BoxRec

This one is by request. It stems from some recent discussions about punching power. One, in particular, was a resurrected old thread from a poster named Homicide Henry titled "Shavers vs. Foreman: Who's The KO Master".

The original post asked the obvious question, but then the author sort of negated it by stating that he thought Marciano was the hardest punching HW of all time (or something like that). At any rate, as the thread went along, it got me thinking that there's at least some relevance to size when you're talking about punching power among HWs that seems to be lost on a lot of folks here.

Marciano may have been the hardest hitting HW ever pound-for-pound. But in a more scientific sense (as in that you could somehow measure it) his power was only proportionately greater than Shavers or Foreman. In terms of sheer force, in my humble opinion both Shavers and Foreman hit harder. Reason? Marciano weighed less than 190 pounds. Not enough pork to match Shavers at 215 or Foreman at 225.

I know this is destined to be an unpopular analysis. Whatever the case, here's more. All of Marciano's toughest opponents only weighed about as much as he did (185-195 pounds). Hence, his punches were naturally more devastating than they would have been against many of the best fighters who came later (Liston, Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, etc.) on the basis of size. Like it or not, an increase in size, as long as we're talking well-conditioned bodies, does equate to the ability to take more punishment from a 190-pound puncher vs. that from a 225-pound puncher.

Example: Bob Foster was a KO artist at light heavy. Among the best punchers ever in that weight class. But when he went up and fought HWs (Zora Folley, Ernie Terrell, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier), he didn't have the equivalent horsepower that he had against light heavies ... and he lost.

Example: Vassilly Jirov was a beast at cruiser. 7-1 (6 KOs) in eight title fights. He moves up to HW and, Mesi aside, he just looks like he doesn't have the punch. Not to compete at the top. With his style, he's just not big enough. And that's in a HW division that doesn't have a whole lot to brag about right now.

Question: Does anyone agree that perhaps the reason Tyson couldn't take out a virtually defenseless journeyman like McBride was because McBride was just so damn big? That his big body was just naturally able to absorb hard punches better than all those 220-pound fighters Tyson beat up in his good years? I know Tyson was washed up long before McBride, but isn't power the last thing to go?

Don't know how well I managed to explain this, but that's the relativity of power to size theory. Size is NOT relative to pound-for-pound strength, but it is relative to sheer force at impact. Marciano was a great puncher, equivalently great to any puncher ever at any weight ... hitting guys his own size.

Transport him in time to face a 245-pound Lennox Lewis ...

Don't know how any of these dream matchups can ever really be argued with a straight face. OUT!!

You're simplifying it way too much. PUnching power is WAY more then weight. It's a definite factor, but the type of fast twitch muscles you have in your arms and shoulders, the quality of the shift you can put on your legs to get a good punching angle, speed of your punches etc. are all major factors in punching power. Look at Jameel McCline and many other huge behemoths that just aren't good punchers at all, going the distance with tomato cans. Look at Joe Louis literally send 250 lb men spinning across the ring. You can put all of the weight on in the world and it won't make your chin any stronger. The list of 6'7, 240 lb guys who had glass jaws is endless. The weight of 185 + is basically the amount of weight, coupled with natural power and technique, is what man needs to knock out any other man.

Tyson didn't not KO McBride b/c he was big, it was b/c he didn't want to fight and was shot about 10 times over.

I see where you could think I'm oversimplifying. I'll even meet you half way in what you're saying. If a 185-pound man is a good puncher and he lands his best shot flush on an opponent's chin, it won't matter if his opponent is 50, 60, 70 pounds bigger. There's no meat on a chin.

I also understand all that about fast twitch muscles and weight transfer through the hips (sitting down on your punches) and the rotation of the shoulders, which is all a part of delivering hard shots. Where you and I part is in whether a 185-pound man can deliver as "measurably" hard a shot as his 225-pound counterpart, taking into consideration all the same factors you mention. My feeling is no. Certainly Marciano, with the kind of leverage he produced, hit harder than nearly anyone, even guys considered punchers who were much bigger than he was. But I doubt he generated as much torque (for lack of a better word) as a supreme puncher like Shavers weighing about 30 pounds more. Not in a measurable sense.

