BoxRec

ive been hearing alot of this latley on the board and theirs been alot of contraversy. Alot of people seem to think that todays heavyweights are much better then the heavyweights of the past. im curious as to what they are better at? the only noticable difference i see is that they are bigger.

Footspeed?- ill take Ali over any of todays heavyweights in this category.

Strength?- ill take Rocky and Louis over any of todays heavyweights.

Hand Speed?- yeah right, show me a good heavyweight today with quick hands and ill show you 100 old heavyweights with better hand speed.

Defense?- tommy loughran was a phenominal defender at heavyweight, and he wasnt even a natural fighter at heavyweight. and when i see fighters today fight i dont see any great defense being showcased.

Heart?- UMM, rocky, braddock, frazier.. ill take them over.. evander, vitali, and... lennox lewis?

Smarts? Ali was the most brilliant fighter at heavyweight. Period.

i really dont see any significant advantage to the heavyweights of today, except for size. i think that heavyweights of the past who were to fight today, would be able to bulk up another 20 pounds n keep it muscle. the diet and weight lifting programs in todays world is far more advanced than that of the past, and i think they would be able to gain size. throw a guy like toney or vitali back, and i doubt they are anywhere near the size they are now. i beleive its all relavent

if their better then the rest, then wouldnt they fair out ok?

I for one don't believe fighters of today enjoy any distinct advantage over fighters 50 or even possibly even 100 years ago in some cases. There have been great fighters in every decade, and in fact I'll even defend the fighters of the early part of last century by saying that there were a few guysback then who could fight out of a crouch for 20 rounds, which if attempted by alot of guys today would probably make there legs give out. Not everyone of course though.

My opinions on the heavyweight division are based on something all togather different. The seize progression there, is so overwhelming, that I honestly couldn't see Joe Louis dominating todays heavyweight division any more than I could see Red Grange leading the NFL in rushing in 2005. Todays heavyweights are monsters compared to the fighters from 40 or more years ago. and they're getting bigger. If you look at the records of past HW champions going back to Jack Johnson, everyone has a couple of big boys on there resume that they've Ko'd or decisioned, but the fact is, the overwhelming majority of there opponents were under 200 lbs. It's alot different when you're fighting guys 220, 230, 240 and up every week. It's a physical fact that if you have two well conditioned fighters and one weighs 200 and the other 250, the heavier guy is going to have more muscle mass and is going to withstand bodypunches a heck of alot better. He's also on average going to hit alot harder, and be able to sap his smaller opponents strength in the clinches by just driving into him. If you match up 200 lb fighters against 250 lb fighters, there will be instances where the smaller guy wins, but alot more often than not it's going to be the guy with the extra 50 lbs. It's why we have weight divisions !!!

but im saying that alot of this weight difference has to do with todays weight lifting programs, and dieting programs and steroids (toney)

but if you brought in guys from the past and put them on todays dieting programs and weight lfiting schedules, im sure they could bulk up. joe louis was 6"2. he def. could have bulked up. louis fought many of his fights around 205. fighters like buddy baer, jess willar, primo carnera, were all big as today. max baer even fought at around 215. the 70's and 80's heavyweights were def. big enough. I see that there is a weight difference, but i think that those fighters could have bulked up muscle.

Seamus wrote:I for one don't believe fighters of today enjoy any distinct advantage over fighters 50 or even possibly even 100 years ago in some cases. There have been great fighters in every decade, and in fact I'll even defend the fighters of the early part of last century by saying that there were a few guysback then who could fight out of a crouch for 20 rounds, which if attempted by alot of guys today would probably make there legs give out. Not everyone of course though.

My opinions on the heavyweight division are based on something all togather different. The seize progression there, is so overwhelming, that I honestly couldn't see Joe Louis dominating todays heavyweight division any more than I could see Red Grange leading the NFL in rushing in 2005. Todays heavyweights are monsters compared to the fighters from 40 or more years ago. and they're getting bigger. If you look at the records of past HW champions going back to Jack Johnson, everyone has a couple of big boys on there resume that they've Ko'd or decisioned, but the fact is, the overwhelming majority of there opponents were under 200 lbs. It's alot different when you're fighting guys 220, 230, 240 and up every week. It's a physical fact that if you have two well conditioned fighters and one weighs 200 and the other 250, the heavier guy is going to have more muscle mass and is going to withstand bodypunches a heck of alot better. He's also on average going to hit alot harder, and be able to sap his smaller opponents strength in the clinches by just driving into him. If you match up 200 lb fighters against 250 lb fighters, there will be instances where the smaller guy wins, but alot more often than not it's going to be the guy with the extra 50 lbs. It's why we have weight divisions !!!

