Why are modern heavyweights all fatasses?

[Maxmomer]

Ok, they aren't all fatasses, but it seems like a lot of them are carrying around an extra 30 pounds of lard that's really unnecessary since they weigh in at about 230+ anyway. I don't get it, lose the fat, it just slows you down. Seems to me that back in the day heavyweights were smaller because they were fitter.

[Relentless]

because they are lazy.

[marauder1999]

In between sets of hitting the heavy bag they down a twinkie or 2.

[Grabonator]

Thats why im happy that we still have Holyfield. But manny heavyweights are in good shape, at least when they are in for important fights.

[ChrisPontius]

Let's research that claim.

The current top10 from Boxrec:
(i don't agree with all of their choices, but let's go with them for the moment)

1. Wladimir Klitschko
Not fat.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



2. Samuel Peter
He is somewhat overweight. In december 2005, in his fight against Klitschko he was in good shape at 244lb when you could see his abs. Right now he's at 248lb which is 4 pounds to much, could maybe lose a bit more.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



3. Ruslan Chagaev
Like Peter he's build like a tank. Looked good at 228lb against Valuev. Not fat.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



4. Oleg Maskaev
Is in good shape considering the fact that at the age of 37 you naturally gain some weight. You can see this in any boxer's career.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Better picture that is not linkable: [Only registered and activated users can see links]



5. Nicolai Valuev
He has some fat but that seems to more because of his giant syndrom than lack of training. He is well conditioned and throws 45+ punches a round over 12 despite being 320 lb.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


6. Sultan Ibragimov
Came in overweight in his fight against Austin and looked mediocre, but has learned from it and came in at great shape against Briggs and his earlier fights, around 221lb.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



7. Tony Thompson
Is a big guy at 6'5 245lb. Not fat. I don't know why he's in the top10, but anyway.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


8. Vladimir Virchis
Another huge guy, not overweight. Couldn't find a bigger pic.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


9. Matt Skelton
Again i don't know why he's in the top10.
He is a bit too heavy, but do realise that he's 39 at which age you'll nature put on some pounds.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


10. John Ruiz
Not fat.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]



To conclude, from the top10, only Peter and Skelton (who doesn't belong in the top10 anyway) are a bit overweight.
That is 2 out of 10 and it's not like they're grossly overweight. Heavyweights have always been the big guys who sometimes carry around some flap.


Now let's do a comparison with an other random era:

1995, ring top10:

Heavyweights

Title Vacant

1. Riddick Bowe (FAT)
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Mike Tyson
4. Michael Moorer
5. Evander Holyfield
6. Bruce Seldon
7. Frank Bruno
8. George Foreman (FAT)
9. Alexander Zolkin
10. Henry Akinwande

Of that list, Foreman and Bowe are overweight. That's 2 out of 10, just like today. What's more, they are more overweight that Peter and Skelton are.

Now let's look at 1985, ring rankings:

Michael Spinks, Champion

1. Pinklon Thomas
2. Larry Holmes
3. Tim Witherspoon
4. Tony Tubbs (FAT)
5. Greg Page (FAT)
6. Gerrie Coetzee (FAT)
7. Trevor Berbick
8. Carl Williams
9. Mike Weaver
10. Michael Dokes (FAT)

Of this list, 4 are overweight: Tubbs, Dokes, Page and Coetzee. And all of them to a larger extent than Peter and Skelton are.


As you can see, it's nothing new; in fact it has been worse in the past.
My guess is that the reason for the recent criticism is because there have been a few extremes recently (Toney & Johnson) and mostly, because people don't like the current heavyweights.

[Burundanga]

Rings Top Ten Heavys

Wlad - not overweight
Sam Peter - overweight overweight but not by much
Oleg - not overweight
Chag - not overweight
Valuev - pretty good shape for a man his size
Ibragimov - not overweight
Liakovich - has a bit of extra weight but coulod be attriibuted to body type
Byrd - not overweight
Vurchis - not overweight
Tony Thompson - not overweight

I think the apparence of HWs being overweight is more that some big names who are clearly past their prime are fighting and not taking their training seriously.... guys like Rahman, Toney, etc are name guys and just plain fat. Clearly the top ten guys are in as good condition as eras past.

[Burundanga]

well said Pontius and you beat me to it......

[Brighton bomber]

As Chrispontius has pointed out not all the top heavyweights are fat. Though I do think many of them are overweight in the aspect of being overmuscled. Just look at Ruiz, he usually fights between high 230's and low 240's but when he fought Jones Jr got in tip top shape and came in at 226lbs. I think a lot of heavyweights these days add extra bulk in terms of muscle mass and some fat which often leads to the beleif that they are fat. They do this I believe because they think it will allow them to cope with the super heavywieghts we have these days like the Klitschko's and Valuev.

[Marciano Frazier]

Let's research that claim.

