Thought on Size

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Jun 2005, 00:13

I was thinking about How many people say "that guys way to small for the big guys today, he'd get killed." Now I go to think that the heavyweights were a lot smaller back then because they didnt have as much equipment or supplements or advanced weight training as they do today. I think to myself, would a guy like Marciano or Dempsey fight cruiserweight if they were fighting today????
answer is HELL NO, BECAUSE both are way too strong and skilled for that divison and they would fight at heavyweight. Now I think to myself, Marciano is really a 215 lb and hes very muscular and big bones and he trains himself down to trim 185 and dempsey is aslo usuaully over 200. Now with today's weight equipment, high advanced training, and all the supplements and items u can take now a days, I suspect Marciano and Demspey and even Joe Louis would take advatage of that and probably fight at heavyweight today at around 200-205 all muscle and I think both would destroy the big guys because to add on to their power, they would now not be giving up much of a weight advantage and have more strentgh. That goes for all the old time heavyweights who fought at 180-190 lbs. But mainly those two who even at their weights could beat the very best.

MORAL IS the big guys today have all this stuff yet cant do anything but eat fattening foods, GET FAT AND OUT OF SHAPE, AND HAVE NO STAMINA AND ALL THEIR POWER IS BECAUSE THEIR BIG. I only imagine if guys like marciano and frazier had this kind of technology how much bigger they really would be. Holyfield took advantage of it.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Jun 2005, 00:14

I meant 210-220 pounds with all the modern technology

jab · Post by **jab** » 10 Jun 2005, 00:32

I agree with you first assesment: 200-205 for Dempsey and Marciano, and perhaps 210-215lb for Louis.

Thse guys would have gotten a bit bigger, if only the get out of cruiser and fight the heavyweights. But they wouldnt necesarily get to 220 because they just wouldnt need it and wouldnt want to anyway. they fought at 185 though they could have gotten as heavy as they wanted (no limits at heavyweight). Why? Because they fekt really good and strong at 185 and didnt see the need to beef up above it. Why bother with extra weight to slow you down if you already have to strength and power you need.

About the modern heavies getting fat with junk food you have a point. They tend to fall into that trap. (Super Size anyone? You want fries with that?

)
Today it is much easier to get fat than in the past. But if you are disciplined and train hard you can shave it off. But the fighters today make so much money (the top ones at least) that they do need to fight as often as these before. A few million dollar fights and you are set for life. That is unless you are Tyson, when even a billion wouldnt be enough.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 10 Jun 2005, 02:57

The heavy lifting that guys like Rahman and Tua does would only hinder guys like Dempsey and Louis. These were very strong guys, who developed strength and lasting muscle at an early age doing manuel labor (which anyway you slice it produces longer lasting, better muscle then weight lifting) and while they were boxing did things like cable pulls and chopping wood that really gave their backs, shoulders, and arms great definition and built strong muscle fiber. Doing something like bench press only adds excess muslce mass that produces too much lactic acid and also more mass then the body was meant to carry. It's no wonder these guys can't fight 5 hard rounds without getting gassed, and I'm not even mentioning the general decrease in discipline and training regimens. There's film of Dempsey and Louis both literally bulldozing big, strong, and durable 'super sized' HWs all over the ring . . .do they really need to 'bulk up'? And they could fight at a great pace in the 13th, 14th, and 15th rounds.

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 10 Jun 2005, 03:10

dempseyfire wrote:The heavy lifting that guys like Rahman and Tua does would only hinder guys like Dempsey and Louis. These were very strong guys, who developed strength and lasting muscle at an early age doing manuel labor (which anyway you slice it produces longer lasting, better muscle then weight lifting) and while they were boxing did things like cable pulls and chopping wood that really gave their backs, shoulders, and arms great definition and built strong muscle fiber. Doing something like bench press only adds excess muslce mass that produces too much lactic acid and also more mass then the body was meant to carry. It's no wonder these guys can't fight 5 hard rounds without getting gassed, and I'm not even mentioning the general decrease in discipline and training regimens. There's film of Dempsey and Louis both literally bulldozing big, strong, and durable 'super sized' HWs all over the ring . . .do they really need to 'bulk up'? And they could fight at a great pace in the 13th, 14th, and 15th rounds.

All your points are spot on. A lot of the bulking up done today is purely for image, because image sells on TV. And that means bigger paydays, which are the only reason many of these big guys are in the game today.

