Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

[Shake]

I'll put forth the argument in its simplest form.

The race of man is continually growing larger. Because of that, boxers at heavyweight are bigger now, both on average and extremes. There have been many successful big heavyweights who've used their size-advantage in the past -- however, there is a larger pool of big men to produce boxers from currently.

Does Rocky Marciano stand a chance against a Lennox Lewis? Against a Wladimir Klitschko?

The question I ask is -- is it possible the champions of yore are at a disadvantage when facing modern fighters because heavyweight prizefighters are now much more physically imposing, and despite any technical advantages and intangibles in the favor of the classics, they are simply physically overmatched?

Two points I put up for debate.

1) The 6'5-6'11 range of fighters are more skilled now than they were in the past.
2) Does it feel uncomfortable to anyone that a great champion in his time might lose to a lesser modern boxer head-to-head simply because he was born in a 'bigger' era? It does to me.

My personal opinion is that I'd give men like Wladimir Klitschko and Lennox Lewis a lot of grudging wins over fighters I love purely because they are so much more physically imposing, all the while I firmly believe they'd easily lose if both fighters were the same size.

[Club Fighter]

I'll put forth the argument in its simplest form.

The race of man is continually growing larger. Because of that, boxers at heavyweight are bigger now, both on average and extremes. There have been many successful big heavyweights who've used their size-advantage in the past -- however, there is a larger pool of big men to produce boxers from currently.

Does Rocky Marciano stand a chance against a Lennox Lewis? Against a Wladimir Klitschko?

The question I ask is -- is it possible the champions of yore are at a disadvantage when facing modern fighters because heavyweight prizefighters are now much more physically imposing, and despite any technical advantages and intangibles in the favor of the classics, they are simply physically overmatched?

Two points I put up for debate.

1) The 6'5-6'11 range of fighters are more skilled now than they were in the past.
2) Does it feel uncomfortable to anyone that a great champion in his time might lose to a lesser modern boxer head-to-head simply because he was born in a 'bigger' era? It does to me.

My personal opinion is that I'd give men like Wladimir Klitschko and Lennox Lewis a lot of grudging wins over fighters I love purely because they are so much more physically imposing, all the while I firmly believe they'd easily lose if both fighters were the same size.

Of course not.

[Rock0052]

One way to deal with that discomforting thought is to remember that if those fighters were fighting today, most of them would be a few inches taller and/or bulkier themselves due to the advances in nutrition and training.

I'm not saying prior methods are outdated by any means, but the best trainers can take all that worked and build on that. I think a trainer combining what worked from the earlier eras of boxing combined with a specialized routine of plyometrics and olympic-style weightlifting could make those "classic" fighters just as effective today.

[Heavyrighthand]

Strange how a thread about immensize and skill does not mention the massive and highly skilled Tye Fields.

What, is this man not skilled enough for you people?

[ripcity]

One way to deal with that discomforting thought is to remember that if those fighters were fighting today, most of them would be a few inches taller and/or bulkier themselves due to the advances in nutrition and training.

I'm not saying prior methods are outdated by any means, but the best trainers can take all that worked and build on that. I think a trainer combining what worked from the earlier eras of boxing combined with a specialized routine of plyometrics and olympic-style weightlifting could make those "classic" fighters just as effective today.

Is it posible to make your self grow in hight? If so how?

[sthomas]

1) If you go into a time capsule fight, your size changes. The dutch have done a study on this and they are on average, 6" taller than they were 50 years ago! Marciano today would be about 6'3" and weigh about 230 Lbs. I think the modern day Rocky would do just fine.

2) Tyson did just fine while he was properly managed

3) Ali won his first championship 2/25/64. On 4/22/95 George Foreman defened his IBF title for the last time. In their only bout Ali beat Foreman in 74'. The direct championship lineage of Ali lasted more than thirty-one years!!!!!!!!

JR Head

[Rock0052]

Is it posible to make your self grow in hight? If so how?

