BoxRec

To me it feels very hard to acuratly judge the hw div in terms who the best are. Mainly because heavyweight became so big and tall over the decades.

Marciano, louis or dempsey would have no chance nowadays. They build like big lh or cw. Ali, foreman and holyfield are tall and strong, but not comparable to Joshua & klitschkos. I know height and weight is not everything, but it matters when your opponent has a tremendous reach height advantage and has more power behind his punches because he is way bigger. Holyfield and lewis were on the same level in terms of technique, main reason why lewis won was that long jab, simply the physical inferiority.

Ortiz is one of the best techniqule hw ever. Seasoned, good guard and he lost against a street fighter with poor technique, slugish. All because wilder was swinging with these long arms.

A trick question, the fights are on the easier side to judge, but predicting who will win is on the harder side relative to other divisions.

pound per pound wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 19:25 A trick question, the fights are on the easier side to judge, but predicting who will win is on the harder side relative to other divisions.

Obvously a elite 6'7 hw will be the favourite over a 6'3 hw. Maybe we shoukd figure out who the best hw are in height comparison.

5'10-6'1 = tyson with 0 doubt the best small hw ever. Prime mike would wreck louis, marciano

6'2-6'4 = tough one. Ali, lewis, holmes or ortiz?

6'5-no limit = joshua, vitaly k., vitaly got a far better chin, joshua overall a better boxer, better footwork, more athletic. Punching poeer in favour if aj, while vk can bang too. To me aj the best

Sorono wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 19:04 To me it feels very hard to acuratly judge the hw div in terms who the best are. Mainly because heavyweight became so big and tall over the decades.

Marciano, louis or dempsey would have no chance nowadays. They build like big lh or cw. Ali, foreman and holyfield are tall and strong, but not comparable to Joshua & klitschkos. I know height and weight is not everything, but it matters when your opponent has a tremendous reach height advantage and has more power behind his punches because he is way bigger. Holyfield and lewis were on the same level in terms of technique, main reason why lewis won was that long jab, simply the physical inferiority.

Ortiz is one of the best techniqule hw ever. Seasoned, good guard and he lost against a street fighter with poor technique, slugish. All because wilder was swinging with these long arms.

A great fighter would always have a chance. The guy that Dempsey beat for the title was every bit as big as Joshua and The Klitschko's.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 20:57

Sorono wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 19:04 To me it feels very hard to acuratly judge the hw div in terms who the best are. Mainly because heavyweight became so big and tall over the decades.

Marciano, louis or dempsey would have no chance nowadays. They build like big lh or cw. Ali, foreman and holyfield are tall and strong, but not comparable to Joshua & klitschkos. I know height and weight is not everything, but it matters when your opponent has a tremendous reach height advantage and has more power behind his punches because he is way bigger. Holyfield and lewis were on the same level in terms of technique, main reason why lewis won was that long jab, simply the physical inferiority.

Ortiz is one of the best techniqule hw ever. Seasoned, good guard and he lost against a street fighter with poor technique, slugish. All because wilder was swinging with these long arms.

A great fighter would always have a chance. The guy that Dempsey beat for the title was every bit as big as Joshua and The Klitschko's.

True. Willard is one of the few yardsticks we have from back then.

The higher the weight class the easier it is to judge a fight ...

... the lower, the harder ...

... (in general) ...

...

Like a Boss wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 22:46

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 20:57

Sorono wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 19:04 To me it feels very hard to acuratly judge the hw div in terms who the best are. Mainly because heavyweight became so big and tall over the decades.

Marciano, louis or dempsey would have no chance nowadays. They build like big lh or cw. Ali, foreman and holyfield are tall and strong, but not comparable to Joshua & klitschkos. I know height and weight is not everything, but it matters when your opponent has a tremendous reach height advantage and has more power behind his punches because he is way bigger. Holyfield and lewis were on the same level in terms of technique, main reason why lewis won was that long jab, simply the physical inferiority.

