight and size advantage. Would he have had an easier fight with Foreman if Foreman was 6'6", 17 stone with an 84" reach instead of 6'3", 15.7 stone with an 78" reach? Would have AJ had more luck if Usyk was 5'10" and 14.7 stone? It all helps, if not why do fighters and trainers say it does?

[HomicideHenry]

Is anyone seriously suggesting Prime Mike Tyson and Holyfield wouldn't do well now. ??? Rubbish. Their skill set was miles ahead of today's fighters.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that.

Don't get your panties in a twist.

I think that they could beat many heavyweights today, and probably pick up an alphabet title or two. I'm just not so sure they could have been undisputed heavyweight champion these days.

Not with Tyson Fury still in the picture that is. Holyfield looked small against George Foreman (6'3" and 260 pounds) and that was a competitive fight--- so could you imagine a man not only taller and heavier but moves around better than Foreman?

Riddick Bowe was 6'5" and 240 pounds. Holyfield struggled with him. Bowe in his prime would also be smaller than Fury. I'm not saying that Holyfield and Tyson couldn't win, there's always a chance, but I think it's a small one.

Tyson especially struggled with tall/heavy men. At the peak of his powers he was nullified by Bonecrusher Smith, and no doubt Fury would be a hell of a lot more problematic.

Nimble , athletic, movement? Where?
Why have so many fights been so awful for the last 20 years? Fury supposedly moves well, but that is mostly just comparison to most of the other current fighters who can't move at all.

Look at the punch out put for most fights. The last 20 years have been full of guys looking to land one punch. Lots of clinching. Little movement. Lots of pacing themselves.

Mind you I said: Lewis, Klitschko brothers and Fury. Take those four men out of the equation and you basically have a division that is there for the taking by much smaller men.

That being said, I haven't seen that many men 6'3" and shorter, 230 pounds and lighter, have that much of an impact on the heavyweight division in nearly 20 years.

Either the whole of boxing is horrible, where the quality of the majority of the athletes is subpar in comparison to earlier eras, or quite frankly the big man are just too much these days.

The best of the "little men" (6'3" & under) in the passed 20 years haven't been able to do much at all. David Haye has basically been the only one to pick up a single alphabet strap.

I'm reminded of a video that Mike Tyson did a few years back when Wladimir Klitschko was champion and was asked whether he could have beaten him:



"In reality even though we don't want to believe it athletes do get better over time. They don't get worse. They may not look better. But they do get better."

It's hard to imagine someone the size of Joey Dawejko (5'10"-5'11") being able to do much with someone 6'6", 6'7", 6'8", 6'9" especially when the much taller man is not only athletically gifted but has a high ring IQ and has a lot in the tank.

I remember several months back you tried to make an argument that someone like Ezzard Charles, a former welterweight in the amateurs, could beat someone like Tyson Fury.

There comes a time when someone has to take off the rose colored glasses and stop being nostalgic. 6'0" and 182 pounds when he last fought Jersey Joe Walcott for the title. When was the last time you saw someone 6'0" and 180 pounds do anything in the heavyweight division?

James Toney maybe. He was 5'10" but weighed between 210-240 pounds as a heavyweight, in what was maybe one of the weaker eras in heavyweight history (post Lewis) fighting ancient Holyfield, limited Peter, one dimensional Rahman, huggy bear Ruiz, etc and those men weren't giants.

Roy Jones? 5'11" and 193 pounds. But we all know that was a one-night only experiment at heavyweight against a rather limited John Ruiz. Jones was smart enough not to fight anybody with more ability than that.

The smaller craftier men look good and great against big lumps who are not so good, or who are over the hill. I'm a fan of Michael Hunter (6'2") and he looked great against Ustinov (6'10") but let's be honest the giant Russian never was anything to scream over.

[Ambling Alp II]

Is anyone seriously suggesting Prime Mike Tyson and Holyfield wouldn't do well now. ??? Rubbish. Their skill set was miles ahead of today's fighters.

They would do well but is it coincidental they both lost their first fights to tall, large skilful HWs (Douglas and Bowe). Tyson and Holyfield both had unique skills that made them successful as smaller fighters. Tyson was blindingly fast, two handed, powerful and intimidating. Holyfield was a great fighter with an iron chin and fitness. Plus Holyfield was of similar dimensions to Ali so not really small compared to someone like Marciano. But as had been said before, being big alone means nothing if you can't fight. The advantage comes when you can fight and know how to use that extra height, weight and reach.

As great as Ali was he was often the bigger man in most of his fights, so he had speed, movement, jab, chin, determination and all his other skills plus, more often than not, a weight and size advantage. Would he have had an easier fight with Foreman if Foreman was 6'6", 17 stone with an 84" reach instead of 6'3", 15.7 stone with an 78" reach? Would have AJ had more luck if Usyk was 5'10" and 14.7 stone? It all helps, if not why do fighters and trainers say it does?