You all got to stop for a minute, though, when I offer this opinion in so much as thinking I'm hating on Marciano. I've never said size is the "end all" in determining who would win some of these dream fights you all like to talk about. But when I read things suggesting something like, for instance, Marciano would break Lennox Lewis down with body shots and then take him out with a big overhand right ...

It just seems you're all forgetting ...

A) ... that Lewis had a lot more on him to absorb all those body shots than the fighters Marciano fought in the day. Those hard shots are NOT going to be quite as effective, or least Marciano is going to have to land a lot more of 'em to produce the same effect.

(B) ... that Lewis, with a lot more force on his own punches than the fighters Marciano fought back in the day, is not just going to stand there and take all that punishment. He's going to punish Marciano back with harder shots than Marciano was ever hit with by fellow 185-195 pound fighters (no matter how good they were).

It's not that I don't agree a lot of HWs nowadays are fat and slow and undermotivated. Have been for a long time. But we're not talking about fat, slow, unmotivated HWs when we're talking about Shavers or Foreman or even young Tyson. We're talking about 215-225 pound punching machines who naturally generated more power than any 185-pound fighter on the basis of size.

It's no different than a homerun contest between Mark McGuire and Alex Rodriguez. Rodriguez might wind up hitting more, but he won't hit one farther.

yeah well the guy that has the farthest home run all the time is mickey mantle whos about 5'11 200 lb if that. mark mcgwire is about 6'5 240 lbs with steroids. mantle hit one measured 565' and 550' and his yankee stadium shot is said to have gone 600'. mgwires longest home run is 545'. i guess size isnt much of a difference right there.

joe louis is considered the all time most powerful hitter and he was only 15 lb more than rocky at 200lb. rocky and DEMPSEY who are both around the same weight both had so much more power than they weigh that when they hit a 220 lb man or bigger, they would not be able to recover. thats because they had an extra snap in their punches. demspsey gave willard a terrible beating whos 245 lb. marcianos knocked out jerry jackson who although cant fight a lick, was 254 lbs to rockys 185lb and rocky knocked him out cold with a right hand.

both dempsey and rocky both did better against the taller or larger men, and both liked fighting the bigger guys. most of the guys rocky fought weighed more than him.
though these opponents are bums, they still had a huge size advatange and should according to u be able to take the punches better .

rocky marciano fought:

Jerry Jackson 254 lbs KO 1
Bill hardman over 6' 206 lbs KO 1
Patrick connely 6'5 213 lb KO 1
Carmine Vingo 6'4 189 lbs TKO 6- we never know how good vingo could have been. prob just a journeyman but who knows.
eldridge eastman over 6' 206 lbs TKO 3
Johnny shkor 6'5 220 lbs TKO 6
Big Bill Wilson 6'4 230 lbs TKO 1
Joe Louis 6'2 213 lb KO 8
Don Cockell 6'0 205 lbs TKO 9
Keene Simmons 200 lb KO 8
Rex Layne 6'1 196 lbs KO 6
Walcott 6'1 197 lb KO 13 and 1

- now most of these fights were bums, but shouldnt they with the weight advantage people away push off marciano and not be knocked out by a 5'11 185 lb man???? i mean these fighters have a lot more on them to abosorb the hard body blows?

lets check out dempsey :

Carl Morris 226 lb KO 1
Jess Willard 6'6 245 lb TKO 3
Luis Firpo 6'3 216lb TKO 2
Arthur Pelky 6'2 210 lb KO 1
Emmanuel Campbell - big colored fighter , not sure size TKO 4
Fred Fulton 6'5 208 lbs - KO 1
Big Jack Hickey - KO 1

i am having trouble finding weights for dempseys opponents. anyone huge guys dempsey kaod that i missed?

