Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?

[Cojimar 1946]

It might be easier and more fun to debate someone like Usyk vs past great heavyweights. Realistically a number of cruiserweights he beat are likely better than virtually all the heavyweights Fury beat with a few exceptions. We have seen him against more quality opponents. He also beat Joe Joyce in the WSB series

[HomicideHenry]

Again, I ask the question: When was the last time you seen someone as small as Michael Spinks knock out a name heavyweight?

Cooney was inactive, a drug addict, unranked, and nowhere near the level he was against Larry Holmes in 1982. Cooney was fighting for money when he fought Spinks.

199-212 pounds. Name the fighter that size who has knocked out a prime, name heavyweight. In the passed 20 years or 30 years. Holyfield in 1990 (31 almost 32 years ago) against Buster Douglas is pretty much the last time it's been done.

[Ambling Alp II]

You really don't get this, do you?

We were talking about Spinks. I point out the Spinks victory over Cooney. You counter with, that doesn't count, Cooney lost to Spinks! do you really not understand how stupid that is?


But I will answer your question about the last time a heavyweight 212 or under knocked a bigger heavyweight. I don't think it has happened since. Have a ton tried and failed? No. There simply have not been many small heavyweights. Which is the whole point; there should be more smaller heavyweights. Too many heavyweights weigh way too more than they should for their height and frame. It's not not like there are tons of smaller heavyweights who are getting crushed by big heavyweights.

And of course, smaller-medium sized heavyweights have done well when they have the chance.
Jones didn't score a knockout, he beat Ruiz when he only weighed 193.
Wilder constantly beat heavyweights that outweighed him. He weighed 212 and half against Fury. 214 against Luis Ortiz.
And of course Usyk recently.

[Ambling Alp II]

It might be easier and more fun to debate someone like Usyk vs past great heavyweights. Realistically a number of cruiserweights he beat are likely better than virtually all the heavyweights Fury beat with a few exceptions. We have seen him against more quality opponents. He also beat Joe Joyce in the WSB series

Might be interesting. Go ahead and start a thread about it. I'm sure all the people knowledgeable of boxing history will make some interesting observations.

[HomicideHenry]

You really don't get this, do you?

We were talking about Spinks. I point out the Spinks victory over Cooney. You counter with, that doesn't count, Cooney lost to Spinks! do you really not understand how stupid that is?


But I will answer your question about the last time a heavyweight 212 or under knocked a bigger heavyweight. I don't think it has happened since. Have a ton tried and failed? No. There simply have not been many small heavyweights. Which is the whole point; there should be more smaller heavyweights. Too many heavyweights weigh way too more than they should for their height and frame. It's not not like there are tons of smaller heavyweights who are getting crushed by big heavyweights.

And of course, smaller-medium sized heavyweights have done well when they have the chance.
Jones didn't score a knockout, he beat Ruiz when he only weighed 193.
Wilder constantly beat heavyweights that outweighed him. He weighed 212 and half against Fury. 214 against Luis Ortiz.
And of course Usyk recently.

Spinks, though an all-time great boxer, was not an all-time great heavyweight. I wouldn't put him in the top 15 or 20 heavyweight champions. Yet you are saying that man beats any version of Klitschko. Ridiculous.

Personally I'm of the opinion when Joshua, Wilder and Fury basically retire we're going to see a lot of heavyweights under 6'5" and under 240 pounds tackle the division. I've repeatedly said it that if you took Fury out of the equation, that smaller heavyweights would be pretty damn successful.

I agree, the vast majority of heavyweights out there weigh more than they should. They're lazy. Even Fury, from my perspective, should not be 270+ pounds but rather 255-260 tops. But the difference between Fury and 99% of the division is that he actually has the grit, the skills, and the athleticism to not let weight be too much of a hindrance.

I don't like to put Wilder in the same category of "small heavyweights" because of his height and reach advantages. True, many of his fights he was under 215 pounds but when you are 6'7" you're hardly a small heavyweight.

