BoxRec

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 12:58

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 11:50

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 11:30

David Haye was not a natural heavyweight, quite the opposite in fact. David had to bulk up and was lighter between fights.

He’s a big lad having met him, he’s 6’3 and still weighs 210 today aged in his mid 40s. He struggled to make CW

When he fought Wlad and Valuev, he was still having to bulk up.

Yeah exactly as they were really big, imagine if Haye was a 6’0” LHW

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:12

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 12:58

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 11:50

He’s a big lad having met him, he’s 6’3 and still weighs 210 today aged in his mid 40s. He struggled to make CW

When he fought Wlad and Valuev, he was still having to bulk up.

Yeah exactly as they were really big, imagine if Haye was a 6’0” LHW

Usyk's 6' 3" and he stands alone at the top of the division. Louis was an inch and a half shorter and you think that makes all the difference? Height is everything? Skill is nothing?

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:39

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:12

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 12:58

When he fought Wlad and Valuev, he was still having to bulk up.

Yeah exactly as they were really big, imagine if Haye was a 6’0” LHW

Usyk's 6' 3" and he stands alone at the top of the division. Louis was an inch and a half shorter and you think that makes all the difference? Height is everything? Skill is nothing?

You are doing it again, I was talking about his opposition.
I said Louis would have some success but he’d find it harder as he wouldn’t be fighting predominantly LHWs

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:50

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:39

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:12

Yeah exactly as they were really big, imagine if Haye was a 6’0” LHW

Usyk's 6' 3" and he stands alone at the top of the division. Louis was an inch and a half shorter and you think that makes all the difference? Height is everything? Skill is nothing?

You are doing it again, I was talking about his opposition.
I said Louis would have some success but he’d find it harder as he wouldn’t be fighting predominantly LHWs

Yeah, I'm typing.

Joe Louis might well beat a few big heavyweights today, but like I said previously, the law of averages would catch up with him. Young Foreman was considered a big heavyweight, now Usyk who's the same size even a little bigger gets called a small heavyweight. Times have changed.

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:50

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:39

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:12

Yeah exactly as they were really big, imagine if Haye was a 6’0” LHW

Usyk's 6' 3" and he stands alone at the top of the division. Louis was an inch and a half shorter and you think that makes all the difference? Height is everything? Skill is nothing?

You are doing it again, I was talking about his opposition.
I said Louis would have some success but he’d find it harder as he wouldn’t be fighting predominantly LHWs

You didn't answer my question. Does an inch and a half in height make all the difference?

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 15:08

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:50

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:39




Usyk's 6' 3" and he stands alone at the top of the division. Louis was an inch and a half shorter and you think that makes all the difference? Height is everything? Skill is nothing?

You are doing it again, I was talking about his opposition.
I said Louis would have some success but he’d find it harder as he wouldn’t be fighting predominantly LHWs

You didn't answer my question. Does an inch and a half in height make all the difference?

I never said it did, you keep thinking I said that.

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 15:36

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 15:08

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:50

You are doing it again, I was talking about his opposition.
I said Louis would have some success but he’d find it harder as he wouldn’t be fighting predominantly LHWs

You didn't answer my question. Does an inch and a half in height make all the difference?

I never said it did, you keep thinking I said that.

So you don't think an inch and a half makes all the difference?

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 15:56

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 15:36

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 15:08

You didn't answer my question. Does an inch and a half in height make all the difference?

I never said it did, you keep thinking I said that.

So you don't think an inch and a half makes all the difference?

No but I think overall size and weight can make a difference. As I said before Bivol would’ve been a HW in that era but there’s a reason he isn’t today.

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 16:37

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 15:56

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 15:36

I never said it did, you keep thinking I said that.

So you don't think an inch and a half makes all the difference?

No but I think overall size and weight can make a difference. As I said before Bivol would’ve been a HW in that era but there’s a reason he isn’t today.

So you're saying the inch and a half doesn't matter, thanks for clarifying. With that in mind, there's no reason why Louis could beat AJ and Fury, just like Usyk did.

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 17:30

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 16:37

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 15:56

So you don't think an inch and a half makes all the difference?

No but I think overall size and weight can make a difference. As I said before Bivol would’ve been a HW in that era but there’s a reason he isn’t today.