NOW lets see how some of the larger heavyweights have been knocked out by the lighter heavyweights


important bouts :

Jack Dempsey 192 lb TKO 3 Jess Willard 245 lb
Joe Louis 202 lb TKo 13 Abe Simon 254 lb
Joe Louis 206 lb KO 1 Buddy Baer 250 lb
Max Baer 209 lb TKO 11 Primo Carnera 263 lb
James Corbet 178 lb KO 21 John Sullivan 212 lb
joe frazier 204 lb KO 11 Buster Mathis 243 lb
Evande Holyfield 208 lb 12u Foreman 257 lb- holyfield hurt him badly and almost knocked him out and hoylfield didnt have a knock out punch.
Holyfield 208 lb Ko 3 Buster douglas 246 lb
micheal spinks 208lb Tko 5 Cooney 238 lb
tyson kayoed many opponents heavier.


guys like marciano, dempsey, louis all did the most damage to their biggest opponents.

lennox lewis is a sucker for a right hand. mccail and rahman knocked him out cold with it. lennox lewis never faced a a guy like rock who pound u to the body, and arms and then takes off ur head with a right hand. and if i may add , marciano and dempsey would have bulked up too about 200 lb if they were fighting today. marciano trained himself down to 185lb. that wasnt his natural weight.

tyson and marciano both with a short reach, both about 5'11, always got inside their opponents and tysons most devastating knockouts were against the 6'6 guys and they used their leverage to take the guys apart.

Your point about Mantle was well taken. I suppose there's still possibly the question of how baseballs were strung in Mantle's day. Lot of 50+ homerun seasons leading up to and through the Mantle era, before power numbers in baseball quieted down a little in the late 60s and on through the 70s and 80s. Still, it wasn't as good a metaphor as I thought it would be.

But you're missing my point, anyway. I don't care how big the bums were Marciano knocked out. Of course he knocks the bums out, big and small. First of all, I'm sure he was readily able to hit them, right? Probably at will. If a great puncher like Marciano lands a clean shot on his opponent's chin, that guy's going down, I don't care how big he is. Marciano pound-for-pound was one of the hardest hitters of all time. Besides, the extra pork I'm talking about doesn't exist on chins.

As I said, size is NOT the "end all" to decide who wins fights or which fighter naturally hits harder. I was just using Lennox Lewis as an example. Not my favorite fighter in the world, but he is big and he can fight. Now, if Marciano was able to catch Lewis on the chin with his best shot, Lewis goes down and probably out. Not a question of whether Marciano has the power to do that.

BUT ... I do question whether every punch Marciano landed to Lewis's body would have as much individual impact as it did against 185-pound LaStarza, 185-pound Charles, 195-pound Walcott, etc. LaStarza, for instance, was downright skinny. The body shots he took from Marciano literally busted him up. And it's not as if I think Marciano didn't have the power to bust Lewis up the same way ...

But don't you think it would've taken a few more shots? Relativity! Do you see what I mean?

It's funny you're mentioning Shavers (rightly noted as one of the, if not THE hardest puncher in HW history) When talking of size, Shavers was not much bigger then Marciano. Rocky-5'10, 185 (and remember this guy was psychotic when it came to conditioning and his whole body was rock solid)

Shavers, 6'1, prime weight around 210. That's a 25 lb weight advantage (not much at all in the HW division) on a guy 3 inches taller (who thus should be weighing more in proportion to his body)

Lennox Lewis was exhausted when he faced the two guys who even threw at all to his body, Ray Mercer and Evander Holyfield, and both of them couldn't even take advantage of it b/c they were either overweight (Mercer) or old (Holyfield).

No doubt smaller guys beat bigger guys (even recent examples: Brock over McCline, Lyakhovich over Whittaker). I'm not trying to draw a line here that says smaller guys CAN'T beat bigger guys, or that smaller guys automatically don't hit as hard as bigger guys just because they're smaller.