Your other examples are valid, although everybody knows that Roy Jones Jr picked John Ruiz because he was the most limited and slow of the top five heavyweights of the time. Ruiz was enormous in comparison to him but overall Ruiz would be considered small in comparison to Joshua or Wilder or Fury.

Mind you, I think we agree more than we disagree when it comes to matters of size. I point out all the time how successful Sam Langford was against much larger opponents when he started off at lightweight. Jem Mace also started off as a lightweight when there was only four divisions in boxing and became the first world champion heavyweight.

There are a lot more examples of smaller and faster men beating big men than there are large men beating smaller men--- after all once upon a time in boxing a rather large individual was seen more as a liability than as a benefit, because they are not only slower they are just one big target.

However as time as gone on the bigger men have become more athletic and more skillful. Not just in boxing but in all sports. Once upon a time in the NBA a rather tall man was seen as nothing more than a goon--- the vast majority of players 6'10", 6'11", 7'0", etc simply were not all that good. You basically threw those kind of guys the ball if they were standing directly near the net, you didn't pass them the ball in the middle of the court or let them do power plays.

That's why people were absolutely astounded with somebody like Wilt Chamberlain (7'1") because he was truly a bona fide all around athlete who could play defense and offense as good as anyone else. Since him there has been a couple of really successful 7-footers like Shaquille O'Neal but it's still in the minority.

Now for a sport like football (NFL) being tall is actually a detriment because of all the wear and tear in that particular game, and tall men wear out faster than smaller men. A great example is Ernie Ladd (6'9") who had to leave the game because his knees were going to crap so he became a professional wrestler instead. I think John Matuszak (6'7") also left the game because of an accumulation of injuries even though his team won the super bowl in 1981.

I'm also a big fan of powerlifting and strongman events and for the most part being tall is a detriment when it comes to certain particular lifts and events. For example deadlifting is great for shorter more compact athletes and is quite difficult for people who are really tall. Overhead log lifts, also, are pretty hard for tall athletes in that sport because they have to essentially do more lifting than the shorter athletes.

Anyways, back to boxing. Like I said I think we agree more than we disagree on the matter of size because of so many historical precedents for much smaller men defeating much larger men, where I think we disagree on is your personal view or opinion on the skills and abilities and athletic qualities of heavyweights in the 21st century who are over 6'5" and over 240 pounds. Namely Tyson Fury.

Mind you for a long long time I echoed the same sentiments that you have following the championship reign of Lennox Lewis, that the heavyweights were so lazy and out of shape that it was a shame there wasn't really fit smaller men to tackle the division because they would make it look like a piece of cake.

But when the Klitschko's had a strangle hold on the division and the likes of Fury and Wilder and Joshua came about, it's prevented a lot of smaller men to really make an impact on the heavyweight division.

[Onetimeonly]

Spinks wouldn't knock him out, he'd outclass him.

[oogiebe]

Spinks wouldn't knock him out, he'd outclass him.

You actually read that novel?

[HomicideHenry]

Spinks wouldn't knock him out, he'd outclass him.

A big IF..... I just can't see it happening.

[Onetimeonly]

Spinks wouldn't knock him out, he'd outclass him.

You actually read that novel?

God no, he always changes the discussion in the middle. Saw alp respond. I don't even read his short stories.

[Cojimar 1946]

Again, I ask the question: When was the last time you seen someone as small as Michael Spinks knock out a name heavyweight?

Cooney was inactive, a drug addict, unranked, and nowhere near the level he was against Larry Holmes in 1982. Cooney was fighting for money when he fought Spinks.

199-212 pounds. Name the fighter that size who has knocked out a prime, name heavyweight. In the passed 20 years or 30 years. Holyfield in 1990 (31 almost 32 years ago) against Buster Douglas is pretty much the last time it's been done.