As Evisceration already pointed out, the foods we eat every day naturally take care of that (I'm referring to the nation as a whole). Our diets today have more protein, vitamins, and minerals- so it's not too much of a stretch that somebody growing up as a child in the 70's will be more likely to be bigger than someone raised in the 20's or 30's.

There are exceptions of course- guys like Max Baer and Primo Carnera, for example- but a smaller guy like Marciano would be more likely to be larger if he were growing up today or 20 years ago as opposed to when he did because on average, people are bigger now for that very reason.

[ripcity]

As Evisceration already pointed out, the foods we eat every day naturally take care of that (I'm referring to the nation as a whole). Our diets today have more protein, vitamins, and minerals- so it's not too much of a stretch that somebody growing up as a child in the 70's will be more likely to be bigger than someone raised in the 20's or 30's.

There are exceptions of course- guys like Max Baer and Primo Carnera, for example- but a smaller guy like Marciano would be more likely to be larger if he were growing up today or 20 years ago as opposed to when he did because on average, people are bigger now for that very reason.
Thanks thats a good explaintion and answer to my question. I thought that you were saying one could take supliments to make them grow but what I think your saying is that the natural progresion in nuturtion has made us grow taller as a spicies in genral.
Another question. How much taller and biger would some of these now small heaveyweights if they were around today?

[Mrboogie23]

good answers in general. I agree, advancements in training, nutrition etc would make the fighters of yesteryear also bigger. Because humankind in general is bigger. Give some of the great fighters of yesteryear more size and they'd do fine.

[Heavyrighthand]

What do you mean of yore? How far back? The modern era really started around the 40's. If you wanna talk before then, you may be right. But the size thing really only applies to Heavyweights.

That's cause the heavies are the only division with unlimited size. So that's obviously the only division that it CAN apply to. :blood

[cross_trainer]

In the past, smaller men (sub-160 pounds) managed to beat heavyweights, so presumably there are still smaller men out there (cruisers and lightheavies--not junior middleweights!) who could take on modern ones and win. I see nothing absurd about picking Foreman over (for instance) Klitschko...especially since he actually beat Moorer and Briggs as a grandfather.

Part of it has to do with glove sizes and round limits as well--longer fights and smaller gloves tend to favor slightly smaller, fitter men.

[Mendoza]

I'll put forth the argument in its simplest form.

The race of man is continually growing larger. Because of that, boxers at heavyweight are bigger now, both on average and extremes. There have been many successful big heavyweights who've used their size-advantage in the past -- however, there is a larger pool of big men to produce boxers from currently.

Does Rocky Marciano stand a chance against a Lennox Lewis? Against a Wladimir Klitschko?

The question I ask is -- is it possible the champions of yore are at a disadvantage when facing modern fighters because heavyweight prizefighters are now much more physically imposing, and despite any technical advantages and intangibles in the favor of the classics, they are simply physically overmatched?

Two points I put up for debate.

1) The 6'5-6'11 range of fighters are more skilled now than they were in the past.

2) Does it feel uncomfortable to anyone that a great champion in his time might lose to a lesser modern boxer head-to-head simply because he was born in a 'bigger' era? It does to me.

My personal opinion is that I'd give men like Wladimir Klitschko and Lennox Lewis a lot of grudging wins over fighters I love purely because they are so much more physically imposing, all the while I firmly believe they'd easily lose if both fighters were the same size.

This is how I see it. Boxing has 17 different weight classes for a reason. Some of these modern super heavies are three or four weight classes bigger than your standard 190-210 pound champions of the past. Modern day super heavyweights like Bowe, Lewis and Klitschko are far more skilled than the super heavies of yesteryear. While Lewis and Klitschko might be too much for Marciano’s and Jack Johnson’s in a fantasy head to head boxing matches, it doesn’t make them greater fighters.

Being a ring legend means defining the era you live in. We know Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano and Louis, despite being small by today’s standards defined there eras. Bowe did not do that. Lewis in my opinion did. Klitschko may or may not do it.

I rather be called greater than bigger in almost all cases, except if I’m in the ring for money and risking health.