Seamus ... This has always been the unpopular viewpoint, yet I agree with you. To say, for instance, that Dempsey would never have beaten Foreman because of what seems quite obvious to you and me would cause the whole world to tip on its axis for all the Dempsey fans.

Yet (sticking with the example) to say Dempsey would stand little chance against Foreman is not saying that Foreman was BETTER. That's what always amazes me in these kinds of arguments. Relatively speaking, Dempsey was every bit as good as any more modern era HW. Relatively speaking, Marciano was just as good as any more modern era HW. But, you give power, skills and a sizable reach advantage to a 220+ pound fighter and I'll bet on him every time against a strong, equally skilled 185-pounder.

As it relates to HWs, there is usually a decided advantage in skill when a smaller man beats a significantly bigger man.

Didn't a 189 lb Peralta give Foreman all types of fits . . .but the larger Dempsey would bee too small?

Hell, Holyfield and Tyson are arguably both smaller than Jack Dempsey, but they both added bulk because that was what boxers were supposed to do in the late 1980s. The reason that Holyfield and Tyson were over 200 pounds was that it was fashionable to be over 200 pounds, and because it was easier to put bulk on and maintain speed. If Jack Dempsey added 20 pounds using 1920s training techniques, he would have lost all of his speed, but today, "explosive" weight training and steroids allow fighters to put on mass without losing speed.

when we talk abotu a fight happening between say dempsey and byrd, we mean right now. which means dempseyt gets to enjoy the new state of the art tech. that our fighters do. this is my whole reasoning behind my arguement. its not the fighters its the equipment. if the fight is fought back in the 20's. then neither get it, and byrd leaved with his head hopefully still attached to his body. if todays fighters fought back then they would not be as big as they are.

Decagon wrote:Sure. Lots of navigators could have found the New World, but Eric the Red did. Lots of astronomers could have discovered the red shift of distant galaxies, but Edward Hubbel did. Gene Tunney could have been a 220-pound boxing master, but he wasn't. Muhammad Ali did become all the things that Tunney, Marciano and even Dempsey couldn't.

you mean leif erikson found the new world correct?

then this whole comparison ordeal is impossible by your standards. a fighter from the past who would have fought today, would without a doubt be heavier and stronger. and a fighter from today who were to fight back then would be smaller and weaker

Rory

Your point about the Old Timers (were they around today) bulking up, has some validity, but at the same time it's clearly not as simple as you seem to imply it is. If you look at the top 50 Heavyweights, probably 45 have always been hw's. James Toney is one of the exceptions and even he has only 1 ko in 4 fights against less than stellar opposition. Juan Carlos Gomez may get a title shot, but he's 6-3 1/2 . Even in his case, he hasen't beaten a legitimate top 10 contender yet. Than there's Vasili Jirov one of the best cruiserweights ever. This guy has knocked out 3 guys with one punch bodyshots, but as a hw he's only managed to beat clubfighters. So in the final analysis, what you're suggesting is certainly possible, but realistically speaking few fighters from the lower divisions can pull an Evander Holyfield and be almost as good at HW as they were at CW.

i'd still back dempsey to ko byrd and ruiz in 12/15 rounders,brewster as well.and in sullivans unlimited rounds or fight to finish i'd back john l as well.

It's true that today's fighters are body beautifuls, but the majority of them are winded by the late rounds, and some even clinch as much or even more than early fighters did. Most of these fighters that bulk up are slower, have less stamina, and clinch a lot. Look at boxers in the teens and twenties; they threw their bulk around and could outmuscle guys larger than them. Weighing more can be an asset, if you know how to effectively use it, and added weight doesn't neccessarily mean more physically strength. Boxing has changed since its inception, but has not been such a significant change that olden day fighters couldn't compete today. Boxers still clinch, fight inside, and box and move like they did in any era. Most significant changes are not in the fighters themselves, but with the rulebook.