Trent · Post by **Trent** » 10 Jun 2005, 03:38

People in General are just bigger these days, it has nothing to do with weight lifting or trainning. and regarding holyfield, he was on roids , they didnt have roids in dempseys days, in dempseys days he was classed as a big man. i reckon if you took a cruiserweight champ now and made him fight Dempsey back in his prime, same weight. It wouldnt be easy for Dempsey, not syaing he would loose. people on this board over rate these old fighters, ive seen footage of Dempsey and Marciano, they had no boxing skills, left themselves wide open, boxing today is much more skilled.. but dempsey and marciano in there day were great boxers and are legends for there time

imo

Chopping Right · Post by **Chopping Right** » 10 Jun 2005, 03:53

I think it's probably fair to say that a lot of today's heavyweights are way over the weights they would be had they trained and fought 50-80 years ago. Most modern heavyweights bulk up excessively for reasons that escape me and have enough trouble doing 12 rounds, let alone 15. To imagine what a Dempsey or a Marciano might achieve in amongst modern giants we only have to go back to the late 80's to see what a smaller, fast and hard-punching 210lb heavyweight could do. People are getting bigger and taller it is true, and there are more athletic guys on the scene now that are of the 6' 4" kind of size, but generally they are way too heavy.

Lexus · Post by **Lexus** » 10 Jun 2005, 05:22

dempseyfire wrote:The heavy lifting that guys like Rahman and Tua does would only hinder guys like Dempsey and Louis. These were very strong guys, who developed strength and lasting muscle at an early age doing manuel labor (which anyway you slice it produces longer lasting, better muscle then weight lifting) and while they were boxing did things like cable pulls and chopping wood that really gave their backs, shoulders, and arms great definition and built strong muscle fiber. Doing something like bench press only adds excess muslce mass that produces too much lactic acid and also more mass then the body was meant to carry. It's no wonder these guys can't fight 5 hard rounds without getting gassed, and I'm not even mentioning the general decrease in discipline and training regimens. There's film of Dempsey and Louis both literally bulldozing big, strong, and durable 'super sized' HWs all over the ring . . .do they really need to 'bulk up'? And they could fight at a great pace in the 13th, 14th, and 15th rounds.

I agree with everything. I have one question though: why is it that manual labor (at an early age) produces longer lasting muscle? Is it because labor has more to do with "functional" strength, i.e more natural movement?

Chopping Right · Post by **Chopping Right** » 10 Jun 2005, 05:53

Lexus wrote:....why is it that manual labor (at an early age) produces longer lasting muscle? Is it because labor has more to do with "functional" strength, i.e more natural movement?

I think hard work produces a more lithe and flexible kind of muscular physique. Some of today's heavyweights are just plain musclebound because they have built stiff physiques in the bodybuilding manner.

Grimm · Post by **Grimm** » 10 Jun 2005, 12:13

I think if Louis had been a fighter today he would own the division at the weight he normally fought at because......

1: He would be raw muscle unlike the guys today
2: Louis often cut weight so he would be more comfortable fighting
3: The heavyweights today have useless weight, it does not benefit them at all, they don't hit harder or anything they just weigh more and are slower.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Jun 2005, 14:30

Trent wrote:

ive seen footage of Dempsey and Marciano, they had no boxing skills, left themselves wide open, boxing today is much more skilled.. but dempsey and marciano in there day were great boxers and are legends for there time

Boxing overall may be skilled today, but the fighters today are not as tough as the fighters back then and Marciano and Dempsey both won with heart, power, body punching, stamina and non stop throwing punches. To say that boxing is more skilled now is fine, but to say marciano and dempseys are only legends for their time are wrong. Both are considered top 10 heavyweights of all time and could beat the bigger guys today. And yes, both were extremely muscular by doing manuel labor but they probably would have been even bigger with all the supplements and technology. Marciano and Dempsey and Louis would all add enough muscle weight to where they wouldnt lose their speed or stamina.

THEY DID NOT LEAVE THEMSELVES WIDE OPEN AS MUCH AS U THOUGHT. Marciano was really tough to hit with a FLUSH PUNCH in his coruch and both dempsey and marciano could TAKE A PUNCH. they also were offensive fighters who wanted guys to try to slug it out with them so they could knock the other guy out. Marciano and dempsey threw so many punches the other guy had no time to react. TRENT, u make it sound like marciano and dempsey arnt skilled enough for todays heavyweights.