I think Murat Gassiev could probably kayo some top 10 ranked heavyweights of recent years like say Arreola, Stiverne, Bryant Jennings etc and he probably weighed about what Spinks did vs Cooney while campaigning at cruiserweight.

[HomicideHenry]

Again, I ask the question: When was the last time you seen someone as small as Michael Spinks knock out a name heavyweight?

Cooney was inactive, a drug addict, unranked, and nowhere near the level he was against Larry Holmes in 1982. Cooney was fighting for money when he fought Spinks.

199-212 pounds. Name the fighter that size who has knocked out a prime, name heavyweight. In the passed 20 years or 30 years. Holyfield in 1990 (31 almost 32 years ago) against Buster Douglas is pretty much the last time it's been done.

I think Murat Gassiev could probably kayo some top 10 ranked heavyweights of recent years like say Arreola, Stiverne, Bryant Jennings etc and he probably weighed about what Spinks did vs Cooney while campaigning at cruiserweight.

Maybe, but Gassiev hasn't done it.

It's difficult to predict what may or may not happen, when it's not happened. Mind you, I will say a man like Gassiev would logically beat quite a few heavyweights in the top 50-20 in the world. But whether he could beat the top 15, 10, or 5 is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Outside of Usyk, Michael Hunter Jr has impressed me. Problem is after having faced Ustinov and Povetkin, he's lost momentum facing guys like 10-3 Shawn Laughrey. I don't know if it's that he's being avoided, or bad management decisions, or what the problem is. It seems he's content just defending the WBA Continental America's title, rather than pursuing bigger fights. He was 213 for the Ustinov fight.

Hunter's always claimed that he beat Tyson Fury in the amateurs (2006) but was robbed by the judges. Fury would've been 18 years old at the time, Hunter would've been the same age.

But from my vantage point that means little for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that many great boxers were defeated in the amateurs by guys who couldn't either transition or were obliterated in the rematch in the pros. Tyson vs Tillman comes to mind.

[margaret thatcher]

fury got beat by a 6 foot russian fatty in the ams too, it dont mean much. he got beat by david price too. but doesnt really mean anything today beyond being a somewhat interesting fact

although, i remember alp making fun of wlad klit because on his way to winning olympic gold at 20 he got a standing count from lawrence cley bey, never mind that the likes of bowe, lewis, and holmes were all ko'd in the ams at a similar age or older

[HomicideHenry]

fury got beat by a 6 foot russian fatty in the ams too, it dont mean much. he got beat by david price too

That was basically my point, when I brought up Michael Hunter Jr saying he beat Fury in the amateurs. For me, I find it more remarkable that a man who never went to the Olympics (Fury) in the end ended up beating gold medalist Klitschko and bronze medalist Wilder.

Then again many of the great boxing champions regardless of weight class did not have extensive amateur backgrounds. Duran I don't think ever had an amateur fight and Marciano had like 20 amateur bouts. Being a great amateur doesn't necessarily mean anything.

[Wee Tommy]

You really don't get this, do you?

We were talking about Spinks. I point out the Spinks victory over Cooney. You counter with, that doesn't count, Cooney lost to Spinks! do you really not understand how stupid that is?


But I will answer your question about the last time a heavyweight 212 or under knocked a bigger heavyweight. I don't think it has happened since. Have a ton tried and failed? No. There simply have not been many small heavyweights. Which is the whole point; there should be more smaller heavyweights. Too many heavyweights weigh way too more than they should for their height and frame. It's not not like there are tons of smaller heavyweights who are getting crushed by big heavyweights.

And of course, smaller-medium sized heavyweights have done well when they have the chance.
Jones didn't score a knockout, he beat Ruiz when he only weighed 193.
Wilder constantly beat heavyweights that outweighed him. He weighed 212 and half against Fury. 214 against Luis Ortiz.
And of course Usyk recently.

Spinks, though an all-time great boxer, was not an all-time great heavyweight. I wouldn't put him in the top 15 or 20 heavyweight champions. Yet you are saying that man beats any version of Klitschko. Ridiculous.