Yes Holyfield lost to Bowe. He also beat Bowe. He also beat several other fighters much bigger than him. Tyson lost to Douglas. He probably would have beaten Douglas 9 of 10 times. He too beat many fighters bigger than him.

Foreman would not have been any better if he was bigger. Ali would have have beaten him just as easy if not easier. If Usyk was 5 inches shorter he probably would have lost. Who knows though. Joshua is not very good.

[margaret thatcher]

i have absolutely no doubt that, yes, usyk would have lost if he were only 5 inches tall

[Ambling Alp II]

I think we need to put some nuance in our thinking. We need to get away from thinking the bigger the better. It simply doesn't work that way.

What we need to understand is ideal size.
In the NFL, look at quarterbacks. If you are 5'9 and weigh 160, you aren't going to be a quarterback. However, you also aren't going to if you are 6'7 and 280. If you have to be tall enough to see well and weigh enough so that you don't get tackled easily. However, you can't be so big that you can't move.

In the NBA, you aren't going to be a center if you are "only" 6'6. There have been centers over 7'2. How many great ones have there been over 7;2? None. Very few good ones.
The best centers have been between 6'9 and 7"2.

Same with boxing.
Small heavyweights usually don't have the power and the ability to take punishment to be great.
Really big heavyweights are usually too slow, too easy to hit, and don't have ideal stamina to be great.
There has never been a great heavyweight bigger than Lennox Lewis. He has been an exception.

Obviously there are exceptions. which is why we need to go by what a fighter can do, and not be so obsessed up about weight.

[oogiebe]

I think we need to put some nuance in our thinking. We need to get away from thinking the bigger the better. It simply doesn't work that way.

What we need to understand is ideal size.
In the NFL, look at quarterbacks. If you are 5'9 and weigh 160, you aren't going to be a quarterback. However, you also aren't going to if you are 6'7 and 280. If you have to be tall enough to see well and weigh enough so that you don't get tackled easily. However, you can't be so big that you can't move.

In the NBA, you aren't going to be a center if you are "only" 6'6. There have been centers over 7'2. How many great ones have there been over 7;2? None. Very few good ones.
The best centers have been between 6'9 and 7"2.

Same with boxing.
Small heavyweights usually don't have the power and the ability to take punishment to be great.
Really big heavyweights are usually too slow, too easy to hit, and don't have ideal stamina to be great.
There has never been a great heavyweight bigger than Lennox Lewis. He has been an exception.

Obviously there are exceptions. which is why we need to go by what a fighter can do, and not be so obsessed up about weight.

QB's have grown tremendously over time. Currently (of course still exceptions) teams are looking at 6'4"/6' 5" and 225-245 lbs and more. That is almost as big as offensive linemen were in the late sixties and early seventies. Heavyweights as well. Even NBA centers are almost all around 7' tall nowadays. 7 footers were rare late sixties late seventies and have grown over time. All athletes. They are and will always be getting bigger; stronger; faster; and more athletic.

EDIT:
Kareem Abdul Jabbar NBA HOF 7'2"

Yao Ming NBA HOF 7'4"

Arvydas Sabonis NBA HOF 7'3"

Artis Gilmore NBA HOF 7'2"

I'm sure there are others.

[HomicideHenry]

There hasn't been a great heavyweight bigger than Lennox Lewis?

Mind you, Lewis most likely would have beaten him, but Wladimir Klitschko is certainly a top ten-fifteen great of all time. His brother Vitali Klitschko gave Lennox all he could handle, although he lost.

Fury's career isn't done yet but it wasn't that long ago that the forum was an agreement that Wladimir Klitschko was basically a top ten all-time heavyweight. So Fury is definitely on course of being a top 10 all time great.

[evrenb]

Is anyone seriously suggesting Prime Mike Tyson and Holyfield wouldn't do well now. ??? Rubbish. Their skill set was miles ahead of today's fighters.

They would do well but is it coincidental they both lost their first fights to tall, large skilful HWs (Douglas and Bowe). Tyson and Holyfield both had unique skills that made them successful as smaller fighters. Tyson was blindingly fast, two handed, powerful and intimidating. Holyfield was a great fighter with an iron chin and fitness. Plus Holyfield was of similar dimensions to Ali so not really small compared to someone like Marciano. But as had been said before, being big alone means nothing if you can't fight. The advantage comes when you can fight and know how to use that extra height, weight and reach.

As great as Ali was he was often the bigger man in most of his fights, so he had speed, movement, jab, chin, determination and all his other skills plus, more often than not, a weight and size advantage. Would he have had an easier fight with Foreman if Foreman was 6'6", 17 stone with an 84" reach instead of 6'3", 15.7 stone with an 78" reach? Would have AJ had more luck if Usyk was 5'10" and 14.7 stone? It all helps, if not why do fighters and trainers say it does?