[Dempsey1238]

This is how I see it. Boxing has 17 different weight classes for a reason. Some of these modern super heavies are two or three weight classes bigger than your standard 190-210 pound champions of the past.

Yes a MERE 5 pounds parts one divison from other lol. That 5 pound weight thing relly helps you know. :lol:

We have WAY too many divisons. The reason they did that was because it makes more money when you had champions. Than they make more money when they part the titles in 2s or 3s or even 4s. lol.

I say we go back to 8 weight divsion. 17 is pushing it.

[Fighting Weight]

Peak Floyd Patterson may well have been dominant and beaten Ali.


That's a joke, right?

Floyd was a great fighter, no doubt but Ali owned him. No disgrace in that for Floyd at all, he did better than 99% of the current crop would have done against a peak Ali/Clay.

[JJ]

I think it is WAY too easy to say that if they got the right training and food, they would clean out the division.
How much speed would they loose when big?
How would their chins be against the monsters of today?
Could all of them learn all of todays training?

Taking Mayweather and magnifying him makes as much sense...

[goldnarms]

I think it is WAY too easy to say that if they got the right training and food, they would clean out the division.
How much speed would they loose when big?
How would their chins be against the monsters of today?
Could all of them learn all of todays training?

Taking Mayweather and magnifying him makes as much sense...

How can you say that? If you look at that bone structure of Rocky, Joe Lewis etc they are FAR bigger than Mayweather. Plus, PBF has already enjoyed the benefits of modern training and nutrition. Perhaps without it he'd be fighting flyweight!

Can someone pull the fist/wrist measurements of previous champs and compare them to today's? I've seen it out there but don't have it at hand.

[goldnarms]

Good comparison of size. Notice how Jack Johnson had 10 inch wrists! :yikes

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[jazzboy]

People are saying that fighters of the past would be bigger than they were is not really true. Americans in the past 50 years have gained 1 inch on average but 25 more pounds.

That being said i think the fighters of the past would have done just fine because the size difference is not that great.

[JJ]

Good comparison of size. Notice how Jack Johnson had 10 inch wrists! :yikes

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Great find! :happy

I just think that you just cant add a quality, like weight and not look at what you would loose instead.

[emanuel_augustus]

I remember a comment from Jim Lampley during the Goofi/McCline fight a few years back, where goes "you're looking at the future of the heavyweight division, they're not going to get any smaller, they're only going to get bigger."

Four years later we had a 7' 0" champion get his ass handed to him by 6' 1" Chagaev.

Three of the four champs are 6' 3" or shorter.

Point is, height and/or bulk is not necessarily indicative of success at the heavyweight level. The taller you are, the more openings there are.

As highly skilled and trained even as Wlad is, when someone gets past his jab, he is open simply because there's so much more area for him to have to defend.

Taller isn't always better.

[PATSYS]

Size does matter.

If Marciano beats Lewis/Wlad, his fans would really make something big about it - proof that it is a monumental task. Whereas if Lewis/Wlad beats Marciano, Marciano fans can easily set up the size differential and wil try to talk in P4P sense.

[Slothrop]

Ofcourse the sizeable skilled fighters of today would destroy any of the champs of yore. It's simple evolution. Do you have any doubts that the modern U.S. Marine who's average weight is about 185 of pure muscle would defeat the Marine of 1940's whose average weight was around 160 lbs? It's pure science and only the pure idiotic nuthuggers of the past would maintain that today's skilled giants would not destroy the smaller champs of yester year.

This is a strange post.

