BoxRec

Not saying it is irrelevant.
There is an ideal or optimum size if you want to call it that. That is what I and others have long been saying.

It's not good to be small or too big. It is like that in most sports.

Controversial wrote: ↑03 May 2022, 02:47

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑01 May 2022, 16:29

Controversial wrote: ↑01 May 2022, 05:56

I was assuming the count you made was for HWs going back 80-100+ years, thats what I meant by the older time HWs. Generally the BIG guys then weren't that good and the good HWs would likely be LHW or CW today. The 60/70s was the real turning point in HWs generally getting bigger than previous generations. Even then Foreman fought lots of guys under 200, as did Liston. But the fact remains how many guys have been successfuls from moving up from lighter weights as a major force in the HW division in the last 30+ years? Really only Holyfield, Usyk remains to be seen and Holyfield was pretty much the same size as Ali so not really small. Both would’ve been classed as fairly big HWs had they fought in Marcianos era even when they were fighting at CW.

Why did they introduce the CW division in 1979 or do you think they should go back to the 175 limit? Why do you think fighters and trainers mention size and weight so much if it's not relevant?

Obviously Holyfield. (He wasn't naturally as big as Ali) Usyk has been. Moorer was successful. Chris Byrd was successful. Jones only had the one fight but he won.

Michael Spinks was the first light heavyweight champion to win the heavyweight title. (Fitzsimmons actually won the heavyweight title first. Tunney and Charles never got a shot at the light heavyweight title. ) Obviously some tried and failed. Well under 200 is not ideal. They were at a disadvantage when fighting an opponent who was at a ideal size.

Why did they introduce the cruiserweight title ? The main reason was money. With a another division there is more titles. More titles equals more money. At least in the short run.
There should not be a straw weight, a junior flyweight or junior bantam weight. They exist so that there are more titles. And with it more title fights and more money.

A few smaller fighters winning the odd fight at HW doesn't even the playing field as it's more of a one off than a regular occurrence. Moorer, Spinks, Byrd and Jones had varying levels of success but I wouldn't say the dominated the HW division or were a major force to be reckoned with over a long period of time and none would be considered HW greats. How long ago was this now, no one in the last 30 odd years that springs to mind, maybe David Haye but again limited success. Canelo could probably beat a HW the same way Charley Burley did. A smaller skilful fighter can have success over a much bigger less skilled fighter. You are kind of contradicting yourself though as you say the CW was only introduced for money, which kind of suggests you think it should be scrapped and it goes back to the 175 limit. But then you say under 200 is not ideal. It's not ideal as its too small, thats the point. If they removed the CW division no one today weighing 175-200 would have success at HW which wasn't the case decades ago.

You have to read what I am saying carefully and understand the nuances. There have not been many smaller heavyweights. However given how rare they have been , it says something that as many have done well as they have.

How many small heavyweights have "dominated for a long period of time? Well how many big ones have dominated for a long period of time? Klitschko against terrible competition and that's it. Even Lennox Lewis didn't "dominate" for a long period of time.

The cruiserweight division was introduce only for money, but obviously that a major reason.
" If they removed the CW division no one today weighing 175-200 would have success at HW which wasn't the case decades ago."
[/quote]
You don't know that. You just think that. That's not evidence. Fantasy Fights are not evidence. Speculating is not evidence.
I can guess too.
I would guess that guys naturally just over 175 would lose a little weight and probably be light heavyweights.
I don't think anyone small would dominate. However, some would have some success if they were skillful enough. We know that because even in the magical time period of the 30 years, there have been some who have. Guessing you would be seeing more guys just a little over 200.

It's not ideal to be too small. Also not ideal to be too big.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑03 May 2022, 11:15
You have to read what I am saying carefully and understand the nuances. There have not been many smaller heavyweights. However given how rare they have been , it says something that as many have done well as they have.

How many small heavyweights have "dominated for a long period of time? Well how many big ones have dominated for a long period of time? Klitschko against terrible competition and that's it. Even Lennox Lewis didn't "dominate" for a long period of time.

The cruiserweight division was introduce only for money, but obviously that a major reason.

" If they removed the CW division no one today weighing 175-200 would have success at HW which wasn't the case decades ago."

You don't know that. You just think that. That's not evidence. Fantasy Fights are not evidence. Speculating is not evidence.
I can guess too.
I would guess that guys naturally just over 175 would lose a little weight and probably be light heavyweights.
I don't think anyone small would dominate. However, some would have some success if they were skillful enough. We know that because even in the magical time period of the 30 years, there have been some who have. Guessing you would be seeing more guys just a little over 200.

It's not ideal to be too small. Also not ideal to be too big.

I haven't mentioned fantasy fights, it's a pretty good assumption to think if the CW division was scrapped no one weighing 175-200 would be a major success at HW today. Lewis was a top contender for most of his career and the best HW on the planet for a long time and one of the greatest HWs ever. Not for one or two fights like Moorer, Jones etc.. Only Holyfield had real success after bulking up from CW (aged 25), one CW since 1979 who made it as a world class HW who was competitive and successful against the best big guys for several years (ignoring any alleged rumours surrounding how he bulked up). And I don't really class Holyfield as being small.

