Page 17 of 21
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 09 May 2022, 04:17
by Riddick Bowie
Seamus wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 19:21
Jay Nady was all over John Ruiz any time he clinched with RJJ. That was the difference in the fight.
So your issue is he enforced the rules of boxing in a boxing match?
Could Ruiz not use all his extra mass to attack and KO little Roy without the illegal holding and mauling bit?
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 09 May 2022, 05:34
by DrDuke
Obviously, there should be skill to use size. The sh!thouses like John Ruiz and Primo Carnera couldn't do it properly. Yet some folks treat size like an absolutely unnecessary thing.
Only people, who don't understand the sport at all, can claim, that it's equally easy to break through the range in order to land a punch and to keep the smaller opponent at bay from the distance, or that physical affair can be the same easy for the two fighters of different size, but equal skill-wise. Not every competitor is Joe Frazier or Mike Tyson.
The Klit era could have been comparably weak, but exactly Klits dominated it. Not Valuev, not Tony Thompson, not David Price, not Mariusz Wach. Both Klits could make an advantage of size.
Fury, Wilder and Joshua can make an advantage of size. Dominic Breazeale and Efe Ajagba are far worse at it. Not every competitor is Oleksandr Usyk to deal with good big opponents.
The major point is that it's possible to make an advantage of size and it's has been demonstrated frequently.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 09 May 2022, 06:17
by Controversial
Most of the greatest fighters in boxing history are from the lighter divisions, they are normally the fighters that are the most well rounded, speed, fitness, endurance, boxing ability etc... So surely if they just bulk up they would dominate the less skilled HW division? Except we know that doesn't work because more often than not they don't dominate when they try and move up one or two divisions. Plus lots of them don't even try and move up. And I don't mean adding a few pounds and winning a light or super version of a title, I mean actually jumping whole divisions. Yes there will be examples when they have success but even then there is a limit to it. If not whatever example you think of why didn't they go up another entire weight division. Could Mayweather have been a force in the MW division? Could Pac have dominated at MW? Could Duran have been a force at LHW? How about arguably the greatest fighter in history, SRR, pack on a few pounds and become HW champ? Anyone would say no of course not they are too small. So size matters in these instances and can even negate pure skill. I'm sure any of these fighters could beat someone much bigger but on the whole they would struggle more and more the heavier they got and this would be exacerbated the more skilled their opponent was. Would Marciano have remained unbeaten if everyone he fought was 6'4 and 16+ stone? Probably not.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 09 May 2022, 06:59
by Riddick Bowie
Controversial wrote: ↑09 May 2022, 06:17
Most of the greatest fighters in boxing history are from the lighter divisions, they are normally the fighters that are the most well rounded, speed, fitness, endurance, boxing ability etc... So surely if they just bulk up they would dominate the less skilled HW division? Except we know that doesn't work because more often than not they don't dominate when they try and move up one or two divisions. Plus lots of them don't even try and move up. And I don't mean adding a few pounds and winning a light or super version of a title, I mean actually jumping whole divisions. Yes there will be examples when they have success but even then there is a limit to it. If not whatever example you think of why didn't they go up another entire weight division. Could Mayweather have been a force in the MW division? Could Pac have dominated at MW? Could Duran have been a force at LHW? How about arguably the greatest fighter in history, SRR, pack on a few pounds and become HW champ? Anyone would say no of course not they are too small. So size matters in these instances and can even negate pure skill. I'm sure any of these fighters could beat someone much bigger but on the whole they would struggle more and more the heavier they got and this would be exacerbated the more skilled their opponent was. Would Marciano have remained unbeaten if everyone he fought was 6'4 and 16+ stone? Probably not.
Facile argument because those lighter div fighters are little people. Bulking up would help nothing. 185lb men are not little, they're big strong blokes, and the ones who are punchers empirically have the strength to hurt big men.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 09 May 2022, 07:37
by Controversial
Billy Tully wrote: ↑09 May 2022, 06:59
Controversial wrote: ↑09 May 2022, 06:17
Most of the greatest fighters in boxing history are from the lighter divisions, they are normally the fighters that are the most well rounded, speed, fitness, endurance, boxing ability etc... So surely if they just bulk up they would dominate the less skilled HW division? Except we know that doesn't work because more often than not they don't dominate when they try and move up one or two divisions. Plus lots of them don't even try and move up. And I don't mean adding a few pounds and winning a light or super version of a title, I mean actually jumping whole divisions. Yes there will be examples when they have success but even then there is a limit to it. If not whatever example you think of why didn't they go up another entire weight division. Could Mayweather have been a force in the MW division? Could Pac have dominated at MW? Could Duran have been a force at LHW? How about arguably the greatest fighter in history, SRR, pack on a few pounds and become HW champ? Anyone would say no of course not they are too small. So size matters in these instances and can even negate pure skill. I'm sure any of these fighters could beat someone much bigger but on the whole they would struggle more and more the heavier they got and this would be exacerbated the more skilled their opponent was. Would Marciano have remained unbeaten if everyone he fought was 6'4 and 16+ stone? Probably not.