Personally I'm of the opinion when Joshua, Wilder and Fury basically retire we're going to see a lot of heavyweights under 6'5" and under 240 pounds tackle the division. I've repeatedly said it that if you took Fury out of the equation, that smaller heavyweights would be pretty damn successful.

I agree, the vast majority of heavyweights out there weigh more than they should. They're lazy. Even Fury, from my perspective, should not be 270+ pounds but rather 255-260 tops. But the difference between Fury and 99% of the division is that he actually has the grit, the skills, and the athleticism to not let weight be too much of a hindrance.

I don't like to put Wilder in the same category of "small heavyweights" because of his height and reach advantages. True, many of his fights he was under 215 pounds but when you are 6'7" you're hardly a small heavyweight.

Your other examples are valid, although everybody knows that Roy Jones Jr picked John Ruiz because he was the most limited and slow of the top five heavyweights of the time. Ruiz was enormous in comparison to him but overall Ruiz would be considered small in comparison to Joshua or Wilder or Fury.

Mind you, I think we agree more than we disagree when it comes to matters of size. I point out all the time how successful Sam Langford was against much larger opponents when he started off at lightweight. Jem Mace also started off as a lightweight when there was only four divisions in boxing and became the first world champion heavyweight.

There are a lot more examples of smaller and faster men beating big men than there are large men beating smaller men--- after all once upon a time in boxing a rather large individual was seen more as a liability than as a benefit, because they are not only slower they are just one big target.

However as time as gone on the bigger men have become more athletic and more skillful. Not just in boxing but in all sports. Once upon a time in the NBA a rather tall man was seen as nothing more than a goon--- the vast majority of players 6'10", 6'11", 7'0", etc simply were not all that good. You basically threw those kind of guys the ball if they were standing directly near the net, you didn't pass them the ball in the middle of the court or let them do power plays.

That's why people were absolutely astounded with somebody like Wilt Chamberlain (7'1") because he was truly a bona fide all around athlete who could play defense and offense as good as anyone else. Since him there has been a couple of really successful 7-footers like Shaquille O'Neal but it's still in the minority.

Now for a sport like football (NFL) being tall is actually a detriment because of all the wear and tear in that particular game, and tall men wear out faster than smaller men. A great example is Ernie Ladd (6'9") who had to leave the game because his knees were going to crap so he became a professional wrestler instead. I think John Matuszak (6'7") also left the game because of an accumulation of injuries even though his team won the super bowl in 1981.

I'm also a big fan of powerlifting and strongman events and for the most part being tall is a detriment when it comes to certain particular lifts and events. For example deadlifting is great for shorter more compact athletes and is quite difficult for people who are really tall. Overhead log lifts, also, are pretty hard for tall athletes in that sport because they have to essentially do more lifting than the shorter athletes.

Anyways, back to boxing. Like I said I think we agree more than we disagree on the matter of size because of so many historical precedents for much smaller men defeating much larger men, where I think we disagree on is your personal view or opinion on the skills and abilities and athletic qualities of heavyweights in the 21st century who are over 6'5" and over 240 pounds. Namely Tyson Fury.

Mind you for a long long time I echoed the same sentiments that you have following the championship reign of Lennox Lewis, that the heavyweights were so lazy and out of shape that it was a shame there wasn't really fit smaller men to tackle the division because they would make it look like a piece of cake.

But when the Klitschko's had a strangle hold on the division and the likes of Fury and Wilder and Joshua came about, it's prevented a lot of smaller men to really make an impact on the heavyweight division.