Well it is a fantasy fight if you are saying no one under 200 could be successful .No one would be successful?
No I doubt anyone would come in and be "the guy for 10 years. How we would see some of these be contenders.

When smaller guys do up, they almost always have some success. But then the excuses come in.
But we just saw Usyk move up. But he is too big. Well he is still much lighter than most of the guys.
Jones only had the one fight.
Moorer doesn't count? He was one of the top heavyweight for several years.
Byrd was one of the top heavyweights for several years.
Holyfield was at his best when he was 210 and below.

You could actually argue that the sub 200 guys have that moved up have done better in the 1990s and 2000s than they did in the 1970s.

Lewis is the only really big heavyweight that was great. And look how bad he looked against a shot Holyfield in their 2nd fight. Had a ton of trouble against Mavrovic, who nobody heard of going in.

Once upon a time I would have said someone 6'3 and 220 pounds was really all the size you needed to be heavyweight champion of the world. I'm not exactly sure that's the case anymore when you have a field of really exceptional large heavyweights.

But--- people like Fury, Joshua, Wilder are exceptions to the rule, they are not the standard. So I fully expect when they retire that you are going to see an influx of much smaller and athletic heavyweights basically take over the division.

Usyk isn’t heavyweight champion?

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑03 May 2022, 20:17 Usyk isn’t heavyweight champion?

No he's a blown up Cruiserweight

In the majority of cases being bigger is an advantage. It can offset the fact that the bigger fighter might be less skilled.

It all comes down to how much of an advantage it gives you.

Only up to a certain point. It's been proven time and time again.

Where is the proof? Interested to know.

The HW division is unique as there isn't a weight limit so you can get huge size and weight disparities. Other divisions you are more reliant on boxing ability, speed, fitness etc to make it to the top. Plus often you are fighting guys pretty much the same weight as you. Whereas HWs can have success just because they are big and strong. Many HWs aren't that skilful, they can just be big lumps or hard punching so they could flatten anyone if they landed right. Weight cutting at the lighter weights can give fighters a big advantage if they are walking into the ring 15-20lbs heavier than they weighed in at, so if its an advantage then it must be an advantage at HW too. I agree not all HWs look in great condition, too much fat or too much muscle can be as bad as each other and someone skilled will normally beat someone who isn't. But shape can be deceiving, plenty of decent HWs didn't have great physiques. But giving away a lot of weight, height and reach will make things harder, not always but it can, and those things can be harder to overcome the more skilled the bigger guy is.

Agree.

Ezzard wrote: ↑05 May 2022, 06:00 Where is the proof? Interested to know.

Is the biggest heavyweight currently the best heavyweight? No.
Was the biggest heavyweight 10 years ago the best heavyweight? No.
How about 20 years ago? No.
Has the biggest heavyweight ever in the history of boxing? No.

Outside of Lennox Lewis, how many really big heavyweights have been great? Only Riddick Bowe and that was for a relatively period of of time.

What happens when a really talented cruiser/light heavy goes for the heavyweight title? He often wins it.
Why have light heavyweights been more successful doing since the 1980s than they were against the medium sized (ie ideal sized) 1970s heavyweights?

What happens when a great fighter under 200 fights a fighter over 220? He wins more than 90% of the time.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 May 2022, 11:16

Ezzard wrote: ↑05 May 2022, 06:00 Where is the proof? Interested to know.

Is the biggest heavyweight currently the best heavyweight? No.
Was the biggest heavyweight 10 years ago the best heavyweight? No.
How about 20 years ago? No.
Has the biggest heavyweight ever in the history of boxing? No.

Outside of Lennox Lewis, how many really big heavyweights have been great? Only Riddick Bowe and that was for a relatively period of of time.

You're talking absolutely outrageous nonsense. For the last f*cking 25 years the division is dominated by big bois. Lewis, Klits, Joshua, Wilder, Fury. The small ones were short-lived opportunists. Only Usyk seems like the next great small guy, but he still has something to prove.

usyk isnt even that small, 6'3/78/220+ guy ........any generation but the last few that's a decent size

hardly 5'7/185 sam langford or 5'10/185 rocky

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 May 2022, 11:16

Ezzard wrote: ↑05 May 2022, 06:00 Where is the proof? Interested to know.

Is the biggest heavyweight currently the best heavyweight? No.
Was the biggest heavyweight 10 years ago the best heavyweight? No.
How about 20 years ago? No.
Has the biggest heavyweight ever in the history of boxing? No.

Outside of Lennox Lewis, how many really big heavyweights have been great? Only Riddick Bowe and that was for a relatively period of of time.

What happens when a really talented cruiser/light heavy goes for the heavyweight title? He often wins it.
Why have light heavyweights been more successful doing since the 1980s than they were against the medium sized (ie ideal sized) 1970s heavyweights?

What happens when a great fighter under 200 fights a fighter over 220? He wins more than 90% of the time.

The biggest not being the best just proves that one big fighter wasn't the best. Someone might say the smallest wasn't the best. Who cares? I don't think anyone is arguing that HWs should be ranked in size order.