Seamus wrote:Rory

Your point about the Old Timers (were they around today) bulking up, has some validity, but at the same time it's clearly not as simple as you seem to imply it is. If you look at the top 50 Heavyweights, probably 45 have always been hw's. James Toney is one of the exceptions and even he has only 1 ko in 4 fights against less than stellar opposition. Juan Carlos Gomez may get a title shot, but he's 6-3 1/2 . Even in his case, he hasen't beaten a legitimate top 10 contender yet. Than there's Vasili Jirov one of the best cruiserweights ever. This guy has knocked out 3 guys with one punch bodyshots, but as a hw he's only managed to beat clubfighters. So in the final analysis, what you're suggesting is certainly possible, but realistically speaking few fighters from the lower divisions can pull an Evander Holyfield and be almost as good at HW as they were at CW.

Another good example is Bob Foster. One of the best light heavyweights of all time, but, whenever he stepped up and fought HWs, he just didn't have the horsepower. The same punishment he could dish out against guys in his own weight class was not enough to carry the day against guys who were bigger.

Sure, every one of us could go back through the records and find examples of skilled big men who were beaten by significantly smaller fighters. Size, in and of itself, is not the be all and end all of everything. But, assuming both fighters are skilled but one is siginifcantly bigger, the big guy is going to win a vast majority of the time.

yeah well vasily jirov was no marciano or dempsey.

- fact is, we hadnt had any good cruiserweights near the level of a marciano demspey besides holyfield who had success at heavy division. and holy even at 190 would have had success. and holy IMO still couldnt beat dempsey or marciano.

fact is there are exceptions and marciano, dempsey, holy other are the few 190lbs that can beat the bigger guys.

That Holyfield couldn't beat Marciano and Dempsey is your opinion. At cruiserweight either guy could possibly take a close decision from Evander, but if it's at heavyweight against the 215 lb Holyfield who drove Tyson around the ring lock a blocking sled, then I seriously doubt either guy makes it past the 8th round. A prime Holyfield at hw would just be too strong for those guys.

I don't think that the hart of a fighter get's any bigger than Holyfields. And Holy against Marciano .. give me a break man. Marciano had power but Holy had chin to mach whatever slow digging snails that guy threw, if they would actually have landed. Dempsey seems legit.. but I haven't seen this guy as much so I'l shut up now .

I beleve that size is not the only thing. Stuff runs this way.. there are tapes styles.. trainers who have more info to extract from the tapes. Styles are more compact and dangerous, clinical punches land better. What is against most of fighters today is the work ethic but old fighters also had bad nights.
It's only logical that things evolve.. I mean theres really nothin to say. If these fighters of the old would have lived nowadays ofcourse they could have been better bigger n stuff but the time machines exists NOT.

joe louis was effective at 215. that wasnt his weight when he was younger, but fighters with enough talent can adapt

Decagon wrote:Opinion: With modern, more schooled punching techniques and combinations, John L. Sullivan could have been an excellent boxer.

Fact: He wasn't.

Get a dictionary pal. Your fact here is also a mere opinion. Unless you actually saw John L fight I don't see how you can possibly judge whether or not he was an excellent boxer.

Seamus wrote:That Holyfield couldn't beat Marciano and Dempsey is your opinion. At cruiserweight either guy could possibly take a close decision from Evander, but if it's at heavyweight against the 215 lb Holyfield who drove Tyson around the ring lock a blocking sled, then I seriously doubt either guy makes it past the 8th round. A prime Holyfield at hw would just be too strong for those guys.

I don't think Marciano or Dempsey could have beaten a cruiserweight Holyfield. Holyfield at cruiserweight was fast, powerful, and with some of the best conditioning ever seen. Remember how Holyfield was once considered the best conditioned heavyweight on the planet (obviously before he became 135 years old)? He was even better at cruiserweight. I don't think Dempsey or Marciano could have kept up the kind of pace Holyfield could set at cruiserweight. Prime example is his fight with Dwight Qawi. I just don't think Dempsey and Marciano had the training available that would have let them keep up that kind of pace. While Qawi is not the calibre that Marciano or Dempsey were, he threw punches like a windmill which makes for tough fights. Marciano and Dempsey never showed that kind of ability.

Note: That also was an 11-0 Holyfield in that Qawi fight. Imagine if he had grown into the division what kind of monster he would have been.

evndrbsn wrote:I just don't think Dempsey and Marciano had the training available that would have let them keep up that kind of pace.

