BoxRec

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xo0rC2SkK0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbwLXQQ46HY

Much has been said about the likes of ex champions and contenders, such as Jeffries and Foreman, even Baer and Marciano--- but what of the modern heavyweights? Do they match up in physical strength? Or are they truly stronger than the past greats?

Above this questions posed to the forum, is an example of one heavyweight in today's time: Tyson Fury.

The first video shows him pushing a tractor and even flipping some rather large tires. The second video, shows him deadlifting 250kgs (over 500 pounds). For a man of 6'9" in height, the latter video is what impresses me most--- considering in squats and deadlifts, the shorter more compact lifters are more suited for those lifts and have a better success rate. The taller someone is, the less likely they are of achieving the lift. It goes against mechanical physics. I have seen countless tall men compete in "Worlds Strongest Man" contests, to fail miserably in deadlifts--- case in point, this year, a Icelander (same height as Fury and nearly 400 pounds) could manage only 7 lifts and was completely gassed out and needed help getting to his feet. On the other hand, on the same contest, a man roughly 6'3" in height was able to pull off 15 lifts of the same weight.

Much can be said about modern fighters vs those of the past but I don't see how you can reasonably say that modern heavyweights are not physically stronger. They are bigger and pound for pound stronger. Why? They lift weights! Lifting weights makes you stronger. Saying otherwise would be like saying running doesn't make you faster or give you more endurance. The more you can lift, the stronger you are. Does it mean they are necessarily fitter? No. Necessarily better fighters? No. Politer? No. Better dresser? No. But stronger? Yes!

tagjohnson wrote:Much can be said about modern fighters vs those of the past but I don't see how you can reasonably say that modern heavyweights are not physically stronger. They are bigger and pound for pound stronger. Why? They lift weights! Lifting weights makes you stronger. Saying otherwise would be like saying running doesn't make you faster or give you more endurance. The more you can lift, the stronger you are. Does it mean they are necessarily fitter? No. Necessarily better fighters? No. Politer? No. Better dresser? No. But stronger? Yes!

A bench-press or dead-lift measures a rather limited area of strength . . .a guy can lift a building and if he is slow as a sloth won't generate the force . . and ultimately the strength, of a faster guy who can only lift only 2/3 of the weight he can.

dempseyfire wrote:

tagjohnson wrote:Much can be said about modern fighters vs those of the past but I don't see how you can reasonably say that modern heavyweights are not physically stronger. They are bigger and pound for pound stronger. Why? They lift weights! Lifting weights makes you stronger. Saying otherwise would be like saying running doesn't make you faster or give you more endurance. The more you can lift, the stronger you are. Does it mean they are necessarily fitter? No. Necessarily better fighters? No. Politer? No. Better dresser? No. But stronger? Yes!

A bench-press or dead-lift measures a rather limited area of strength . . .a guy can lift a building and if he is slow as a sloth won't generate the force . . and ultimately the strength, of a faster guy who can only lift only 2/3 of the weight he can.

I'd agree. The Olympic lifts are a lot harder skills to master and more dynamic and explosive ...like a punch!

dempseyfire wrote:

tagjohnson wrote:Much can be said about modern fighters vs those of the past but I don't see how you can reasonably say that modern heavyweights are not physically stronger. They are bigger and pound for pound stronger. Why? They lift weights! Lifting weights makes you stronger. Saying otherwise would be like saying running doesn't make you faster or give you more endurance. The more you can lift, the stronger you are. Does it mean they are necessarily fitter? No. Necessarily better fighters? No. Politer? No. Better dresser? No. But stronger? Yes!

A bench-press or dead-lift measures a rather limited area of strength . . .a guy can lift a building and if he is slow as a sloth won't generate the force . . and ultimately the strength, of a faster guy who can only lift only 2/3 of the weight he can.

You're correct but your mixing up strength and power. An athlete with more speed may generate more power as in your example. A certain amount of explosive power can be utilized in the powerlifts, or they can be done much slower. Strength boils down to can you move a heavy weight. Squats, bench, and deadlifts are some of the best ways to measure it.

tagjohnson wrote:Much can be said about modern fighters vs those of the past but I don't see how you can reasonably say that modern heavyweights are not physically stronger. They are bigger and pound for pound stronger. Why? They lift weights! Lifting weights makes you stronger. Saying otherwise would be like saying running doesn't make you faster or give you more endurance. The more you can lift, the stronger you are. Does it mean they are necessarily fitter? No. Necessarily better fighters? No. Politer? No. Better dresser? No. But stronger? Yes!