Facile argument because those lighter div fighters are little people. Bulking up would help nothing. 185lb men are not little, they're big strong blokes, and the ones who are punchers empirically have the strength to hurt big men.
But smaller fighters are normally far more skilled and faster than most HWs, their skill and speed would get them through it surely? Most of the examples I gave were just moving up a division or two from their normal weight class, not even moving to HW, you think that has nothing to do with size being a factor? Hagler considered by many to the be the greatest MW in history yet he didn't move to LHW, the reason being his advantages lessen the bigger the opponent gets. So scrap the CW division then and see how many of these smaller guys do against HWs, at least they don't need to bulk up, they can just stay at 13 stone.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 09 May 2022, 09:21
by Ezzard
If top 10 contenders at Cruiser and Lightheavy could operate just as successfully at Heavy then they would.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 09 May 2022, 09:22
by Seamus
Arguing about endless hypotheticals along with obscure reasoning, i,e "sure the big guy held a belt, and defended it a few times, but he was never dominant" . The bottomline is we just don't have small heavyweight champions anymore, and that means what they actually weigh, and not what they once weighed or what someone believes their optimum weight would be, or if someone believes they looked no bigger than the old time champs in photos.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 09 May 2022, 09:26
by Ezzard
Seamus wrote: ↑09 May 2022, 09:22
Arguing about endless hypotheticals along with obscure reasoning, i,e "sure the big guy held a belt, and defended it a few times, but he was never dominant" . The bottomline is we just don't have small heavyweight champions anymore, and that means what they actually weigh, and not what they once weighed or what someone believes their optimum weight would be, or if someone believes they looked no bigger than the old time champs in photos.
This should really put the whole debate to bed.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 09 May 2022, 09:37
by Seamus
It won't
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 09 May 2022, 10:55
by Controversial
Ezzard wrote: ↑09 May 2022, 09:21
If top 10 contenders at Cruiser and Lightheavy could operate just as successfully at Heavy then they would.
Exactly, that's where the big money is at after all.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 09 May 2022, 11:14
by margaret thatcher
yep, these guys who are about 185 on fight night (modern light heavy size), just like marciano, dempsey, johnson, etc were, have every incentive to be taking over at hw, so where have they all been?
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 09 May 2022, 15:03
by oogiebe
Controversial wrote: ↑09 May 2022, 10:55
Ezzard wrote: ↑09 May 2022, 09:21
If top 10 contenders at Cruiser and Lightheavy could operate just as successfully at Heavy then they would.
Exactly, that's where the big money is at after all.
Beat me to the proverbial punch! yes!
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 09 May 2022, 15:18
by Riddick Bowie
The point being made is that GREAT smaller heavies could beat big modern heavies. To interpret that as 'any 190 man should be dominating at heavyweight! Where are they all then!?' is such a misunderstanding that it is surely wilful.
It requires a high level of talent and intangibles, like RJJ making easy work of Ruiz who could bull around mammoths but not a blown-up middle. Most fighters don't possess such qualities. It's why greats are so great. Because they do.
Why there aren't great fighters around 190 anymore is an interesting question. Just because there aren't right now, doesn't mean previous generations weren't. Have you noticed American heavyweights have also disappeared from the top 10? Where did they all go? Only 2 in the top 10, Wilder and Michael Hunter, utterly lamentable. Does that mean all American heavies prior to this era were crap, because America mysteriously doesn't produce heavyweight talent NOW?
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 09 May 2022, 15:32
by Seamus
No surprise Roy didn't hang around at HW.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 10 May 2022, 08:41
by Controversial
Exactly, not good enough to beat the best big HWs so scarpered back to LHW, a good big 'un beats a good little 'un as the saying goes.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 10 May 2022, 09:07
by Ezzard
Jones had no future at HW and knew it. He beat a hand-picked belt holder (though what's new there?). And brought in a ref who was on-narrative.