[sean]

skill and chin are very important , but i do think the 50`s and 60`s heavies would have many more losses on there records fighting 30lb to 50lb heavier fighters than was the norm in there day.

i will take heavyweight contender tony galento as an example.

i have watched him on film in 4 fights and unless these were one of poor performances he was a very limited fighter in skill and technique.

and yet look at his record and he was able to have a fair measure of success in his era simply because he was 30 lbs bigger on average than his opponents.

could you imagine a 5.9 fat man weighing a soft 225 , with very very limited skills being competitive, even today which so many pundits critisize the stadard.

if a james toney with his skills struggles to put a dent in heavys chins today even weighing in at 230, then IMO you have to take this into account when judging other 185 to 200lb fighters of yesteryear.

styles and oppoents make fights but just say for example marciano faced a top 50 heavy of today like ancient henry akinwande who at 240+ and 6.7 used his boring stick and move tactics to jab, clich , jab and clinch, imo you could well see marciano`s first loss.

but of course all conjecture and i liked marciano`s style, tenacity and stamina.
his will to win was also great and he was obviously a dedicated athlete who trained hard unlike so many of the heavys of the last 20 years.

[fists of fury]

Firstly, the vegetables and fruit these days have only half the nutritional value of the same products fifty years ago. To think our food now is somehow better is plain incorrect.

On the other hand, a modern fighter probably ingests a lot more protein than fighters of the past, and they also use stuff like creatine that was only invented in the 90's. The undeniable use of steroids among many boxers will also have a big influence when comparing old vs. new.

Training methods have also changed a lot over the years. Weight training is par for the course now, whereas as recently as the 70's even legendary trainers like Dundee kept his fighters away from the weights.

Modern science has also highlighted the need for the body to recover after extensive exercise, something that was basically unknown 40 or 50 years ago. For instance, a modern fighter will train for about 8 weeks for a fight, but Rocky Marciano opened camp for his first match with Charles a ridiculous 7 months before the figt. 7 months!

So with that being said, I suppose it's perfectly logical to assume that the fighters today are bigger and in better condition that the fighters of the past.
Somehow though, that doesn't always translate in film. The punch output of someone like a Greb or Marciano has yet to be equalled by today's fighters - even by cruiserweights. (which is basically what Marciano was.)

I think to a large extent there is an overrelaince on 'science' and modern training techniques.
The old-timers used to get back to basics - running in army boots up winding mountain paths, chopping wood, picking up boulders, pulling carts and that sort of thing.
Weights are fine and well, but there is a big difference in picking up a perfectly weighted barbell and picking up a large rock. There is a difference in running around an athletics track, and running up and down a hill with an uneven surface.

I honestly and truly believe that old-timers were mentally tougher. They would go through hell if thier trainer told them to. They also fought a lot more, so achieving a peak conditions was less necessary than it is today. They literally fought htemselves into condition.
Mike Tyson used to baloon up to over 250 lbs. between fights. Guys like Joe Louis or Marciano would never get so out of shape. They had more discipline.

Where today's guys have a big advantage is size.
Big George Foreman of the 70's would look quite small next to Wladimir Klitschko. Big bad Sonny Liston would just be another smallish heavyweight now. Joe Louis would look skinny next to Evander Holyfield.

Even middlewieghts, welterweights, lightweights etc. today are bigger. Ray Robinson scaled around 154 for many of his middleweight fights. Germaine Taylor may officially weigh 160, but by fight time he's 170 or more.

But hang on a second...why is it then that Sonny Liston's fist was a massive 15 inches, bigger than anyone elses? (Bar maybe Valuev's.) Why was his reach the same as that of Lennox Lewis'? Why was Max Baer's chest measurement the same as that of any modern heavyweight? The same can be said of James J. Jeffries, Joe Louis, John L. Sullivan and a number of other old-timers. The basic skeletal size of a heavyweight has not changed significantly since even Sullivan's time.
I have noticed that modern heavywweights are much larger in the thigh area, a trend that began with Sonny Liston, but overall they are not really that much bigger than most of the old-timers, barring obvious exceptions like Bob Fitzsimmons and Tommy Burns. Don't just assume that the moderns are so much bigger - do the research and see for yourselves.
If modern training methods really are superior, then why did the 80's have so many fat heavyweights like Greg Page, Tony Tubbs, Leroy Jones, Tim Witherspoon etc. :hey
Why are there so many around now?

If the modern guys are so big and strong, how come a fat, blown-up middleweight like James Toney hold his own?