I'm merely trying to equate power in a "measurable" sense. I believe the going consensus is that Marciano hit harder than any other HW in history. Good enough. I myself don't think that's true. I think a smaller puncher may generate more snap, but not more follow through power. And the mass on the guy you're hitting does effect how damaging your punches are (less shots to the chin). Marciano's best shots to the body break a skinny 185-pound fighter like LaStarza in half, but he needs more of 'em to get the same result against a powerfully built 225-pound Foreman.

That's the relativity I'm talking about.

..not commenting on the thread as such....but:

bob satterfield 1801/2 kayo rd. one over bob baker 214
bob satterfield 183 wd nino valdez..215. valdez down for count of nine in 10th round. i saw that one on tv...satterfield's first punch in round one had a wide eyed valdez running for the rest of the fight.


satterfield 182 kayo john hollman 206
satterfield176 kayo cleveland williams 201 1/2

..check box rec for others. heaviest puncher ever for his size.

kingpawn wrote:This one is by request. It stems from some recent discussions about punching power. One, in particular, was a resurrected old thread from a poster named Homicide Henry titled "Shavers vs. Foreman: Who's The KO Master".

The original post asked the obvious question, but then the author sort of negated it by stating that he thought Marciano was the hardest punching HW of all time (or something like that). At any rate, as the thread went along, it got me thinking that there's at least some relevance to size when you're talking about punching power among HWs that seems to be lost on a lot of folks here.

Marciano may have been the hardest hitting HW ever pound-for-pound. But in a more scientific sense (as in that you could somehow measure it) his power was only proportionately greater than Shavers or Foreman. In terms of sheer force, in my humble opinion both Shavers and Foreman hit harder. Reason? Marciano weighed less than 190 pounds. Not enough pork to match Shavers at 215 or Foreman at 225.

I know this is destined to be an unpopular analysis. Whatever the case, here's more. All of Marciano's toughest opponents only weighed about as much as he did (185-195 pounds). Hence, his punches were naturally more devastating than they would have been against many of the best fighters who came later (Liston, Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, etc.) on the basis of size. Like it or not, an increase in size, as long as we're talking well-conditioned bodies, does equate to the ability to take more punishment from a 190-pound puncher vs. that from a 225-pound puncher.

Example: Bob Foster was a KO artist at light heavy. Among the best punchers ever in that weight class. But when he went up and fought HWs (Zora Folley, Ernie Terrell, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier), he didn't have the equivalent horsepower that he had against light heavies ... and he lost.

Example: Vassilly Jirov was a beast at cruiser. 7-1 (6 KOs) in eight title fights. He moves up to HW and, Mesi aside, he just looks like he doesn't have the punch. Not to compete at the top. With his style, he's just not big enough. And that's in a HW division that doesn't have a whole lot to brag about right now.

Question: Does anyone agree that perhaps the reason Tyson couldn't take out a virtually defenseless journeyman like McBride was because McBride was just so damn big? That his big body was just naturally able to absorb hard punches better than all those 220-pound fighters Tyson beat up in his good years? I know Tyson was washed up long before McBride, but isn't power the last thing to go?

Don't know how well I managed to explain this, but that's the relativity of power to size theory. Size is NOT relative to pound-for-pound strength, but it is relative to sheer force at impact. Marciano was a great puncher, equivalently great to any puncher ever at any weight ... hitting guys his own size.

Transport him in time to face a 245-pound Lennox Lewis ...

Don't know how any of these dream matchups can ever really be argued with a straight face. OUT!!

Why is Marciano always singled out here? It's as though there is some singular agenda to pull Marciano out of the midst of the various great 185-pounders and belittle him.

One reason, I believe, is that Marciano didn't fight any particuarly large top fighters. You never see someone say this about Jack Dempsey, because Dempsey proved he could knock out guys that size.