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 10 Jun 2005, 17:14

I'm skeptical about this supposedly wonderful modern day training, you're talking about guys who could fight tooth and nail for fifteen rounds as opposed to the modern trained heavies who are fit to collapse after climbing the ring steps.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 10 Jun 2005, 17:23

Its not the training. Its all the new technology and supplements and advanced weight training. If Marciano or demspsey took a supplement and had all; these carbo or protien drinks they would be bigger like 200-205 Lbs, but knowing them, they wouldnt let their muscle slow them down. they would stay fit and fast and powerful and keep their stamina, theyd just be bulkier. They had a lot of muscle as it is doing hard manuel labor work but if they were too take advantage of the supplements and drinks, they would be even bigger and stronger which is very scary.

mrbassie · Post by **mrbassie** » 10 Jun 2005, 18:27

Well that sounds all well and good, and bare in mind I don't really know very much about the finer points of muscle building but I can't really think of a single example of a heavy who is both built big by todays standards and good by yesteryears standards. To my knowledge their hasn't been anybody with that much muscle mass who had the stamina of the old timers, even Holyfield's output ebbed a LOT after he shaved his head and bulked up a bit more (admittedly age is a factor there but the point is still valid I think). Look at Ali and he's six-four I think, imagine if he'd weighed 240 pounds he'd have been awful. It seems to me like the kind of build heavies have nowadays is more suited to pushing strength than anything.

zojo · Post by **zojo** » 10 Jun 2005, 21:14

dempseyfire wrote:The heavy lifting that guys like Rahman and Tua does would only hinder guys like Dempsey and Louis. These were very strong guys, who developed strength and lasting muscle at an early age doing manuel labor (which anyway you slice it produces longer lasting, better muscle then weight lifting) and while they were boxing did things like cable pulls and chopping wood that really gave their backs, shoulders, and arms great definition and built strong muscle fiber. Doing something like bench press only adds excess muslce mass that produces too much lactic acid and also more mass then the body was meant to carry. It's no wonder these guys can't fight 5 hard rounds without getting gassed, and I'm not even mentioning the general decrease in discipline and training regimens. There's film of Dempsey and Louis both literally bulldozing big, strong, and durable 'super sized' HWs all over the ring . . .do they really need to 'bulk up'? And they could fight at a great pace in the 13th, 14th, and 15th rounds.

Great stuff!

True training does nothing more than replicate a movement/action that you need during competition.

i.e. Rock climbers - Pullups
American football - sled work / pushing a car
Wrestlers - rope climbs / lunges
Boxing - punching the heavybag / speed bag
Baseball - medicine ball twists / sprints
Basketball - squats/shuttle runs/jumping rope

Now when all of these really "beefy" boxers get all excited because they just bench pressed 400 pounds, what are they really trining for? Practicing lifting Butterbean off of them when he falls on top of them in the ring?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 10 Jun 2005, 21:43

zojo, wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:The heavy lifting that guys like Rahman and Tua does would only hinder guys like Dempsey and Louis. These were very strong guys, who developed strength and lasting muscle at an early age doing manuel labor (which anyway you slice it produces longer lasting, better muscle then weight lifting) and while they were boxing did things like cable pulls and chopping wood that really gave their backs, shoulders, and arms great definition and built strong muscle fiber. Doing something like bench press only adds excess muslce mass that produces too much lactic acid and also more mass then the body was meant to carry. It's no wonder these guys can't fight 5 hard rounds without getting gassed, and I'm not even mentioning the general decrease in discipline and training regimens. There's film of Dempsey and Louis both literally bulldozing big, strong, and durable 'super sized' HWs all over the ring . . .do they really need to 'bulk up'? And they could fight at a great pace in the 13th, 14th, and 15th rounds.
Great stuff!

True training does nothing more than replicate a movement/action that you need during competition.

i.e. Rock climbers - Pullups
American football - sled work / pushing a car
Wrestlers - rope climbs / lunges
Boxing - punching the heavybag / speed bag
Baseball - medicine ball twists / sprints
Basketball - squats/shuttle runs/jumping rope

Now when all of these really "beefy" boxers get all excited because they just bench pressed 400 pounds, what are they really trining for? Practicing lifting Butterbean off of them when he falls on top of them in the ring?