So you're saying the inch and a half doesn't matter, thanks for clarifying. With that in mind, there's no reason why Louis could beat AJ and Fury, just like Usyk did.

Tommy Hearns was taller so he would’ve done even better lol

Seamus wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 15:06 Joe Louis might well beat a few big heavyweights today, but like I said previously, the law of averages would catch up with him. Young Foreman was considered a big heavyweight, now Usyk who's the same size even a little bigger gets called a small heavyweight. Times have changed.

And Usyk is what the number 50 heavyweight? No, his #1. What a total coincidence. The very best guy is the smaller than all of the those guys that are much bigger.

Louis might beat a few bigger ones?
Well, he destroyed Simon, Carnera, and Baer who all weighed 250 or more.

Does none of this sink in?

Enough with the theories. If a guy can do it, he can do it. Doesn't matter how big he is.

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:50

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:39

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:12

Yeah exactly as they were really big, imagine if Haye was a 6’0” LHW

Usyk's 6' 3" and he stands alone at the top of the division. Louis was an inch and a half shorter and you think that makes all the difference? Height is everything? Skill is nothing?

You are doing it again, I was talking about his opposition.
I said Louis would have some success but he’d find it harder as he wouldn’t be fighting predominantly LHWs

Why? We saw what happened when Louis fought a guy that huge. He destroyed them. How about we go with what happened in real life?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 20:00

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:50

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:39
Usyk's 6' 3" and he stands alone at the top of the division. Louis was an inch and a half shorter and you think that makes all the difference? Height is everything? Skill is nothing?

You are doing it again, I was talking about his opposition.
I said Louis would have some success but he’d find it harder as he wouldn’t be fighting predominantly LHWs

Why? We saw what happened when Louis fought a guy that huge. He destroyed them. How about we go with what happened in real life?

We just go around in circles. Simon, Baer, Galento etc weren’t anything special. Using that analogy you might as well say you won the 100m dash at school so that means could beat Usain Bolt. There are levels and no one is saying size trumps all. I’ll ask again, if Bivol would’ve been a HW in that era (and likely a good one) why is he not a HW today? People say with modern training, diet progression etc it’s easy to bulk up yet I don’t hear Bivol clambering to fight HWs.

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 20:17

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 20:00

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 13:50

You are doing it again, I was talking about his opposition.
I said Louis would have some success but he’d find it harder as he wouldn’t be fighting predominantly LHWs

Why? We saw what happened when Louis fought a guy that huge. He destroyed them. How about we go with what happened in real life?

We just go around in circles. Simon, Baer, Galento etc weren’t anything special. Using that analogy you might as well say you won the 100m dash at school so that means could beat Usain Bolt. There are levels and no one is saying size trumps all. I’ll ask again, if Bivol would’ve been a HW in that era (and likely a good one) why is he not a HW today? People say with modern training, diet progression etc it’s easy to bulk up yet I don’t hear Bivol clambering to fight HWs.

Bivol would probably do well as a hw today. I can easily see him beating a guy like Joseph Parker.

Buddy Baer, Abe Simon, Primo Carnera, Tony Galento wouldn't have cracked the top 5 in the 70's, some years they wouldn't crack the top 10.

The Bivol argument is pretty sound. He's a truly great LHW. The big money is at HW but there's no way he will compete there in today's division.

The there's Usyk who would have been a giant in Louis's era. But is small today.

Joe was a great and would have had success in the 60s and 70s. He was still within the size range that any disadvantages would have been outweighed by his superior skill. Frazier at his best was roughly 10 pounds bigger. And he was a great of the era.

If memory serves me Joe was dropped in the 1st round on 4 occassions. I think Walcott dropped him in the second in their rematch too. The argument on one side is Joe always got up to win. But the counter is that if a great finisher like Dempsey or Tyson or Foreman dropped him there would be no repreive.

My guess is Louis cements himself as a great in the 1960s-70s. He would have lost a few but he would have got some big wins too. He might even have come out as the best of the era.

If he was around today I doubt he'd even compete in the HW division.

One thing to add... Fighters who tend to have more success at higher weights are more likely utilise their defence and superior stamina. It's much more difficult for punchers and aggressive fighters to move up the weights.