What I have noticed is that modern nutrition, modern training and erm, other substances has allowed old fighters to carry on fighting well beyond their shelf life. Holyfield is 44 and going strong. Hopkins is 42 and...well, he's still here.
In the past, only a freak like Archie Moore could do this.

[PATSYS]

Firstly, the vegetables and fruit these days have only half the nutritional value of the same products fifty years ago.

Maybe, but bear in mind that we do not eat only fruits.:yep

Just compare the milk and milk products, processed foods, sport drinks, etc. They are all now fortified with nutrients never even heard before.

The vitamins/minerals tables that we are taking today have far more contents that ever before.

[PATSYS]

Firstly, the vegetables and fruit these days have only half the nutritional value of the same products fifty years ago. To think our food now is somehow better is plain incorrect.

On the other hand, a modern fighter probably ingests a lot more protein than fighters of the past, and they also use stuff like creatine that was only invented in the 90's. The undeniable use of steroids among many boxers will also have a big influence when comparing old vs. new.

Training methods have also changed a lot over the years. Weight training is par for the course now, whereas as recently as the 70's even legendary trainers like Dundee kept his fighters away from the weights.

Modern science has also highlighted the need for the body to recover after extensive exercise, something that was basically unknown 40 or 50 years ago. For instance, a modern fighter will train for about 8 weeks for a fight, but Rocky Marciano opened camp for his first match with Charles a ridiculous 7 months before the figt. 7 months!

So with that being said, I suppose it's perfectly logical to assume that the fighters today are bigger and in better condition that the fighters of the past.
Somehow though, that doesn't always translate in film. The punch output of someone like a Greb or Marciano has yet to be equalled by today's fighters - even by cruiserweights. (which is basically what Marciano was.)

I think to a large extent there is an overrelaince on 'science' and modern training techniques.
The old-timers used to get back to basics - running in army boots up winding mountain paths, chopping wood, picking up boulders, pulling carts and that sort of thing.
Weights are fine and well, but there is a big difference in picking up a perfectly weighted barbell and picking up a large rock. There is a difference in running around an athletics track, and running up and down a hill with an uneven surface.

I honestly and truly believe that old-timers were mentally tougher. They would go through hell if thier trainer told them to. They also fought a lot more, so achieving a peak conditions was less necessary than it is today. They literally fought htemselves into condition.
Mike Tyson used to baloon up to over 250 lbs. between fights. Guys like Joe Louis or Marciano would never get so out of shape. They had more discipline.

Where today's guys have a big advantage is size.
Big George Foreman of the 70's would look quite small next to Wladimir Klitschko. Big bad Sonny Liston would just be another smallish heavyweight now. Joe Louis would look skinny next to Evander Holyfield.

Even middlewieghts, welterweights, lightweights etc. today are bigger. Ray Robinson scaled around 154 for many of his middleweight fights. Germaine Taylor may officially weigh 160, but by fight time he's 170 or more.

But hang on a second...why is it then that Sonny Liston's fist was a massive 15 inches, bigger than anyone elses? (Bar maybe Valuev's.) Why was his reach the same as that of Lennox Lewis'? Why was Max Baer's chest measurement the same as that of any modern heavyweight? The same can be said of James J. Jeffries, Joe Louis, John L. Sullivan and a number of other old-timers. The basic skeletal size of a heavyweight has not changed significantly since even Sullivan's time.
I have noticed that modern heavywweights are much larger in the thigh area, a trend that began with Sonny Liston, but overall they are not really that much bigger than most of the old-timers, barring obvious exceptions like Bob Fitzsimmons and Tommy Burns. Don't just assume that the moderns are so much bigger - do the research and see for yourselves.
If modern training methods really are superior, then why did the 80's have so many fat heavyweights like Greg Page, Tony Tubbs, Leroy Jones, Tim Witherspoon etc. :hey
Why are there so many around now?

If the modern guys are so big and strong, how come a fat, blown-up middleweight like James Toney hold his own?

What I have noticed is that modern nutrition, modern training and erm, other substances has allowed old fighters to carry on fighting well beyond their shelf life. Holyfield is 44 and going strong. Hopkins is 42 and...well, he's still here.
In the past, only a freak like Archie Moore could do this.