And the funny thing is, by just doing lots of pull ups, wood chopping, heavy bag . . a person can get RIPPED and I mean ripped without ever lifting a weight. I've seen guys at the gym like that and just look at some of the old photos of guys like Cleveland Williams, Ike Williams, and George Godfrey . . . they had much better physiques then a Kirk Johnson, Rahman, or Calvin Brock

s9s · Post by **s9s** » 10 Jun 2005, 23:42

Chopping Right wrote:
Lexus wrote:....why is it that manual labor (at an early age) produces longer lasting muscle? Is it because labor has more to do with "functional" strength, i.e more natural movement?
I think hard work produces a more lithe and flexible kind of muscular physique. Some of today's heavyweights are just plain musclebound because they have built stiff physiques in the bodybuilding manner.

Im just under 6ft, in my 30's and weigh about 13st, i do weights and alot of cycling and other sports. Yet i know this irish bloke, who is about 5ft 5in,about 50 years old looks like he weighs about 8 st, yet when he shakes my hand it feels like he's crushing my hand with no effort, he's a builder by the way, he's being doing manual/building work all his life and I would feel sorry for anyone who got into a scrap with him.

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 11 Jun 2005, 06:41

Lots of people on the same page here - good to see, especially since it goes against the cultural norm.

s9s wrote:Im just under 6ft, in my 30's and weigh about 13st, i do weights and alot of cycling and other sports. Yet i know this irish bloke, who is about 5ft 5in,about 50 years old looks like he weighs about 8 st, yet when he shakes my hand it feels like he's crushing my hand with no effort, he's a builder by the way, he's being doing manual/building work all his life and I would feel sorry for anyone who got into a scrap with him.

Replace 30's with 20's and 50 years old with 45, and that is the exact same encounter I had a while back. It forced me to change the way I looked at strength training, because all during summer '04 I had used weights in the gym, yet didn't feel any great benefits apart from looking noticeably bulkier. This summer I have been flipping tires, chopping lumber, and doing numerous exercises with logs. The difference in effect from doing the weights is immense. When I punched the heavy bag last summer I lost so much speed and snap it wasn't even funny - the punches felt so... lumpy, if I can put it like that. It's totally different at the present, with even my grip feeling noticeably different.

But think about it though: sitting on a cushioned seat in a gym with nice music playing, and pushing/pulling a metal bar with soft gloves on, only exercising one muscle, huffing and puffing and being careful not to frighten office worker Sally on the treadmill beside you. Compare it to racing people in a muddy field while carrying huge logs, to a chorus of screams and cheers - goodness knows how many muscles you're working, not just in the shoulders and legs, but in trying to balance the thing; it's near enough a whole-body workout.

I can understand why many don't do it: it gets my hands and clothes dirty and damaged, and it's somewhat depressing because of the area I stay in, but it just shows in boxing that it's the hard graft that counts - both in and out the ring. This is the main reason I've been writing off young Cruiserweight prospect David Haye - great technique and skills, but is totally and utterly wrapped up in the glamour as opposed grit mindset to boxing.

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 11 Jun 2005, 10:15

I saw a show- The 14 Greatest Rounds, I think- and in it Georgie Benton said that a 190lber of, say, 1919, was stronger than a 190lb man today because people overall were stronger. When you consider that Dempsey said that on his way up his favorite non-boxing job was "mucking" ore ( that means shoveling rock 8-12 hours a day. My grandfathers did it for years- as I'm sure many of you can boast) and a mucker don't flunk out of the Marines! A few years ago I read an article by the "super" strength coach that gave us McCline, Rahman, etal. He is a hifgh school track coach and I submit that being "fighting fit" and ready to sprint are very different. The exercises he uses to develope power explain perfectly how two 270lbers can swap punches for 30 min and no one gets a bruise. It disturbs me to hear how many youngsters are so concrned about getting big and six-packs; I'm sure there are enough of us that can recall the emphasis on flexibility, resistance exercises and good old determination. Look, the early morn long run has always been about discipline and wind training was done with sprints, long strenuous hikes and so on. Strength was built through repitition not Morrisson and Tyson like; screw off training then hit the heavy weights a few days before the bout so you look great. Boxing is a jealous bitch and demands singular attention and devotion, a committment to craft and cause all too rare these days. It manifests itself in strength and technique; who'll say that Dempsey and Marciano were inferior defensively to...to whom? Holyfield? Bowe? That DLH could even fight eights in the 40s?... Sorry, friends. I've a tendency to get worked up and orate on this subject.