Ortiz is one of the best techniqule hw ever. Seasoned, good guard and he lost against a street fighter with poor technique, slugish. All because wilder was swinging with these long arms.

A great fighter would always have a chance. The guy that Dempsey beat for the title was every bit as big as Joshua and The Klitschko's.

True. Willard is one of the few yardsticks we have from back then.

Buddy Baer was also 6'5, 240 plus pounds...Joe Louis knocked him out in 1 round.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:07

Like a Boss wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 22:46

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 20:57

A great fighter would always have a chance. The guy that Dempsey beat for the title was every bit as big as Joshua and The Klitschko's.

True. Willard is one of the few yardsticks we have from back then.

Buddy Baer was also 6'5, 240 plus pounds...Joe Louis knocked him out in 1 round.

True. I did say few and that's 2, and Primo Carnera makes 3. Probably not many more though.

Like a Boss wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:08

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:07

Like a Boss wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 22:46

True. Willard is one of the few yardsticks we have from back then.

Buddy Baer was also 6'5, 240 plus pounds...Joe Louis knocked him out in 1 round.

True. I did say few and that's 2, and Primo Carnera makes 3. Probably not many more though.

Even so though. If it could be done then. It could be done now.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:20

Like a Boss wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:08

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:07

Buddy Baer was also 6'5, 240 plus pounds...Joe Louis knocked him out in 1 round.

True. I did say few and that's 2, and Primo Carnera makes 3. Probably not many more though.

Even so though. If it could be done then. It could be done now.

Yes and no. Size is only part of the equation with the likes of Willard, Baer, Carnera or anyone else.

The saying 'a good big man will always beat a good small man' is based on all other things being even. It's the other things that aren't so easy to measure though.

Like a Boss wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:31

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:20

Like a Boss wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:08

True. I did say few and that's 2, and Primo Carnera makes 3. Probably not many more though.

Even so though. If it could be done then. It could be done now.

Yes and no. Size is only part of the equation with the likes of Willard, Baer, Carnera or anyone else.

The saying 'a good big man will always beat a good small man' is based on all other things being even. It's the other things that aren't so easy to measure though.

The lighter guys will always have an edge in speed, and movement, and explosiveness in their attack. Just because we haven't seen a guy come along in a while that possesses the qualities of Champions of old doesn't mean we'll never see it again.

It's definitely a challenge to have to overcome no question, but it can be overcome. That's all I'm saying.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:35

Like a Boss wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:31

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:20

Even so though. If it could be done then. It could be done now.

Yes and no. Size is only part of the equation with the likes of Willard, Baer, Carnera or anyone else.

The saying 'a good big man will always beat a good small man' is based on all other things being even. It's the other things that aren't so easy to measure though.

The lighter guys will always have an edge in speed, and movement, and explosiveness in their attack. Just because we haven't seen a guy come along in a while that possesses the qualities of Champions of old doesn't mean we'll never see it again.

It's definitely a challenge to have to overcome no question, but it can be overcome. That's all I'm saying.

Look, I'm in no way hard and fast in my opinion on this matter. But it's fair to say that size and reach are advantages in a boxing ring provided you are capable of using them.

Frankly, anyone who thinks they can accurately measure how a fighter would have fared in an era other than their own is kidding themselves in my opinion.

Like a Boss wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:57

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:35

Like a Boss wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 23:31

Yes and no. Size is only part of the equation with the likes of Willard, Baer, Carnera or anyone else.

The saying 'a good big man will always beat a good small man' is based on all other things being even. It's the other things that aren't so easy to measure though.

The lighter guys will always have an edge in speed, and movement, and explosiveness in their attack. Just because we haven't seen a guy come along in a while that possesses the qualities of Champions of old doesn't mean we'll never see it again.

It's definitely a challenge to have to overcome no question, but it can be overcome. That's all I'm saying.

