BoxRec

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑21 Nov 2018, 01:48 I think letting fights happen on a case by case basis like ambling alp suggests in reasonable. If an elite middleweight wants to fight a heavyweight I don't see any reason it shouldn't be allowed provided the matchup looks competitive.

For example the worlds number 2 middleweight might well be able to beat a heavyweight outside the top 300 without much trouble.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 20:05 The line is difficult to determine. Once upon a time it was thought that all the size a Heavyweight needed to be was 6'3" and 220. Ali was that size, as was Larry Holmes.

But in the passed 40 years men of that size have failed against the 'norm' today--- 6'6", 6'7", 6'8", 6'9" and averaging about 250 pounds--- and maybe the reason that is is because there are not many incredibly skillful men 5'11", 6', 6'1", 6'2", 6'3" anymore hovering around 200-220 pounds.

David Haye, slightly bigger than Holyfield, befuddled the likes of Chisora and Barrett and Ruiz and Harrison and Valuev--- but they were either not much bigger than himself or not really that good or were slow & ponderous.

The same can be said for Tomasz Adamek and James Toney and to a lesser extent Eddie Chambers. Great against the average or fringe contenders and maybe the bottom half of the legitimate top ten--- but they could do absolutely nothing with the Klitschko's.

Part of that is the issue of size and strength, but it's also largely in part because of the athleticism and skills that everyone downplays when it comes to the big men of today. These guys ARE talented and CAN fight. It's not their fault that there's few who can hang.

Besides, we're also talking about the absolute TOP OF THE DIVISION, not the division as a whole. I love guys like Chris Arreola (6'4" 240) but Rocky Marciano is no Brian Minto--- Arreola would lose that fight. It'd be tough AT FIRST but Marciano always found a way inside--- it's more difficult to get inside the guard of a leaner, faster, athletic guy than a bigger, slower, less athletic guy.

But when it comes to the absolute top of the mountain, where you have Fury and Wilder and Joshua and the Klitschko's or even a Lennox Lewis--- I can't see Rocky remotely landing. He'd be like Galento leaping and catching nothing but air and eating a battering ram for his troubles.

I'm not saying it's impossible but it is not really plausible--- I'd say Marciano's chances are somewhere between 10-20% against those guys. His only chance would be to try and literally break the arms of the giants.

Before anyone laughs, it WAS a genuine Marciano tactic to beat on the hands & forearms & elbows & shoulders of his opponents. He literally caused hairline fractures in his opponents arms.

If he could accomplish that inside of four or five rounds--- without getting kayoed or cut up to pieces within that time--- his stock goes up. But even then it's still not an easy assignment.

Controversial wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 17:44

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 16:49 We should take it on a case by case basis. Some guys under 200 could do it; some could not.
There are numerous examples of guys under 200 who could do it.

Except you have to set the same weight limits for everyone below HW. So what cut off weight would you set and why?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑21 Nov 2018, 11:50

Controversial wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 17:44

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 16:49 We should take it on a case by case basis. Some guys under 200 could do it; some could not.
There are numerous examples of guys under 200 who could do it.

Except you have to set the same weight limits for everyone below HW. So what cut off weight would you set and why?

There isn't a cutoff weight. If the guy could compete with heavyweights at 190, 180, 170 or whatever, he could do it.

Jack Dempsey did it. He weighed less than 190. Are we really supposed to ignore that he destroyed guys well over 200 just because the cruiserweight division was established more than 50 years after he retired? That is ludicrous.

Bob Fitzsimmons was even smaller.
There are guys well under 200, you might not think about but who had success against heavyweights well over 200. Harold Johnson, Mickey Walker, Tommy Loughran etc.
Other guys under the magical 200 pound mark didn't beat anyone over 200 because the top guys were under 200 at the time. Doesn't mean they couldn't have.

Controversial wrote: ↑22 Nov 2018, 06:29 Completely pointless and irrelevant to throw fighters from 100 odd years ago into the debate. Those big guys were not particularly good fighters, today they would be on a par with the tough guy in your local pub (bar for you Americans lol). To somehow try and draw comparisons between Dunkhorst and Wilder is laughable.

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑22 Nov 2018, 18:20

Controversial wrote: ↑22 Nov 2018, 06:29 Completely pointless and irrelevant to throw fighters from 100 odd years ago into the debate. Those big guys were not particularly good fighters, today they would be on a par with the tough guy in your local pub (bar for you Americans lol). To somehow try and draw comparisons between Dunkhorst and Wilder is laughable.

Hence why I called "The Human Freight Car" (Dunkhorst) a journeyman, even in his own time. Old Timers in boxing were not particularly kind to big men, which is why they were so critical of the later eras emergence of big men. Big men were perceived as big targets, far easier to fight than smaller, faster, etc types.