How long have you been a boxing fan? When I first got hooked on boxing in the late 60's there were quite a few gyms and boxing trainers in Akron Ohio where I live. The annual Golden Gloves tournament was still a major event, and drew thousands of very vocal fans. Now if you want to box in Akron, you'd have a very difficult time finding a gym with boxing facilities let alone a real boxing trainer. From what my father has told me, there were even more gyms and trainers when he was younger in the 40's and 50's, so there has been a very steep decline in boxing trainers and training facilities. I'm pretty confident that this is true in every other US city as well, but please correct me if I am mistaken.

Based on the fact that there are a LOT less gyms and trainers than there used to be, why do you think Dempsey and Marciano couldn't have had training available to allow them to fight at a hard pace? This just doesn't make any sense. Most of the essentials for training a boxer have not really changed much in the past 100 years. While there is better knowledge about nutrition and strength training I don't think you can really see any evidence that these advances have improved the conditioning of fighters. This is probably due to the fact that most fighters don't work as hard as fighters in the past, and most likely do not have trainers who are as knowledgeable as those available during the Dempsey and Marciano eras.

Rory McCloskey wrote:ive been hearing alot of this latley on the board and theirs been alot of contraversy. Alot of people seem to think that todays heavyweights are much better then the heavyweights of the past. im curious as to what they are better at? the only noticable difference i see is that they are bigger.

Footspeed?- ill take Ali over any of todays heavyweights in this category.

Strength?- ill take Rocky and Louis over any of todays heavyweights.

Hand Speed?- yeah right, show me a good heavyweight today with quick hands and ill show you 100 old heavyweights with better hand speed.

Defense?- tommy loughran was a phenominal defender at heavyweight, and he wasnt even a natural fighter at heavyweight. and when i see fighters today fight i dont see any great defense being showcased.

Heart?- UMM, rocky, braddock, frazier.. ill take them over.. evander, vitali, and... lennox lewis?

Smarts? Ali was the most brilliant fighter at heavyweight. Period.

i really dont see any significant advantage to the heavyweights of today, except for size. i think that heavyweights of the past who were to fight today, would be able to bulk up another 20 pounds n keep it muscle. the diet and weight lifting programs in todays world is far more advanced than that of the past, and i think they would be able to gain size. throw a guy like toney or vitali back, and i doubt they are anywhere near the size they are now. i beleive its all relavent

I think its difficult comparing new heavyweights with the old because the heavyweight division has changed. Heavyweights today are naturally much bigger than there counterparts and because of this they are not always as athletic. The heavyweight scene has changed. Its hard to be light on your toes and as quick as lightning when your 16+ stone. Just think Liston in his day was classed as a monster, a huge heavyweight feared by all, but today he would be fairly average in size.

Heavyweights like Marciano would today be cruiserweights and I don't think its as easy saying they could just bulk up because that extra weight may not suit their way of fighting. Marciano was very small, just over 5'10" with very short arms. I think at most he could have added maybe a stone or a stone and a half in weight, but his stamina may not have been as good?? Even with a 19lb weigh increase he still would only have weighted 201lbs and for a fighter with limited boxing skill this, I don't think, would have been enough to compete with someone like Lewis.

In 50 years time todays heavyweight will be classed as small because as time goes on people get taller, live longer and generally increase in size. The average heavyweigh in 50 years will probably weigh an average of 18-19 stone, maybe more. Because of this the heavyweights are the only weight class where its hard to compare like for like. Middlesweights will always weigh the same so you can compare like for like.

John L even though I disagree with the basic premise of your argument you still make some very cogent points. Chicago public high schools had boxing at least through the 30's and Catholic schools even longer. Americans some times get accused of thinking they're superior to the English, but I know some high schools in London had boxing for boys long after we abandoned it. The politically correct crowd over here would never stand for it now days, but I say better to have the gangbangers punching each other in the ring than shooting at each other on the street.