So you take excetionally freakish HWs in the old days to make you case?:lol: Size does not only involve reach, but also height, and weight. Liston may have a freakish arm length, but no way will he be considered a huge HW by today's standard.

Wlad/Vitali are fit HWs and still they weigh around 240-250. Big George Foreman in the 90s weighed 256 lbs and already look like a butterball. His frame is simple not big enough to carry 250 lbs, that is why his weight during his prime was only 218 lbs.

A super fit Tyson weighing 218 lbs is only an inch taller from a fit 185 lbs Marciano.

Do not try to make a case for Hopkins, he is not a HW. The discussion here revolves at HW where there is no weight constraint.

Holyfield and Toney - both of these fighters have superb skills but they do not get anywhere at HW - at least if they ever try to fight the legit HW champ today and that is Wlad Klitschko. If Holyfield and TOney were around back in the 50s, maybe they get a better chance at becoming undisputed HW champ. No today's era though :-( :nono

[JJ]

Firstly, the vegetables and fruit these days have only half the nutritional value of the same products fifty years ago. To think our food now is somehow better is plain incorrect.


Where do you get that from?

Clearly the food is better today, people simply didnt eat that much fruit 50 years ago...you maybe got an orange on saturday and that was it! The same with vegetables.

[joe33]

Does any one though think that sheer size is whats fucking wrojng with the heavys today?
The majority seem to fat or big and far to slow for me,shanon briggs and toney,valuev would be good examples of that,they may have loads of skills,but they seem to slow to fucking use them.
I prefer the slightly smaller guys from the past myself,they seemed in wicked shape,and the fights seemed far more interesting,the bigger they get,to me anyways the fights are getting mind numbing bore fests.

[fists of fury]

So you take excetionally freakish HWs in the old days to make you case?:lol: Size does not only involve reach, but also height, and weight. Liston may have a freakish arm length, but no way will he be considered a huge HW by today's standard.

It's not only Liston. Read my post again. The skeletal structure of heavyweights has not changed radically since Sullivan's time. Thigh size has increased dramatically, along with (ironically) waist size to a degree. Most other measurements, such as chest, neck, biceps etc. are not much different from old-timers to now.

Wlad/Vitali are fit HWs and still they weigh around 240-250. Big George Foreman in the 90s weighed 256 lbs and already look like a butterball. His frame is simple not big enough to carry 250 lbs, that is why his weight during his prime was only 218 lbs.

But how many Wlad's and Vitali's are there out there? By the way, you do know that Wlad started out in the pro's in the low 220's, right? Vitali as a kickboxer weighed as low as 205. Take an old-timer like Louis and put him in the modern era and he's a solid 220. Easy. His frame could easily handle that. The same applies to many other old-timers.
To call Foreman a butterball is unfair. Sure he was fat, but he had a lot of muscle too.
Besides, that butterball did pretty well on his comeback against modern, hi-tech trained heavyweights, no?

A super fit Tyson weighing 218 lbs is only an inch taller from a fit 185 lbs Marciano.

I have never stated that Marciano was a big guy. He was smallish even by 50's standards.
Of course, Tyson had nowhere near Marciano's punch output per round either.
In fact, most heavyweights today are gassed after 5 fast rounds.

Holyfield and Toney - both of these fighters have superb skills but they do not get anywhere at HW - at least if they ever try to fight the legit HW champ today and that is Wlad Klitschko. If Holyfield and TOney were around back in the 50s, maybe they get a better chance at becoming undisputed HW champ. No today's era though :-( :nono

Fact is they are competitive now. Toney fought modern super-duper heavyweight Sam Peter twice.
Holyfield will challenge for the title soon. A blown-up light heavyweight Roy Jones won a title as well.
To say they would do better in the 50's is pure speculation, incidentally.