The Log Lift record was held for over a decade by 6’4” Zydrynas Savicas and of course the deadlift world record is held by Thor Bjornson, who is 6’9”…

[margaret thatcher]

wilder is a big hw by historical standards, 6'7, 83 inch reach, averaging 225 and as high as 238 (and still with visible abs)

much taller, much longer reach, and heavier than version 1 of 'big' george foreman for example. obviously way bigger than 6 foot, 74 inch reach, 185 pound 'giant' jack johnson and jack dempsey. taller, longer, heavier than prime holmes and ali. far taller, much longer reach, and about 20 pounds heavier on average than joe louis.

similar in size to young lennox lewis. bigger than the vast majority of hw champs at least until the 90s or so. and let's be honest, many of these guys wilder beat who were significantly heavier were total flab arses like short blobby bermane stiverne, not naturally bigger men..

[HomicideHenry]

The Log Lift record was held for over a decade by 6’4” Zydrynas Savicas and of course the deadlift world record is held by Thor Bjornson, who is 6’9”…

Zydrunas is listed as 6'3" in height. The loglift record has been held by individuals largely under the height of 6'5", namely:

Graham Hicks- 5'10"
Iron Biby- 6'2"
Eddie Hall- 6'3"
Luke Stoltman- 6'3"

Really the loglift as a singular record is more of a recent invention. These days people actually train all year round to do the loglift championships, when before it was just one of many events in a strong man contest.

Before it ever became a singular event championship I think it was Bill Kazmaier who basically held the loglift record at 170 kilos, then Jamie Reeves increased it to 180 kilos, and that stood until Zydrunas came along. Kazmaier is 6'3" and Reeves is the same height as well.

As for deadlift... People must understand that there is a difference between a legitimate deadlift and a strong man deadlift. In strongman competitions they use straps and body suits to help assist in the lifts whereas a legitimate deadlift is done without either.

Nevertheless the physics is basically the same. Eddie Hall (6'3") and Bjornsson (6'9") have been going back and forth over the years with the strongman deadlift record--- but historically speaking men like "The Mountain" are not very good at doing deadlifts. He seems to be an exception to the rule.

As for legitimate deadlifts without straps or bodysuits to help assist in a lift, Benedikt Magnússon (6'0") is the world record holder at 1,015 pounds or 460.4 kilograms.

What I will give you though is that for the past decade the top elite strongmen have been guys like Shaw, Bjornsson, and Zydrunas--- Shaw has held the title 4x's in 11 years, Bjornsson has held it once, and Zydrunas 4x's as well. Two out of the three are in excess of 6'5" in height.

Tom Stoltman, brother of Luke Stoltman, is 6'8" and the current champion. However, it must be pointed out that since the creation of the world's strongest man in 1977 there has only been a small amount of people 6'5" or taller to hold the title:

-Ted Van De Parre (7'0")
-Magnus Samuelson (6'7")
-Brian Shaw (6'8")
-Bjornsson (6'9")
-Phil Pfister (6'6")
-Janne Virtanen (6'5")
-Geoff Capes (6'5")

The rest have been between 6'0"-6'3" with the shortest champion being Gary Taylor (6'0"), and 5x strongman winner Mariusz Pudzianowski being only 6'1" in height.

https://youtube.com/c/BigLozOfficial

BTW, I highly recommend the Big Loz channel on YouTube a lot of interviews and coverage of different strongman events and champions from the past. He himself was only 6'2" and he currently holds the record for the Dinnie Stones up in Scotland.

[abeattell77]

Again, I ask the question: When was the last time you seen someone as small as Michael Spinks knock out a name heavyweight?

Cooney was inactive, a drug addict, unranked, and nowhere near the level he was against Larry Holmes in 1982. Cooney was fighting for money when he fought Spinks.

199-212 pounds. Name the fighter that size who has knocked out a prime, name heavyweight. In the passed 20 years or 30 years. Holyfield in 1990 (31 almost 32 years ago) against Buster Douglas is pretty much the last time it's been done.

David Haye KO5 Dereck Chisora in 2012

[margaret thatcher]

i met eddie hall and my guess is he's a tad under 6'2, just to nitpick since we are on the size thread. maybe i can team up with joe kelly to find out

but the trend in strongman seems to be towards increasingly consistently the super tall guys winning

[Controversial]

Fury again showed just how well he can use his size and how much of an advantage it can be. Whyte is 6'4" and 18 stone so would have been a giant in most eras yet he couldn't get near Fury and was made to look useless. Whyte may not be the greatest fighter in the world but he is strong and tough but it meant nothing as Fury was too big, fast and awkward.