Look, I'm in no way hard and fast in my opinion on this matter. But it's fair to say that size and reach are advantages in a boxing ring provided you are capable of using them.

Frankly, anyone who thinks they can accurately measure how a fighter would have fared in an era other than their own is kidding themselves in my opinion.

No question size and reach are advantages. Being great in your own era is the one and only thing that matters, because people can't find imaginary matchups, but it's hard to believe that some of the great Champions of the past wouldn't be able to at the very least compete with guys of the modern era or any other.

People calling for a "Super Heavyweight" division because "guys below 230 pounds just can't compete" sicken me, and if there's ever a Super Heavyweight division added it would insult me to my core. To the point that I'd probably stop watching the sport.

Prime Mike Tyson ( a wee fella) would beat prime Tyson Fury ( a huge fella) 4 times out of 5.

Sorono wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 19:04 To me it feels very hard to acuratly judge the hw div in terms who the best are. Mainly because heavyweight became so big and tall over the decades.

Marciano, louis or dempsey would have no chance nowadays. They build like big lh or cw. Ali, foreman and holyfield are tall and strong, but not comparable to Joshua & klitschkos. I know height and weight is not everything, but it matters when your opponent has a tremendous reach height advantage and has more power behind his punches because he is way bigger. Holyfield and lewis were on the same level in terms of technique, main reason why lewis won was that long jab, simply the physical inferiority.

Ortiz is one of the best techniqule hw ever. Seasoned, good guard and he lost against a street fighter with poor technique, slugish. All because wilder was swinging with these long arms.

Uh, with a little (a lot!) Of help from the house ring doctor and referee! Ali too. He was fighting guys weighing only in the 180's - and getting phony decision wins against them too, for example Doug Jones!

Anyway, this is my pet peeve in boxing - a distant second only to the massive corruption in the sport - and that is the size parameters of the heavyweight div. are far too broad. Whereas light heavy div. encompasses a mere 7 pounds, 168-175,and the silly littleweight divisions are only separated by 2 or 3 pounds.

Like a Boss wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 22:46

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 20:57

Sorono wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 19:04 To me it feels very hard to acuratly judge the hw div in terms who the best are. Mainly because heavyweight became so big and tall over the decades.

Marciano, louis or dempsey would have no chance nowadays. They build like big lh or cw. Ali, foreman and holyfield are tall and strong, but not comparable to Joshua & klitschkos. I know height and weight is not everything, but it matters when your opponent has a tremendous reach height advantage and has more power behind his punches because he is way bigger. Holyfield and lewis were on the same level in terms of technique, main reason why lewis won was that long jab, simply the physical inferiority.

Ortiz is one of the best techniqule hw ever. Seasoned, good guard and he lost against a street fighter with poor technique, slugish. All because wilder was swinging with these long arms.

A great fighter would always have a chance. The guy that Dempsey beat for the title was every bit as big as Joshua and The Klitschko's.

True. Willard is one of the few yardsticks we have from back then.

Have you guys actually watched the bout between Jess Willard and Jack Dempsey?

First of all, Willard’s physique is relatively poor in comparison to today’s behemoths and he also lacked athleticism.

And second and more importantly, Willard not only lacked skill, but he didn’t know how to use his size advantage. He adopted a defensively irresponsible fighting style, such as keeping his hands by his hips, whilst allowing his opponents to tee off on him to land their haymakers at will.

look at jack johnsons opposition, so many guys who werent even as big as cws or even lhws today. he won the hw title vs a 5'7 162 day of fight guy . the only or one of the very few legit shws he fought (willard) kod him. bob fitzimmons gets lauded as a mw, lhw, and hw champ, but for the hw he beat a guy who was 181 on fight day! thats like a george groves today. and he won the lhw vs a 164 fight weight opponent, which is like a jmw today.