Many big heavyweights have been great. Just look at history.

Yes, great smaller fighters can still prevail. More often they do not.

It stands to reason that if size is always an advantage, then the biggest guy would have an advantage over everyone and would sometimes be the best. At least occasionally. But never? In over 130 years?

-"Many big heavyweights have been great. Just look at history. "
Guess I need some names. There is Lennox Lewis. Guess you could count Bowe. That's it. A ton of ideally sized heavyweights, and a few small ones.

-"Great small fighters don't prevail more often than not"? Where is the proof of that? Give me some names of great small heavyweights who actually lost to big heavyweights? In real life. Mythical fights don't count.

-When a a 250 pound guy beats and another 250 pound guy, they didn't "prevail" against a smaller or ideal sized heavyweight. Since the majority of the heavyweight have been big over the magical 30 year timeline, then you would expect the majority of the best heavyweights to be big.

-Again, it is actually surprising to see how many smaller guys or guys moving up have done well in the since the 1980s given how few there have been.
Right before that, in the 1970s, Leon Spinks won the title. No other heavyweight 200 or less or light heavyweight moved up and won the title in the decade. Not many contenders.

-Think hard about that. The smaller heavyweights have done better against the big heavyweights than they have against the ideal sized heavyweights.

Look up the heavyweight rankings on BoxRec and check heights and weights for the top 25, the top 50, the top 100, and it was the same the last decade. And yet here we are 16 pages later !!! arguing what's so obvious you could see it from outerspace, but noooooooooo. I still wanna believe Marciano and Dempsey and Louis and Langford would knockout Fury, and Lennox and the Klitschko's etc.

Yes take a look the top 100. Usyk weigh less than almost all of them. He is ranked #2 . What a coincidence.
Wilder also weighs less than almost all of them. (Had many fights under 220.) He is number 4. Again, what a coincidence.
Two of the lightest guys are in the top 4. You would think they they would be nowhere near the top, given the all important weight "advantage".

Yes almost all of the heavyweights weigh a lot. That doesn't mean they should.
Thing happen in sports all of the time. that shouldn't.

In the NBA, it took about 30 years before teams realized that they should shoot more 3 pointers.
They should run a fast break more often than they do now.

In the NFL, defensive backs constantly have no idea where the ball is and don't knockdown passes and make interceptions that they could easily.

In MLB, managers take out pitchers who have a shutout. That is stupid. Yet that is now the norm.

We know Dempsey could easily beat big heavyweights.
We know Louis could beat big heavyweights.
Why? Because they actually did. It happened. In real life. It's ridiculous to pretend that we don't know.

But we've said numerous times guys like Usyk historically aren't small, he is similar dimensions to Foreman and bigger than Liston. Wilder isn't small, he's one of the tallest HW champs in history. It's not just weight.

wilder's 6'7 has an 83 inch reach, averaged a lean 225 pounds, and was still ripped at 232. pretty much no one is saying guys wilder's size would be less successful in other eras because of their size. he isnt remotely comparable to the fighters who get the 'too small' treatment in these cross era comparisons.

compare his 6'7/83/225 to 5'10/68/185 marciano (as low as the 170s), 5'7/74/185 langford (as low as 150), 6'1/73/185 dempsey (as low as 181), 6'0/74/185 johnson (as low as 160s) etc

totally different, he's got tons of height, reach, and weight on guys like these and most heavyweights throughout history

Wilder is a great example, when size matters. Size isn't only weight, it's also height and reach. Wilder obviously isn't too heavy, so he can't be a weight bully, but he is highly dependant on his height and reach. The guy can't box, he has only his right hand and because of his ability to use his range he was able to deliver his power to many opponents, who were troubling him. He can keep the range and settle targets from the outside. That helped him a lot.

Size matters if you can use it. Ruiz couldn't wade into RJJ because he realised he could get stretched if he did. Weird how he was able to wade into brutes like Rahman, Golota, McCline and Valuev, but not Jones.

Against low ring IQ fighters, size wins. Against high ring IQ fighters, it seems not.

Forever citing the stats of Wilder, Klitschko et al whose wins are all over low IQ oafs (bar the clever but harmless Byrd) doesn't prove that they beat fit, Great fighters of yore with higher ring IQs. Haye and Ibragimov were hardly warriors but they were at least clever and showed Wlad a moving target -- and both escaped unscathed. Saying Bowe, Lewis, Klitschko have dominated for X decades isn't really true as no one dominated the 90s and the Klitschkos reigned over the early 21st C talent vacuum. No great victories between em. It hardly seems a stretch to say smaller Great fighters who beat multiple high IQ boxers could POSSIBLY figure out the one-two of Vitali, the jab & grab/run back in straight lines of Wlad, the Lewis who would lose the plot the moment you took his jab/struggled with a fast pace etc etc. I can accept it would be a hard day at the office, but the size lovers can't even seem to accept that a Great Talent might have more in the toolbag than Chris Arreola and his meaty bosom ilk.

Jay Nady was all over John Ruiz any time he clinched with RJJ. That was the difference in the fight.

Agree.