I don't base my belief that Holyfield would be too strong for Dempsey or Marciano at heavyweight on anything other than what he accomplished in the ring. I try to be a Realist not a Nostalgist. Holyfield probably did do things differently, but having a Herculean physique alone isn't enough (just look at Bruce Seldon) The old time HW champions enjoyed legendary status in there day, and alot of posters still view them that way. But realistically speaking it's the Nostalgists who are always coming up with the irrelevant arguments "He punched with so many pounds per square inch" "He hit so hard no one wanted to spare with him" "So and so said no one ever hit him harder" "He once knocked out 6 men in a bar room brawl" "He once knocked out a horse". None of that should really enter into the equasion of how a certain fighter would do against another. Before Leonard v Hearns I, Emmanuel Steward said that Hearns had decked lightheavy weights in sparring sessions at the Kronk Gym. Maybe he did, or maybe it was just an attempt to intimidate Leonard, but it had no bearing on what took place in the ring that night. Fact was, whether or not Hearns had actually floored light heavyweights in the past, he was unable to floor another welterweight when it really counted.

evndrsbrn wrote

I don't think Dempsey or Marciano could have kept up the kind of pace Holyfield could set at cruiserweight.

this proves right there u dont know what ur talking about. marciano perhaps had the most stamina in heavyweight history, and even non marciano fans will attest to this!!!!!!! dempsey also had all time great stamina and IMO better than holyfields!!


the question is can holyfield keep up with dempsey and marcianos pace. i watched marciano throw 100 punches every round in a gruelling 15 rounder against exzzard charles. marcian owas still firing away non stop in the 15th round, and could have gone another 10 rounds. i watched marciano carry his power late into his fights. against walcott after a hard fought 12 rounds, one punch and walcott was out cold.


i watched holyfield fight a action packed 15 rounder gaainst qawi, but hol had to be taken to the hopsital because he couldnt handle that kind of pace. marciano could easily handle that pace. fact is marciano was the most conditioed heavy ever.

dempsey was not tired after his 15 rounder with gibbons, i watched dempsey carry his power late into many fights and could keep up his aggresion in the later rounds as well.


i cant believe u actually asked if marciano could keep up with holys pace??? whether or not u rate marciano highly, he easily could keep up with holys pace.




qawi gave holy fits, and he was a poor mans dempsey and marciano. i have noe doubt marciano and dempsey would have beat holyfield.

holyfield cant take marciano or dempseys punches for 15 rounds, and holyfields heart and chin will keephim surviving. holy will make a competetive fight, but marciano will put too much pressure and wear down holy, and dempsey will be too aggresive and fast for holyfield.

dempsey TKO 10 holyfield- dempsey would give holyfield a beating, and holys heart will keep him on his feet. dempsey had more power, better handspeed, better footwork, just as much heart and toughness, equal chin, better combination puncher, and just as good a boxer.

marciano 15 unanimous decision holyfield- but if marciano hurts him badly, or lands the suzie Q , he will finish holy off and he could do it early. i however think this fight goes to later rounds. bowe didnt have the stamina in the 10th to finish holy off, dempsey and marciano does. marciano has more power, more stamina, just as good a chin and heart, marciano is the greater puncher, more aggression, threw many more punches, better body puncher, just as good defense, handspeed same. look what the short crab qawi did to holyfield???

i think holy vs marcian and dempsey would be comptetivie fights and somewhat close but IMO dempsey and marciano would prevail.

IMO holyfield was not too strong for marciano and dempsey. marciano pushed and outphysicaled a 6'2 215lb joe louis around the ring the whole fight, and dempsey moved around 6'7 245lb willard in clinches.


cultus wrote

Marciano had power but Holy had chin to mach whatever slow digging snails that guy threw

just like holyfield was able to take late sub bert coopers punches

i just think dempsey and the rock would be too relentless for holy.i think jack would relish holy going to war with him and i think the rock would be licking his lips in anticipation.dempsey explodes and takes holy out in 8 rounds.marciano pounds away in a brutal fight and ko's evander in 14.

cos they'd give him the opportunity and he wouldn't be able to resist.

That's a good one Brockton ! Now here's the punchline to your joke. Marciano threw 100 punches a round for 15 rounds against Ezzard Charles, AND he couldn't knock him out !!!

In another thread you insisted that Marciano hits with 100 lbs per square inch more than Vitali Klitschko and so by your mathematical formula of Marciano's hitting power X punches thrown per round he's guaranteed to beat Vitali. Yet in a bout with a less than rugged Ezzard Charles (great fighter but would have been better at LHW) a guy Walcott knocked out with one punch, Marciano is unable to score a knockout when throwing 100 punches a round. I'll take a 215 lb motivated Holyfield, who Foreman, Tyson and Lewis couldn't knockdown with there best shots, over a Marciano or Dempsey any day. And by the way, Joe Frazier went to the hospital in 71 after beating Ali. Taking precautions don't make you weak.