And yes, Jack Dempsey is going to be the main point of my argument here. To put it simply, you're wrong. Marciano could knock out any man, regardless of size. Dempsey completely obliterated several top heavywieghts who were easily modern-sized. A 185-pound man who is a powerful enough hitter for that weight can produce enough power to knock out a man of any size.

Of course he CAN. I'm not saying he CAN'T. I'm also not singling out Marciano. In fact, in making this whole presentation, I just knew that's how this was going to be taken, even though I've said before I'd drive 100 miles to see a Marciano fight before I'd walk across the street to watch someone else.

My main point here is sheer force power and I don't think a 185-pound puncher, even one who hit as hard as Marciano, could produce the same amount of brute force in one punch than a 225-pound puncher like a Foreman, if you had the means to measure the force of the punch. As long as you're talking strong, fit bodies and not fat, out-of-shape bodies, I'm saying the mass behind Foreman's punch (as in size) will produce more follow through power than Marciano's.

I'm only using Marciano to demonstrate a point, not to belittle him. But maybe I should be using someone else. Let me try it this way ...

If what you're all saying is true, then perhaps I should believe Roberto Duran at his best as a lightweight hit as hard as light heavy Matthew Saad Muhammad at his best -- hard, as in brute force hard. Same relative size differential as Marciano and Lewis. Duran and Marciano were basically the same kind of fighter. C'mon, man, it's just unlikely as all hell. I'm sure there was snap in Duran's punches that Saad didn't have. But in sheer force terms, there's no way Duran hit as hard.

It doesn't matter to me all the times smaller fighters KO'd bigger ones. All you guys rolling out with your lists; how many times it has happened, who the fighters were and how much each one weighed.

That's not, and was never intended to be, my point here. My point is that, as long as you're talking strong, fit athletes as fighters, if you take two punchers (two guys duly noted for their punching power) and one weighs 185 and the other weighs 225, the smaller guy is going to have a hell of a time producing punches that will be "measurably" harder than the bigger guy in terms of sheer brute force at impact.

If we go back to just looking at size in relation to punching power then there has to be a connection. If we forget the Heavywerights and look at fighters who move up the weight classes it's obvious that there is an advantage to being bigger as long as you are in good condition. Duran at lightweight was a far more formidable puncher than Duran at Middleweight. These advantages can lead to disadvantages in the Heavys when they get too big but generally the larger man ahs an advantage.

We can all list fighters who beat men much bigger than themselves but that doesn't prove anything. Imagine Ezzard Charles or Gene Tunney as natural 200-210 pound men. They would have been all but unbeatable.

I agree that it's not the be all and end all of the argrument. I also think when comparing greats you ahve to consider some of the differences in size being less of a problem than they look on paper. Holyfield managed to beef up and stay in great condition and remain quick, so Rocky, Dempsey, Joe Louis etc could have done it too if they'd have thought it was a problem. Besides, haven't people got bigger in general???? Wouldn't these men have been naturally bigger if they were around today?

But almost always the lighter fighters (in the 190-220 range) will be able to punch better then their bigger counterparts, simply b/c they don't carry excessive muscle in their arms and shoulders and are more agile and proportioned. They and are able to move their hips, legs, and shoulders quickly to produce 'explosive power.' That's what Joe Louis had. That's what the 215 lb Tyson had. Marciano is a bad example b/c he wasn't explosive like a Dempsey or Louis . . it was more just pure strength and velocity in his punches.

Well Dempsey it is difficult to think of an explosive heavy who was over 230, so maybe the weight you are talking about is the prime weight for most boxers. Even so, using your range of weigth, a 220 pound guy is at an advantage over 190 pound guy (everything else being equal)???

Dempseyfire seems to be speaking of the "snap" in terms of a power punch, something the really big guys (Jameel McCline was mentioned) have very little of. It's a good point, explains something that's hard to find the right words for. Landing flush on the chin, this "snap" is not the brute force power I'm talking about, but it IS knockout power of a different kind.