[fists of fury]

Does any one though think that sheer size is whats fucking wrojng with the heavys today?
The majority seem to fat or big and far to slow for me,shanon briggs and toney,valuev would be good examples of that,they may have loads of skills,but they seem to slow to fucking use them.
I prefer the slightly smaller guys from the past myself,they seemed in wicked shape,and the fights seemed far more interesting,the bigger they get,to me anyways the fights are getting mind numbing bore fests.

I agree. It's size for sizes sake now. David Tua weighed 205 for his first pro fight. Later, he'd weigh more than 240. The funny thing is, he was worse at the higher weight. He was sloppy, slow and plain fat at 245.

In these parts, we had a decent heavyweight prospect that went overseas for training. I think he weighed about 210. Once overseas, he was put on a weight-gain diet and gained 20-odd pounds and he became useless.

Seriously, the modern heavyweight is actually a 210-220 pound guy carrying 20 or 30 pounds of useless fat. It's the 80's all over again. Yes, The Klits, Lennox and one or two others are exceptions but for the most part it's true.
If it's not fat it's too much muscle. Look at Briggs. 270 pounds of useless flesh. Boxers weren't meant to carry that much weight.

But they big, modern heavyweights with modern training techniques and scientifically developed dietary habits. :good It's laughable.

[Darthmage]

1) If you go into a time capsule fight, your size changes. The dutch have done a study on this and they are on average, 6" taller than they were 50 years ago! Marciano today would be about 6'3" and weigh about 230 Lbs. I think the modern day Rocky would do just fine.

2) Tyson did just fine while he was properly managed

3) Ali won his first championship 2/25/64. On 4/22/95 George Foreman defened his IBF title for the last time. In their only bout Ali beat Foreman in 74'. The direct championship lineage of Ali lasted more than thirty-one years!!!!!!!!

JR Head

Your first point is flawed. Marciano wouldn't necessarily be bigger. 2 and 3 look good though.

[Sonny's jab]

I hear all this talk about these really big heavyweights with "superior skills" to giants of past eras, but almost every time there's a heavyweight fight being discussed y'all saying how useless these guys are !
:lol:

Go and re-watch the likes of Valuev, McCline, Briggs, M.Grant, L.Whitaker, and even many of "smaller" "top guys" like Rahman & Maskaev.
Lumbering oafs all of them.
They hug and hold and stumble around worse than Primo Carnera ever did.
That's what y'all are complaining about.

BTW, the Lennox Lewis-Vitali Klitschko fight a few years ago wasn't exactly a masterclass display of skills and finesse.

[Icemmann]

The heavyweights of today are better due to one cause.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


The grill.

[RonnieHornschuh]

the tale of the time tells some interesting numbers. george foreman gained 4 1/2 inches on the wrist (?!?) from the 70s to the 90s. explanations?

[PATSYS]

It's not only Liston. Read my post again. The skeletal structure of heavyweights has not changed radically since Sullivan's time. Thigh size has increased dramatically, along with (ironically) waist size to a degree. Most other measurements, such as chest, neck, biceps etc. are not much different from old-timers to now.

Bottomline, they weigh heavier and I am not talking about due to fats. Lewis was fit at 145 lbs. I am not going into details about neck, fist, etc. If you are saying that they all have the same dimensions, then why is Lewis heavier than Foreman?


But how many Wlad's and Vitali's are there out there?

How many were there back in the old days? Ziltch. And no, Willard and Carnera do not count. If you do, then you might as well count Savarese and Briggs today. :rofl

By the way, you do know that Wlad started out in the pro's in the low 220's, right? Vitali as a kickboxer weighed as low as 205. Take an old-timer like Louis and put him in the modern era and he's a solid 220. Easy. His frame could easily handle that. The same applies to many other old-timers.

When did Wlad start at low 220s?? And who cares what weight he started? He spent majority of his career at the upper 230s. If you want to base on the weight they started, then Joe Louis started at 181 lbs. How's that for a fair comparison?

If you say that Louis could carry 220 then why didn't he? My guess is that he will not be as a great fighter as he is simply because that weight will be too much for him.


To call Foreman a butterball is unfair. Sure he was fat, but he had a lot of muscle too.
Besides, that butterball did pretty well on his comeback against modern, hi-tech trained heavyweights, no?