[margaret thatcher]

Fury again showed just how well he can use his size and how much of an advantage it can be. Whyte is 6'4" and 18 stone so would have been a giant in most eras yet he couldn't get near Fury and was made to look useless. Whyte may not be the greatest fighter in the world but he is strong and tough but it meant nothing as Fury was too big, fast and awkward.

BUT HE GOT DROPPED BY STEVE CUNNINGHAM OMG

[Riddick Bowie]

I have little doubt that Joe Louis would have KOd Whyte without issue.

Carrying all that extra heft does not enhance chin or talent. And it certainly doesn't speed you up.

[HomicideHenry]

Fury again showed just how well he can use his size and how much of an advantage it can be. Whyte is 6'4" and 18 stone so would have been a giant in most eras yet he couldn't get near Fury and was made to look useless. Whyte may not be the greatest fighter in the world but he is strong and tough but it meant nothing as Fury was too big, fast and awkward.

The key operative word in what you wrote was, "just how well he can use his size," because size alone means very little. Fury is dangerous to any heavyweight in boxing history because of the athleticism and skill and conditioning that goes along with the size that he has.

As for Margaret Thatcher constantly bringing up opponents from over a decade ago, like Steve Cunningham, for me it is a bit asinine to do so because Tyson Fury today is far and away better than the version that fought Cunningham--- and by Fury's own admission back then he threw away all science and therefore the fight became more competitive than it should have been.

Such logic is like the numbskulls who kept bringing up Wladimir Klitschko's losses to Lamon Brewster and Corrie Sanders when he was world champion and was certainly far and away better than he was when he fought those guys.

Furthermore how Fury fought early on in his career, versus how he fought in the middle of his career, versus how he fights now--- the man has made at least four or five changes to his style. It's like pretending that he always fought the same way, never improving never adding more tools to the tool chest, etc.

I have little doubt that Joe Louis would have KOd Whyte without issue.

Carrying all that extra heft does not enhance chin or talent. And it certainly doesn't speed you up.

I can certainly agree with you there. Whyte should have came in 220-230. Why so many heavyweights feel they need to come in heavy to face Fury kind of perplexes me when it's going to take every bit of conditioning, speed, and skills you have to remotely make a difference.

That is why I say Usyk is the only person out there who remotely stands a chance because he has that old school conditioning and legitimate warrior mentality of perpetually staying in great condition to be able to do whatever you need to do the entire distance. To be as effective in the last round as you are in the first round.

But ultimately size will be the difference in that fight because both Tyson Fury and Usyk are world class tacticians and stylists--- so the Ukrainian definitely has a hurdle to climb over. Don't get me wrong it will be competitive but I think Fury basically controls the entire fight and any risks made by Usyk will only result in him getting busted up if not knocked out.

[Controversial]

The key operative word in what you wrote was, "just how well he can use his size," because size alone means very little. Fury is dangerous to any heavyweight in boxing history because of the athleticism and skill and conditioning that goes along with the size that he has.

Absolutely, you only have to look at the bigger and harder punching David Price to see the difference real talent makes.

[Ambling Alp II]

At a certain point, size means nothing. If Whyte was better than Fury, he would won. He is not very good, so he lost.

[DrDuke]

At a certain point, size means nothing. If Whyte was better than Fury, he would won. He is not very good, so he lost.

At a certain point, when a fighter is a sh!thouse. A more or less decent boxer can take an advantage of such features like height, reach and reasonably superior weight. It's a part of skillset to use anthropometrics.

Fury exactly took an advantage of his height and reach against Whyte, although he indeed surpasses Whyte not only with this skill.

David Price is a good example of not having such abilities.