Ali had size advantages yes. But is it a coincidence that although he had an unreal chin, he was decked by a 191lb banks, a 185lb cooper and a 205lb Frazier??

[Controversial]

I think we need to put some nuance in our thinking. We need to get away from thinking the bigger the better. It simply doesn't work that way.

What we need to understand is ideal size.
In the NFL, look at quarterbacks. If you are 5'9 and weigh 160, you aren't going to be a quarterback. However, you also aren't going to if you are 6'7 and 280. If you have to be tall enough to see well and weigh enough so that you don't get tackled easily. However, you can't be so big that you can't move.

In the NBA, you aren't going to be a center if you are "only" 6'6. There have been centers over 7'2. How many great ones have there been over 7;2? None. Very few good ones.
The best centers have been between 6'9 and 7"2.

Same with boxing.
Small heavyweights usually don't have the power and the ability to take punishment to be great.
Really big heavyweights are usually too slow, too easy to hit, and don't have ideal stamina to be great.
There has never been a great heavyweight bigger than Lennox Lewis. He has been an exception.

Obviously there are exceptions. which is why we need to go by what a fighter can do, and not be so obsessed up about weight.

But no one is saying you are better just by being bigger. But it can make a big difference, if it didn’t why aren’t all the decent LHWs today campaigning at HW where all the money and glory is? Because back in the day guys like Bivol, Beterbiev and Joe Smith would’ve been HWs.

[HomicideHenry]

The only answer I have for Cassius Clay aka Muhammad Ali getting decked by Sonny Banks, Henry Cooper and Joe Frazier is because at his absolute prime (1960s) he was so fast he could get away with mistakes--- therefore he wasn't used to getting hit all that often, and even in the 1970s he was never a good infighter.

He had to condition himself to take punishment, when before he never had to. So when somebody was able to get a hold of him he got hurt pretty bad. When he came back in 1970, he still tried to fight the way he did in the '60s and paid the price for it against Joe Frazier because he was slower and easier to hit.

Therefore he had to completely change his style, relying more and more on the rope-a-dope. Less and less dancing, moving around, sticking and moving. The only time you would really see him do that in the '70s was against lesser opponents. After the Wepner fight you see him being flat-footed more than anything else in fights.

[Controversial]

Is anyone seriously suggesting Prime Mike Tyson and Holyfield wouldn't do well now. ??? Rubbish. Their skill set was miles ahead of today's fighters.

They would do well but is it coincidental they both lost their first fights to tall, large skilful HWs (Douglas and Bowe). Tyson and Holyfield both had unique skills that made them successful as smaller fighters. Tyson was blindingly fast, two handed, powerful and intimidating. Holyfield was a great fighter with an iron chin and fitness. Plus Holyfield was of similar dimensions to Ali so not really small compared to someone like Marciano. But as had been said before, being big alone means nothing if you can't fight. The advantage comes when you can fight and know how to use that extra height, weight and reach.

As great as Ali was he was often the bigger man in most of his fights, so he had speed, movement, jab, chin, determination and all his other skills plus, more often than not, a weight and size advantage. Would he have had an easier fight with Foreman if Foreman was 6'6", 17 stone with an 84" reach instead of 6'3", 15.7 stone with an 78" reach? Would have AJ had more luck if Usyk was 5'10" and 14.7 stone? It all helps, if not why do fighters and trainers say it does?

Ali had size advantages yes. But is it a coincidence that although he had an unreal chin, he was decked by a 191lb banks, a 185lb cooper and a 205lb Frazier??

We can all point to examples like that. Tyson Fury was decked by blown up CW Steve Cunningham, it’s boxing and it only takes one punch sometimes. That doesn’t mean size makes no difference. There are weight classes for a reason, FMM was a great fighter but could he have been dominant at MW and above, no. Too small. If he was too small why would it not apply to guys like Marciano? Todays LHWs walk into the ring heavier than Marciano weighed and are bigger too. At some point the physical advantages come into play when you can fight as well. That doesn’t mean FMM isn’t capable of beating some guys much bigger than him, but the exception doesn’t make the rule.


.

[Controversial]

Yes Holyfield lost to Bowe. He also beat Bowe. He also beat several other fighters much bigger than him. Tyson lost to Douglas. He probably would have beaten Douglas 9 of 10 times. He too beat many fighters bigger than him.

Because Holyfield and Tyson were great fighters and the bigger guys they beat invariably weren't great or past their best. Bowe was a good fighter and gave Holyfield hell and was the only fighter to stop Holyfield in his better years, ignoring the Toney stoppage loss 8 years later when Holyfield was on the slide. That's ignoring all the alleged rumours of PEDs too.