This "snap" is a killer when it hits something hard -- like a chin. It doesn't mean as much when it hits something softer and covered with more flesh, like a body shot. I was trying to describe how I felt a Marciano body shot would not be as singularly damaging bouncing off a Foreman's side than off the side of a Roland LaStarza. Not quite the brute force power, but no shortage of snap. Hence, Marciano could bring down a big tree like a Foreman (if he could get enough of those shots in), but it's going to take more chops. That's the relativity!

It's a brilliant deduction of the obvious to me. Being somewhat of a scientifically trained mind, I just get all hung up on some of these little details.

Ezzard wrote:Well Dempsey it is difficult to think of an explosive heavy who was over 230, so maybe the weight you are talking about is the prime weight for most boxers. Even so, using your range of weigth, a 220 pound guy is at an advantage over 190 pound guy (everything else being equal)???

In terms of pure punching power? . . .maybe.

But two things:

1) 30 lb gap in the HW division is not much at ALL.

2) The 190 lb guy probably has swifter feet then his 220 lb counterpart

There are advantages and disadvantages for the smaller man and the bigger man. But yes, ideal HW weight has been and continues to be 190-220. These 6'0-6'3 guys weighing 235 who keep losing to guys like John Ruiz need to slim their butts down and take a page from the history books. Of course, most lack even the discipline to do that.

This is an interesting thread. What makes a puncher a topic that many have pondered?
I tend to beleive that the elite level punchers tend to end their matches quickly once they land their best stuff.

Some fighters carry their power extremely well into the later rounds. Marciano.

Some fighter ware guys down through attrition of blows.

Other fighters get great leverage on their shots.

Some fighters have " heavy hands ".

Others rely on the stinging power of speed.

I beleive that Marciano, Louis and Dempsey were all outstanding punchers in their era, and would be outstanding punchers in this era. Each man had a different type of power.

Louis was fast, accurate, and had to technique. A joy to watch, Louis got great leverage in his punches.

Dempsey combined raw speed and explosive hitting power. When Dempsey landed his best, the end often came swiftly.

Marciano had clubbing power, and could generate his power at extremely short distances, or throw his entire body eight into his punches. Maricano's power on film does not diminsih into the later rounds, it remains strong.

So each had a legend had their own version of power.

Yet each man was but a small cruiser weight or extremely small heavyweight ranging from 185-200 in their primes. I must ask, where has the power gone post 1960 in the 185-200 pound fighters?

How could Louis, Dempsey and Maricano have such power at 185-205, yet modern fighters who enjoy scientific supplement advantages don't seem to have the same amount of explosive power? About 50 years has passed since Marciano retired, and there has not been a 185-200 pound fighter with that type of power since.

Were the gloves of the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's more conducive towards punchers? I think so, as they were lighter. Heavyweights today often fight with 16 oz gloves. Back Dempsey, Louis’ and Marciano’s day, 6 or 8 oz gloves were the norm. This meant increased hand speed and less padding to absorb the impact of the blows.

Does size matter when absorbing a blow? I think the answer is yes.

Does size matter when it comes to power? I say it most certainly does. Featherweights will never hit as head as middleweights. There is 34 pounds difference between the two weight classes, much the same way there is about 34 pounds difference between 190 and an in shape 234 pound modern heavyweight.

According to the old physics theory, power = Velocity multiplied by Mass. If size limits speed and technique, then it’s a handicap. If not, then it’s an asset. Of course power means nothing if you lack the skills to land clean blows or lack the stamina to maintain your power over a fight.

kingpawn wrote:Of course he CAN. I'm not saying he CAN'T. I'm also not singling out Marciano. In fact, in making this whole presentation, I just knew that's how this was going to be taken, even though I've said before I'd drive 100 miles to see a Marciano fight before I'd walk across the street to watch someone else.

My main point here is sheer force power and I don't think a 185-pound puncher, even one who hit as hard as Marciano, could produce the same amount of brute force in one punch than a 225-pound puncher like a Foreman, if you had the means to measure the force of the punch. As long as you're talking strong, fit bodies and not fat, out-of-shape bodies, I'm saying the mass behind Foreman's punch (as in size) will produce more follow through power than Marciano's.