Yes, they lift weights and may be "stronger" per se, but they don't punch harder. I have a hard time believing Fury with his 500+ deadlift or either Klit hits harder than Foreman or Shavers who probably didn't lift weights and were smaller.

BTW, a 500lb deadlift isn't that inhuman for a 6'9 250lb guy.

Fury doesn't hit that hard compared to today's contenders, never mind the biggest punchers we've seen, eg Tyson, Foreman, Shavers et al.

People can get very strong using body weight exercise. Gymnastic training does no usually involve weight training but those athletes are scary strong! I know guys who have just worked on roads or as labourers and they are really strong.

I'm sure I read most guys who fought Lennox were really surprised how strong he was.

IKSRTFO wrote: Yes, they lift weights and may be "stronger" per se, but they don't punch harder. I have a hard time believing Fury with his 500+ deadlift or either Klit hits harder than Foreman or Shavers who probably didn't lift weights and were smaller.

Strength and punching power don't necessarily go hand in hand. There have been strong people throughout history who haven't lifted, but the strongest (in terms of absolute strength) will be the weight trained athlete. Punching power is a whole other story.

punchoutsb wrote:

IKSRTFO wrote: Yes, they lift weights and may be "stronger" per se, but they don't punch harder. I have a hard time believing Fury with his 500+ deadlift or either Klit hits harder than Foreman or Shavers who probably didn't lift weights and were smaller.

Strength and punching power don't necessarily go hand in hand. There have been strong people throughout history who haven't lifted, but the strongest (in terms of absolute strength) will be the weight trained athlete. Punching power is a whole other story.

That is true, but there is a misconception that you need to lift weights in order to achieve that or that numbers in weight lifted means you are strong. Even today's boxers who don't lift weights are just as strong as the ones today who do because they incorporate other training methods that also improve strength.

SamWise72 wrote:Fury doesn't hit that hard compared to today's contenders, never mind the biggest punchers we've seen, eg Tyson, Foreman, Shavers et al.

I'm not talking about punching power. I'm talking physical strength.

IKSRTFO wrote:
Yes, they lift weights and may be "stronger" per se, but they don't punch harder. I have a hard time believing Fury with his 500+ deadlift or either Klit hits harder than Foreman or Shavers who probably didn't lift weights and were smaller.

BTW, a 500lb deadlift isn't that inhuman for a 6'9 250lb guy.

I beg to differ, considering that 6'9" 250 pounder is mostly all legs. Body-type, frame, etc. all comes into play here. Now if he was in proportion, rather than mostly leg, it wouldnt be so surprising. That's why alot of people are so amazed with Wilt Chamberlain's feats of strength on the bench press, etc. because mechanically he shouldnt of been able to bench press, etc. 500+ pounds.

Of course a 250+ pound guy like Fury will be able to lift more weight than 185 lb Marciano. I'd also speculate that the chiseled 270 lb Carnera, who performed as a circus strongman, was much stronger than Fury, and probably any other active HW. I would suspect that guys like Willard, Buddy Baer and Abe Simon had strength that would rival most current HWs as well. Even the short fire plug muscleman Sam McVey would be up there strength wise with the biggest current HWs.

Yes, size and muscle mass are huge advantages when lifting heavy weights.

The Great John L wrote:Of course a 250+ pound guy like Fury will be able to lift more weight than 185 lb Marciano. I'd also speculate that the chiseled 270 lb Carnera, who performed as a circus strongman, was much stronger than Fury, and probably any other active HW. I would suspect that guys like Willard, Buddy Baer and Abe Simon had strength that would rival most current HWs as well. Even the short fire plug muscleman Sam McVey would be up there strength wise with the biggest current HWs.

Yes, size and muscle mass are huge advantages when lifting heavy weights.

Very true...you do not see any 180lb'ers at Worlds Strongest Man events.

evrenb wrote:

The Great John L wrote:Of course a 250+ pound guy like Fury will be able to lift more weight than 185 lb Marciano. I'd also speculate that the chiseled 270 lb Carnera, who performed as a circus strongman, was much stronger than Fury, and probably any other active HW. I would suspect that guys like Willard, Buddy Baer and Abe Simon had strength that would rival most current HWs as well. Even the short fire plug muscleman Sam McVey would be up there strength wise with the biggest current HWs.

Yes, size and muscle mass are huge advantages when lifting heavy weights.