Size can be an incredible disadvantage. However, when you have a big man who is athletically gifted--- or can soak up punishment as if they were the rock of Gibraltar like a Jess Willard--- the disadvantages become marginal.

In Dunkhorst's defense, though, he wasn't as incompetent as you would imagine he was. In his 12th fight as a pro he went 22 rounds (scheduled for 25) against Gus Ruhlin. He also had a win against Bob Armstrong in his 6th fight. He had fairly competitive matches with top-rated contender Peter Maher, albeit he lost all three matches.

Controversial wrote: ↑23 Nov 2018, 08:15

HomicideHenry wrote: ↑22 Nov 2018, 18:20

Controversial wrote: ↑22 Nov 2018, 06:29 Completely pointless and irrelevant to throw fighters from 100 odd years ago into the debate. Those big guys were not particularly good fighters, today they would be on a par with the tough guy in your local pub (bar for you Americans lol). To somehow try and draw comparisons between Dunkhorst and Wilder is laughable.

Hence why I called "The Human Freight Car" (Dunkhorst) a journeyman, even in his own time. Old Timers in boxing were not particularly kind to big men, which is why they were so critical of the later eras emergence of big men. Big men were perceived as big targets, far easier to fight than smaller, faster, etc types.

Size can be an incredible disadvantage. However, when you have a big man who is athletically gifted--- or can soak up punishment as if they were the rock of Gibraltar like a Jess Willard--- the disadvantages become marginal.

In Dunkhorst's defense, though, he wasn't as incompetent as you would imagine he was. In his 12th fight as a pro he went 22 rounds (scheduled for 25) against Gus Ruhlin. He also had a win against Bob Armstrong in his 6th fight. He had fairly competitive matches with top-rated contender Peter Maher, albeit he lost all three matches.

To be fair you didn't bring up Dunkhorst first. For me this would be like Lenny McLean being around in those times. A huge man who could have a ruck. I'm sure the newspapers would have reported how big, strong and tough McLean was. Big, tough and strong yes but McLean was never close to being world class, and when he fought a smaller guy who could fight a bit he lost. Like any sport it's always about levels.

Controversial wrote: ↑21 Nov 2018, 12:10

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑21 Nov 2018, 11:50

Controversial wrote: ↑20 Nov 2018, 17:44

Except you have to set the same weight limits for everyone below HW. So what cut off weight would you set and why?

There isn't a cutoff weight. If the guy could compete with heavyweights at 190, 180, 170 or whatever, he could do it.

Jack Dempsey did it. He weighed less than 190. Are we really supposed to ignore that he destroyed guys well over 200 just because the cruiserweight division was established more than 50 years after he retired? That is ludicrous.

Bob Fitzsimmons was even smaller.
There are guys well under 200, you might not think about but who had success against heavyweights well over 200. Harold Johnson, Mickey Walker, Tommy Loughran etc.
Other guys under the magical 200 pound mark didn't beat anyone over 200 because the top guys were under 200 at the time. Doesn't mean they couldn't have.

I’m asking what you would make the weight limits for CW and HW? You seem to be suggesting there is no need for the CW division’because older fighters beat bigger people so the weight is irrelevant. Is that what you mean?

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑24 Nov 2018, 11:12 There haven't been many good heavyweights. So you think if holyfield moved to heavyweight in 2005 he wouldn't be dominant? And you really should get off the weight. Norton, foreman and Lyle were all bigger than povetkin. Wilder fits into alps weight range and he might be the best in the world.

oogiebe wrote: ↑24 Nov 2018, 11:45

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑24 Nov 2018, 11:12 There haven't been many good heavyweights. So you think if holyfield moved to heavyweight in 2005 he wouldn't be dominant? And you really should get off the weight. Norton, foreman and Lyle were all bigger than povetkin. Wilder fits into alps weight range and he might be the best in the world.

Povetkin is consistently around 225
Ali was at 215
Norton was at 218 (205 for Ali II)
Lyle was around 215-222
Foreman (first George) was 215 - 225

So they may have been taller, but not bigger.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑24 Nov 2018, 12:16

oogiebe wrote: ↑24 Nov 2018, 11:45

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑24 Nov 2018, 11:12 There haven't been many good heavyweights. So you think if holyfield moved to heavyweight in 2005 he wouldn't be dominant? And you really should get off the weight. Norton, foreman and Lyle were all bigger than povetkin. Wilder fits into alps weight range and he might be the best in the world.

Povetkin is consistently around 225
Ali was at 215
Norton was at 218 (205 for Ali II)
Lyle was around 215-222
Foreman (first George) was 215 - 225

So they may have been taller, but not bigger.

Have you ever seen those guys? They were all shredded, Norton was like a bodybuilder. So are you seriously telling me with a straight face that George foreman wasn't bigger than Barney rubble?