Jones would have been cracked by almost all previous HW champs regardless of their size.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 10 May 2022, 10:48
by Ambling Alp II
Controversial wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 07:15
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.
He isn't small. He is the ideal size. He is small compared to the other heavyweights of today. And he is at least the 2nd best. How surprising.
Liston would have had a 6 inch reach advantage over Usyk.
Glad to hear it's just weight though. Constantly hearing about the weight "advantage".
Are we going to pretend that Wilder was winning fights because his expert skill of using reach? Come on. He had a big punch and not much more. Yet that was enough to beat one heavier guy after another.
No comment Dempsey and Louis feasting on big heavyweights?
Are we going to continue to pretend that it didn't happen?
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 10 May 2022, 10:49
by Ambling Alp II
Ezzard wrote: ↑10 May 2022, 09:07
Jones had no future at HW and knew it. He beat a hand-picked belt holder (though what's new there?). And brought in a ref who was on-narrative.
Jones would have been cracked by almost all previous HW champs regardless of their size.
Love that people are now whining that the referee was not letting the fighters clinch.
How many times have people complained about too much clinching? But when the smaller guy wins, it's a crybaby excuse.
As for how Jones would have done, again it's he would have lost if he fought this guy or that guy. Without getting used to the extra, he beat one of the best heavyweights in the world.
He was 5'11. 193 pounds. 74 inch reach. Happened with the the last 30 years.
When it actually happened, in real life, Jones won.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 10 May 2022, 10:54
by Ezzard
I'll keep an open mind. When your 190 lb messiah takes the HW throne you can say I told you so. Until then...
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 10 May 2022, 10:55
by margaret thatcher
Ezzard wrote: ↑10 May 2022, 10:54
I'll keep an open mind. When your 190 lb messiah takes the HW throne you can say I told you so. Until then...
we've been waiting and waiting and waiting. best they can manage in decades is a guy who came up for 1 fight and beat someone nowhere near the best. these guys the size of marciano, dempsey, johnson, etc have every incentive to become heavyweight king if they could
btw, liston's reach was listed at 80.5 as well, in the martin fight for example. why list something that specific if it was much bigger? 84 might be a myth.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 10 May 2022, 11:06
by Ambling Alp II
Ezzard wrote: ↑10 May 2022, 10:54
I'll keep an open mind. When your 190 lb messiah takes the HW throne you can say I told you so. Until then...
Sorry, guess 193 doesn't count.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 10 May 2022, 11:07
by Controversial
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑10 May 2022, 10:49
Ezzard wrote: ↑10 May 2022, 09:07
Jones had no future at HW and knew it. He beat a hand-picked belt holder (though what's new there?). And brought in a ref who was on-narrative.
Jones would have been cracked by almost all previous HW champs regardless of their size.
Love that people are now whining that the referee was not letting the fighters clinch.
How many times have people complained about too much clinching? But when the smaller guy wins, it's a crybaby excuse.
As for how Jones would have done, again it's he would have lost if he fought this guy or that guy. Without getting used to the extra, he beat one of the best heavyweights in the world.
He was 5'11. 193 pounds. 74 inch reach. Happened with the the last 30 years.
When it actually happened, in real life, Jones won.
Why did RJJ not stay at HW then?
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 10 May 2022, 11:10
by Controversial
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑10 May 2022, 10:48
Controversial wrote: ↑08 May 2022, 07:15
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.
Glad to hear it's just weight though. Constantly hearing about the weight "advantage".
When did anyone say it was just weight? The thread title is "size of HWs compared to other eras" (not weight of HWs) and the height and reach of guys like Fury has been mentioned throughout.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 10 May 2022, 12:42
by Ezzard
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑10 May 2022, 11:06
Ezzard wrote: ↑10 May 2022, 10:54
I'll keep an open mind. When your 190 lb messiah takes the HW throne you can say I told you so. Until then...
Sorry, guess 193 doesn't count.
It can in your mind. Pretty sparse evidence. But if you want to call Jones a HW champion sort of shows how little proof there is.
Re: Thoughts now on size of HWs compared to other eras?
Posted: 10 May 2022, 13:18
by Seamus
By the way, I thought Mike Perez might turn out to be a pretty good heavyweight some years ago. He showed some promise, but in his last several bouts in that class he looked a little heavy. He got himself in much better shape now, and is considerably lighter. Instead of cleaning out the heavyweights though he now fights as a Cruiserweight