Very true...you do not see any 180lb'ers at Worlds Strongest Man events.

The difference between weight trained athletes focusing on strength and big strong athletes whos focus lies elsewhere (like a boxer) is huge. The lightest powerlifting weightclass (123 pounds) deadlift record is 634 pounds just to put it in perspective.

punchoutsb wrote:

evrenb wrote:

The Great John L wrote:Of course a 250+ pound guy like Fury will be able to lift more weight than 185 lb Marciano. I'd also speculate that the chiseled 270 lb Carnera, who performed as a circus strongman, was much stronger than Fury, and probably any other active HW. I would suspect that guys like Willard, Buddy Baer and Abe Simon had strength that would rival most current HWs as well. Even the short fire plug muscleman Sam McVey would be up there strength wise with the biggest current HWs.

Yes, size and muscle mass are huge advantages when lifting heavy weights.

Very true...you do not see any 180lb'ers at Worlds Strongest Man events.

The difference between weight trained athletes focusing on strength and big strong athletes whos focus lies elsewhere (like a boxer) is huge. The lightest powerlifting weightclass (123 pounds) deadlift record is 634 pounds just to put it in perspective.

Plus the use of leverage and strength in a ring is different still from weight lifting or strongman events.

What exactly is the point of this thread?

The Great John L wrote: Plus the use of leverage and strength in a ring is different still from weight lifting or strongman events.

What exactly is the point of this thread?

Night and day difference.

Weight lifting for boxers is still relatively new in the whole scheme of things, so trying to compare strength levels really isn't practical. A bit like saying who was the better three point shooter, A-Rod or Babe Ruth.

I am quite aware that strength and punching power are not the same thing. However, it was the question and today's heavyweights are clearly by any measure stronger. As are today's athletes in any sport I can think of.

Charles Shepherd was incredibly strong in the gym, but could barely break a egg punching-wise. Punching power has a lot of factors going into of which strength probably isn't even a key ingredient.

polecateddy wrote:Charles Shepherd was incredibly strong in the gym, but could barely break a egg punching-wise. Punching power has a lot of factors going into of which strength probably isn't even a key ingredient.

I'm a good example of the opposite - I can only bench about 2/3 of my own weight, yet I have knockout power in both hands. I used to spar with amateurs and pros at a boxing gym and while I was only a welterweight, I had power enough to hurt super middleweights while wearing 16oz gloves. If only I had the skills and conditioning to go with that power!

Tomasino wrote:People can get very strong using body weight exercise. Gymnastic training does no usually involve weight training but those athletes are scary strong! I know guys who have just worked on roads or as labourers and they are really strong.

I'm sure I read most guys who fought Lennox were really surprised how strong he was.

Weight training is manufactured strength.ala a holyfield

The natural strength of beasts like foreman,tyson are different

Manual labour builds a different strength to weight training. The strength in the hands,wrists,forearms, one attains from manual labour can never be replicated with weights.

mugabi wrote:

Tomasino wrote:People can get very strong using body weight exercise. Gymnastic training does no usually involve weight training but those athletes are scary strong! I know guys who have just worked on roads or as labourers and they are really strong.

I'm sure I read most guys who fought Lennox were really surprised how strong he was.

Weight training is manufactured strength.ala a holyfield

The natural strength of beasts like foreman,tyson are different

Manual labour builds a different strength to weight training. The strength in the hands,wrists,forearms, one attains from manual labour can never be replicated with weights.

Not true, though practically speaking it is difficult to replicate in the gym.

polecateddy wrote:Charles Shepherd was incredibly strong in the gym, but could barely break a egg punching-wise. Punching power has a lot of factors going into of which strength probably isn't even a key ingredient.

I'm sure Tim Bradley is a beast in the gym and could push more weight in any way than most welters but in terms of punching power, he's average at his best.

I don't think Corrales was that strong in the gym but he sure was strong in the ring.

I think historically, Carnera may very well of been the strongest man in all of boxing. But because of his extreme muscle mass and physique, he lacked the fluidity to generate the sort of power you would expect a man of his size being able to generate--- those moments were rare and came few and far between in the ring for him.

The same can be said, to a degree, with Jess Willard as well. The only difference, really, between Willard and Carnera's times were that the fights were longer, the gloves smaller, and punches came at a lower rate than in Carnera's time. However, Willard had more of a sinewy body--- which is made for boxing.

But I am amazed with how flexible and how light of foot Carnera was, despite being almost 6'6" and 275 pounds.