He had muscles but take his belly off and he would have been at high 220s max :rofl

He did fare against mediocare HWs. Everytime he stepped up in competition, he lost (Holyfield, Morrison). He even lost to Schulz. And he was badly losing to Moorer before his power bailed him out.


I have never stated that Marciano was a big guy. He was smallish even by 50's standards.
Of course, Tyson had nowhere near Marciano's punch output per round either.
In fact, most heavyweights today are gassed after 5 fast rounds.


Fact is they are competitive now. Toney fought modern super-duper heavyweight Sam Peter twice.
Holyfield will challenge for the title soon. A blown-up light heavyweight Roy Jones won a title as well.
To say they would do better in the 50's is pure speculation, incidentally.

Toney against Peter is an example of how size matters. Peter's skills is about 10% of Toney but Toney is just too small to beat Peter. He could weigh 230+ but that doesn't mean he was a big guy.

Holyfield had success until he met big guys like Bowe and Lewis.

Jones only got the title from the weakest hw title holder, so his case is hardly convincing. If he knew he had a chance to beat the best at HW, we would have seen him stayed at HW.

[PATSYS]

Holyfield will challenge for the title soon.

By the way, since you like to use Evander as an example. He weighed 190 lbs when he fought at cruiser which many considered as his best weight.

Why did he find it necessary to weigh around 210 during his stint at HW? If it were better for him to weigh 190 (which was around the same as Marciano and Dempsey)?

Fact is, he need those mass to be competitive at HW. :deal

[Sakura]

1) If you go into a time capsule fight, your size changes. The dutch have done a study on this and they are on average, 6" taller than they were 50 years ago! Marciano today would be about 6'3" and weigh about 230 Lbs. I think the modern day Rocky would do just fine.

2) Tyson did just fine while he was properly managed

3) Ali won his first championship 2/25/64. On 4/22/95 George Foreman defened his IBF title for the last time. In their only bout Ali beat Foreman in 74'. The direct championship lineage of Ali lasted more than thirty-one years!!!!!!!!

JR Head

But Marciano was only 5'10 and 185 lb..or should we take 2080th marciano who would be 7'10 and 300 lb and his IQ would be 200..:rofl

Marciano was much smaller if you compare him nowadays heavys..

[fists of fury]

By the way, since you like to use Evander as an example. He weighed 190 lbs when he fought at cruiser which many considered as his best weight.

Why did he find it necessary to weigh around 210 during his stint at HW? If it were better for him to weigh 190 (which was around the same as Marciano and Dempsey)?

Fact is, he need those mass to be competitive at HW. :deal

Hey, I have never denied that added size that is useful helps. However, why did Evander stop at 208 (and later at around 215 or so) to win the title? Why did he not weigh in excess of 230? 240?
There is a point of diminishing returns, and a point of no return. How would Evander fight at 240? Probably like shit.

[Grabonator]

Where do you get that from?

Clearly the food is better today, people simply didnt eat that much fruit 50 years ago...you maybe got an orange on saturday and that was it! The same with vegetables.

I know manny people, myself included still eating only 1 o 2 fruits a week.

[PATSYS]

Hey, I have never denied that added size that is useful helps. However, why did Evander stop at 208 (and later at around 215 or so) to win the title? Why did he not weigh in excess of 230? 240?
There is a point of diminishing returns, and a point of no return. How would Evander fight at 240? Probably like shit.

He can only increase weight so much. from 190 to 215 is 25 lbs, not a neglible weight by any means.

Well actually Evander is somewhat exceptional case because his weight is deceiving. He is no doubt a huge guy, his upper body is no smaller than that of Tyson. The only thing that keeps his weight down is his skinny legs. I bet if you put Tua's legs on Evander, he will instantly weigh close to 250 :rofl

[fists of fury]

The only thing that keeps his weight down is his skinny legs. I bet if you put Tua's legs on Evander, he will instantly weigh close to 250 :rofl

:lol: Agreed.