I'm only using Marciano to demonstrate a point, not to belittle him. But maybe I should be using someone else. Let me try it this way ...

If what you're all saying is true, then perhaps I should believe Roberto Duran at his best as a lightweight hit as hard as light heavy Matthew Saad Muhammad at his best -- hard, as in brute force hard. Same relative size differential as Marciano and Lewis. Duran and Marciano were basically the same kind of fighter. C'mon, man, it's just unlikely as all hell. I'm sure there was snap in Duran's punches that Saad didn't have. But in sheer force terms, there's no way Duran hit as hard.

It doesn't matter to me all the times smaller fighters KO'd bigger ones. All you guys rolling out with your lists; how many times it has happened, who the fighters were and how much each one weighed.

That's not, and was never intended to be, my point here. My point is that, as long as you're talking strong, fit athletes as fighters, if you take two punchers (two guys duly noted for their punching power) and one weighs 185 and the other weighs 225, the smaller guy is going to have a hell of a time producing punches that will be "measurably" harder than the bigger guy in terms of sheer brute force at impact.

Duran and Saad Muhammad is completely different from Marciano and Lewis, and certainly no the same relative size difference. At smaller and smaller weights, a size differential makes a bigger difference.
It isn't a straight up "45 pounds is 45 pounds" sort of thing, or even a "50 pounds is to 200 pounds as 40 pounds is to 160 pounds" type thing. A large weight gap at heavyweight is vastly different from a large weight gap at a smaller size range.

MF is right when noting that the difference between 160 and 130 is FAR greater then 200-230.
When it comes to the really big men in a sport like boxing (6'4 and over), they are just HUGE targets and while they can have athletic coordination, can never be as fast/coordinated as an equal athlete who's not as gigantic b/c their bodies just won't allow them. Even Lennox Lewis, deemed the most athletic of big HWs, was frequently off balance and often became gassed if pushed to fight at a pace he wasn't comfortable at.

And that being said, the wide majority of HW fighters since the 1980s over 220 SHOULD be around 200 lbs. They are just overweight due to an over reliance on weight training, laziness, over-eating between fights etc. It's not that the 200 lb punchers have dissapeared, it's that they are all slobs and overweight. I can guarantee you David Tua would have fulfilled so much more of his promise if he had stayed at 205-210, his weight in his initial pro fights (and this wasn't an under-developed teenager, he was already in his mid 20s). Ditto with Rahman, Tubbs, Johnson, current guys like Brock, Brewster, Peter etc. Can you imagine the DESTROYER Sam Peter would be if he weighed 215?? Instead we get this 6 ft, 245 lb plodder with heavy hands who will forever disappoint boxing fans b/c he just weighs too damn much. IN addition, as boxing has declined substantially, your regular sized 'HW' athletes just aren't entering into boxing anymore. That's whywe have so many of the super HW 'busts' around the scene now, a bunch of big guys who took up boxing late b/c other sports didn't work out for them, and people told them "you're big and strong, how about you go box" . . and then they ended up like Michael Grant. The few giants who've had any success have been boxing/fighting from a very young age. Vitali Klitschko would never be near where he is today without his extensive world-class amateur background, and when one looks at today's fighters he's one of the very few around who have such experience, thus his success despite his awkwardness and lack of finesse.

That was kind of a tangent but I hope it was cohesive enough.

It was a good tangent. I suppose it's getting a little away from the original point, but I agree Sam Peter would be an even more destructive fighter if he took off about 20-25 pounds. Might bring some "snap" into his punches without taking too much away from the brute force. At 240+, I'm quite certain he wouldn't survive in a war due to fatigue.

That might be a good topic for another thread all together, the question being, "Will we ever see another war of the same magnitude as any one of the Ali-Frazier fights from the kind of HWs that exist today?"

Should I even attempt to answer that question?