s9s · Post by **s9s** » 11 Jun 2005, 19:13

Manos de Oro wrote:Lots of people on the same page here - good to see, especially since it goes against the cultural norm.

s9s wrote:Im just under 6ft, in my 30's and weigh about 13st, i do weights and alot of cycling and other sports. Yet i know this irish bloke, who is about 5ft 5in,about 50 years old looks like he weighs about 8 st, yet when he shakes my hand it feels like he's crushing my hand with no effort, he's a builder by the way, he's being doing manual/building work all his life and I would feel sorry for anyone who got into a scrap with him.
Replace 30's with 20's and 50 years old with 45, and that is the exact same encounter I had a while back. It forced me to change the way I looked at strength training, because all during summer '04 I had used weights in the gym, yet didn't feel any great benefits apart from looking noticeably bulkier. This summer I have been flipping tires, chopping lumber, and doing numerous exercises with logs. The difference in effect from doing the weights is immense. When I punched the heavy bag last summer I lost so much speed and snap it wasn't even funny - the punches felt so... lumpy, if I can put it like that. It's totally different at the present, with even my grip feeling noticeably different.

But think about it though: sitting on a cushioned seat in a gym with nice music playing, and pushing/pulling a metal bar with soft gloves on, only exercising one muscle, huffing and puffing and being careful not to frighten office worker Sally on the treadmill beside you. Compare it to racing people in a muddy field while carrying huge logs, to a chorus of screams and cheers - goodness knows how many muscles you're working, not just in the shoulders and legs, but in trying to balance the thing; it's near enough a whole-body workout.

I can understand why many don't do it: it gets my hands and clothes dirty and damaged, and it's somewhat depressing because of the area I stay in, but it just shows in boxing that it's the hard graft that counts - both in and out the ring. This is the main reason I've been writing off young Cruiserweight prospect David Haye - great technique and skills, but is totally and utterly wrapped up in the glamour as opposed grit mindset to boxing.

I take it you got into a little scrap in this "encounter"? Please do tell.

abs_of_steel · Post by **abs_of_steel** » 11 Jun 2005, 19:27

concerning the argument that boxers of yesteryear were stronger i would very much disagree, times move on for example the bench press record now is over 800 lbs where in even the 1940s it was even at 400lbs, times change technology changes, the one thing i will concede is that boxers of yesteryear were a lot tougher and thats mentally as well as phsyically .

as for what Rocky Marciano would be fighting at, i remember reading in his biograohy by Everet Skehan that when he was up and coming he used to weight train then a body builder told him that weight training would ruin him and he stopped doing it, had the Rock known this to be false he could easily have put on another 20 pounds of muscle!

bollox · Post by **bollox** » 11 Jun 2005, 19:41

Muscle mass only hinders boxers and especially un-natural muscle mass. Boxers need to be supple, flexible and fluid in their movement, and bulking up makes them exactly the opposite

It was no real surprise that once Holyfield went to HW he employed a ballet instructor to loosen him up again. He found the muscle made him stiff as a board and he said he couldn't touch his own toes anymore

As for today's HW's - they've basically exceeded the optimum size. Perhaps that's one reason they're colloecively considered a woeful bunch and are nowhere near as skilled as they once were, nor do they have the stamina

jab · Post by **jab** » 12 Jun 2005, 01:32

bollox wrote:Muscle mass only hinders boxers and especially un-natural muscle mass. Boxers need to be supple, flexible and fluid in their movement, and bulking up makes them exactly the opposite

It was no real surprise that once Holyfield went to HW he employed a ballet instructor to loosen him up again. He found the muscle made him stiff as a board and he said he couldn't touch his own toes anymore

As for today's HW's - they've basically exceeded the optimum size. Perhaps that's one reason they're colloecively considered a woeful bunch and are nowhere near as skilled as they once were, nor do they have the stamina

I tend to agree in general, the heavyweights are overly bulked today.

Just curious, what is the optimum size in your view?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 12 Jun 2005, 02:47

In my opinion 6'1-6'3, 205-218ish is optimum, but of course it depends on body type.

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 12 Jun 2005, 05:27

s9s wrote:I take it you got into a little scrap in this "encounter"? Please do tell.

No, I shook his hand just like you did and saw him lift things so easily that I struggled with, which shouldn't have been the case since I was bigger than him in every way. We're very much on friendly terms and always have been. :P