size doesnt mean everything, but so many venerated (?) hws of past years build legacies mostly beating opposition cw sized and below by todays standards. its less pronounced as time went on but still it was there in generations long after johnson and fitzimmons

wed rightfully give aj little credit for beating george groves or bivol, yet we rate guys as hw legends for beating guys mainly around that size or even smaller, its a pet peeve of mine that even super reasonble fans often disregard that in cross generation discussions

a guy like wilder would poleaxe a guy like marciano, the rock with modern weight cutting and day before weigh ins would be a 5'10/67 in reach smw or lhw

sullivan barrera at 6'2 was 190 on fight night vs joe smith

smith at 6'1 was 187

theyd both be good sized hws in the past, but imagine them now vs a guy like aj

KiwiRider wrote: ↑19 Jun 2018, 01:12 Prime Mike Tyson ( a wee fella) would beat prime Tyson Fury ( a huge fella) 4 times out of 5.

Can't argue with that

SteveO wrote: ↑19 Jun 2018, 06:26

KiwiRider wrote: ↑19 Jun 2018, 01:12 Prime Mike Tyson ( a wee fella) would beat prime Tyson Fury (a huge fella) 4 times out of 5.

Can't argue with that

I can ... Tyson'd probably beat Fury 6 times out of 5 ...

...

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 20:57

Sorono wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 19:04 To me it feels very hard to acuratly judge the hw div in terms who the best are. Mainly because heavyweight became so big and tall over the decades.

Marciano, louis or dempsey would have no chance nowadays. They build like big lh or cw. Ali, foreman and holyfield are tall and strong, but not comparable to Joshua & klitschkos. I know height and weight is not everything, but it matters when your opponent has a tremendous reach height advantage and has more power behind his punches because he is way bigger. Holyfield and lewis were on the same level in terms of technique, main reason why lewis won was that long jab, simply the physical inferiority.

Ortiz is one of the best techniqule hw ever. Seasoned, good guard and he lost against a street fighter with poor technique, slugish. All because wilder was swinging with these long arms.

A great fighter would always have a chance. The guy that Dempsey beat for the title was every bit as big as Joshua and The Klitschko's.

Bad comparison. The guy dempsey beat was tall big and totaly unathletic, wasnt build like a boxer should be. Its like saying primo carnera is as good as v. Klitschko because he had similar weight height when reality was that he was a slow body builder freak show not made for boxing.

in the boxing history section they think willard and carnera are better then the klits, i read some past threads on it

Theres always gonna be big guys and small guys in every division, the problem with the heavies is there is no upper limit and people are generally getting taller over time, but that's just a cross they have to bear for the luxury of not having to make weight, even so a small heavy can still beat a big one if they can be arsed putting in the effort.

jamamb wrote: ↑19 Jun 2018, 07:14 in the boxing history section they think willard and carnera are better then the klits, i read some past threads on it

Jess Willard and Primo Carnera would both almost certainly lose very badly against either Klitschko brother. They simply couldn’t fight and no amount of nostalgia can possibly support any notion that either of these fighters from yesteryear possessed any ability to defend themselves, because they couldn’t.

I don’t want to be disrespectful to Willard and Carnera, because they were probably considered fairly competent during their heydays, but I reckon both of these guys would likely be stopped within two rounds by either Klitschko brother.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑19 Jun 2018, 04:13

Like a Boss wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 22:46

gilgamesh wrote: ↑18 Jun 2018, 20:57

A great fighter would always have a chance. The guy that Dempsey beat for the title was every bit as big as Joshua and The Klitschko's.

True. Willard is one of the few yardsticks we have from back then.

Have you guys actually watched the bout between Jess Willard and Jack Dempsey?

First of all, Willard’s physique is relatively poor in comparison to today’s behemoths and he also lacked athleticism.

And second and more importantly, Willard not only lacked skill, but he didn’t know how to use his size advantage. He adopted a defensively irresponsible fighting style, such as keeping his hands by his hips, whilst allowing his opponents to tee off on him to land their haymakers at will.

Exactly