Seamus wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 15:06 Joe Louis might well beat a few big heavyweights today, but like I said previously, the law of averages would catch up with him. Young Foreman was considered a big heavyweight, now Usyk who's the same size even a little bigger gets called a small heavyweight. Times have changed.

Have to agree.

hhaehre wrote: ↑28 Mar 2025, 07:42

Controversial wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 20:17

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 20:00

Why? We saw what happened when Louis fought a guy that huge. He destroyed them. How about we go with what happened in real life?

We just go around in circles. Simon, Baer, Galento etc weren’t anything special. Using that analogy you might as well say you won the 100m dash at school so that means could beat Usain Bolt. There are levels and no one is saying size trumps all. I’ll ask again, if Bivol would’ve been a HW in that era (and likely a good one) why is he not a HW today? People say with modern training, diet progression etc it’s easy to bulk up yet I don’t hear Bivol clambering to fight HWs.

Bivol would probably do well as a hw today. I can easily see him beating a guy like Joseph Parker.

Who knows but I doubt he would try, he has hinted at a move to CW though.

Seamus wrote: ↑27 Mar 2025, 15:06 Joe Louis might well beat a few big heavyweights today, but like I said previously, the law of averages would catch up with him. Young Foreman was considered a big heavyweight, now Usyk who's the same size even a little bigger gets called a small heavyweight. Times have changed.

Yeah, time's change, but a small heavyweight sits at the top of the throne with back to back wins over a guy six inches taller than him. Because size does not decide who the winner of a fight is. Fury isn't automatically better just because he's the latest generation and he's the biggest.

Would Valuev beat Jack Dempsey just because of evolution? How about Erislandy Lara against SRR? SRL would have his arse handed to him by Boots Ennis? Tank Davis would obliterate Roberto Duran? How do you see those fights going Seamus? I'm assuming Harry Greb would be completely and utterly dominated by Chris Eubank Junior?

I'd say 6'3" and around 225lbs is a good size for a HW today if they have the fitness, chin and ability to go with it. Still considered 'small' compared to some of the giants but a decent size.

Sure that sounds good. however, if a guy much smaller or bigger regardless of when he fought, was great, then he was great.
Usyk really is not that bigger than Louis. It stands to reason, that a guy a little smaller who puncher an awful lot harder, (and threw a lot of punchers, was accurate, and was great at finishing opponents) would do very well now.

Keep hearing that Louis only beat 17 opponents over the magical 200-pound mark. guess what? Usyk has beaten a grand total of 7.

Keep hearing that Louis' wins over big guys like Simon, Carnera, and Baer don't count. After all these guys were nothing special. Well is Tyson Fury "special"? Is his power special? Is his chin special? Is his jab special? Is his workrate special? I think we know that the answers are no. Yet Fury has been near the top for a while now.

Of course, the 1960s and 1970s was a great era for heavyweights. Louis would not have been as good as Ali in the Ali's prime. Neither would anyone else. However, he would have been #2. Maybe he loses to Frazier, foreman, the older version of Ali, Holmes later on. in the 1970s. He fights them mall multiple times, he probably wins some and loses some. However, he was clearly better than everyone else.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑28 Mar 2025, 11:13

Keep hearing that Louis only beat 17 opponents over the magical 200-pound mark. guess what? Usyk has beaten a grand total of 7.

That was more to highlight that there weren't many big HW's in that era, a lot of Louis' opponents wouldn't be HWs today. Of course Usyk has only had 7 fights at HW but even at CW he was still bigger than a lot of Louis opponents. Louis would've had success no doubt but he'd find it harder against the bigger guys of the 60s/70s.

Controversial wrote: ↑28 Mar 2025, 11:44

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑28 Mar 2025, 11:13

Keep hearing that Louis only beat 17 opponents over the magical 200-pound mark. guess what? Usyk has beaten a grand total of 7.

That was more to highlight that there weren't many big HW's in that era, a lot of Louis' opponents wouldn't be HWs today. Of course Usyk has only had 7 fights at HW but even at CW he was still bigger than a lot of Louis opponents. Louis would've had success no doubt but he'd find it harder against the bigger guys of the 60s/70s.

But you admitted size isn't everything.

I think the last time a guy weighing under 195 won a world championship fight at HW was over 60 years ago.

It used to be a regular occurence. It's pretty much gone from 3 times a year to never.