The current top10 from Boxrec:
(i don't agree with all of their choices, but let's go with them for the moment)

1. Wladimir Klitschko
Not fat.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



2. Samuel Peter
He is somewhat overweight. In december 2005, in his fight against Klitschko he was in good shape at 244lb when you could see his abs. Right now he's at 248lb which is 4 pounds to much, could maybe lose a bit more.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



3. Ruslan Chagaev
Like Peter he's build like a tank. Looked good at 228lb against Valuev. Not fat.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



4. Oleg Maskaev
Is in good shape considering the fact that at the age of 37 you naturally gain some weight. You can see this in any boxer's career.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Better picture that is not linkable: [Only registered and activated users can see links]



5. Nicolai Valuev
He has some fat but that seems to more because of his giant syndrom than lack of training. He is well conditioned and throws 45+ punches a round over 12 despite being 320 lb.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


6. Sultan Ibragimov
Came in overweight in his fight against Austin and looked mediocre, but has learned from it and came in at great shape against Briggs and his earlier fights, around 221lb.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



7. Tony Thompson
Is a big guy at 6'5 245lb. Not fat. I don't know why he's in the top10, but anyway.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


8. Vladimir Virchis
Another huge guy, not overweight. Couldn't find a bigger pic.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


9. Matt Skelton
Again i don't know why he's in the top10.
He is a bit too heavy, but do realise that he's 39 at which age you'll nature put on some pounds.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


10. John Ruiz
Not fat.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]



To conclude, from the top10, only Peter and Skelton (who doesn't belong in the top10 anyway) are a bit overweight.
That is 2 out of 10 and it's not like they're grossly overweight. Heavyweights have always been the big guys who sometimes carry around some flap.


Now let's do a comparison with an other random era:

1995, ring top10:

Heavyweights

Title Vacant

1. Riddick Bowe (FAT)
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Mike Tyson
4. Michael Moorer
5. Evander Holyfield
6. Bruce Seldon
7. Frank Bruno
8. George Foreman (FAT)
9. Alexander Zolkin
10. Henry Akinwande

Of that list, Foreman and Bowe are overweight. That's 2 out of 10, just like today. What's more, they are more overweight that Peter and Skelton are.

Now let's look at 1985, ring rankings:

Michael Spinks, Champion

1. Pinklon Thomas
2. Larry Holmes
3. Tim Witherspoon
4. Tony Tubbs (FAT)
5. Greg Page (FAT)
6. Gerrie Coetzee (FAT)
7. Trevor Berbick
8. Carl Williams
9. Mike Weaver
10. Michael Dokes (FAT)

Of this list, 4 are overweight: Tubbs, Dokes, Page and Coetzee. And all of them to a larger extent than Peter and Skelton are.


As you can see, it's nothing new; in fact it has been worse in the past.
My guess is that the reason for the recent criticism is because there have been a few extremes recently (Toney & Johnson) and mostly, because people don't like the current heavyweights.

Sorry, but Chagaev is fat. [Only registered and activated users can see links]

So is Peter, and Toney, who has been in the top 10 for most of the last three years although boxrec no longer as him there, is very fat. Valuev and Ibragimov are both on the pudgy side of things as well.

Granted, you are correct that fat heavyweights have been around for a while and this isn't the worst it's ever been, but it is pretty bad.

[Amsterdam]

Let's research that claim.

The current top10 from Boxrec:
(i don't agree with all of their choices, but let's go with them for the moment)

1. Wladimir Klitschko
Not fat.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



2. Samuel Peter
He is somewhat overweight. In december 2005, in his fight against Klitschko he was in good shape at 244lb when you could see his abs. Right now he's at 248lb which is 4 pounds to much, could maybe lose a bit more.
[Only registered and activated users can see links]



3. Ruslan Chagaev
Like Peter he's build like a tank. Looked good at 228lb against Valuev. Not fat.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



4. Oleg Maskaev
Is in good shape considering the fact that at the age of 37 you naturally gain some weight. You can see this in any boxer's career.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Better picture that is not linkable: [Only registered and activated users can see links]



5. Nicolai Valuev
He has some fat but that seems to more because of his giant syndrom than lack of training. He is well conditioned and throws 45+ punches a round over 12 despite being 320 lb.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


6. Sultan Ibragimov
Came in overweight in his fight against Austin and looked mediocre, but has learned from it and came in at great shape against Briggs and his earlier fights, around 221lb.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



7. Tony Thompson
Is a big guy at 6'5 245lb. Not fat. I don't know why he's in the top10, but anyway.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


8. Vladimir Virchis
Another huge guy, not overweight. Couldn't find a bigger pic.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


9. Matt Skelton
Again i don't know why he's in the top10.
He is a bit too heavy, but do realise that he's 39 at which age you'll nature put on some pounds.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]


10. John Ruiz
Not fat.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]



To conclude, from the top10, only Peter and Skelton (who doesn't belong in the top10 anyway) are a bit overweight.
That is 2 out of 10 and it's not like they're grossly overweight. Heavyweights have always been the big guys who sometimes carry around some flap.


Now let's do a comparison with an other random era:

1995, ring top10:

Heavyweights

Title Vacant

1. Riddick Bowe (FAT)
2. Lennox Lewis
3. Mike Tyson
4. Michael Moorer
5. Evander Holyfield
6. Bruce Seldon
7. Frank Bruno
8. George Foreman (FAT)
9. Alexander Zolkin
10. Henry Akinwande

Of that list, Foreman and Bowe are overweight. That's 2 out of 10, just like today. What's more, they are more overweight that Peter and Skelton are.

Now let's look at 1985, ring rankings:

Michael Spinks, Champion

1. Pinklon Thomas
2. Larry Holmes
3. Tim Witherspoon
4. Tony Tubbs (FAT)
5. Greg Page (FAT)
6. Gerrie Coetzee (FAT)
7. Trevor Berbick
8. Carl Williams
9. Mike Weaver
10. Michael Dokes (FAT)

Of this list, 4 are overweight: Tubbs, Dokes, Page and Coetzee. And all of them to a larger extent than Peter and Skelton are.


As you can see, it's nothing new; in fact it has been worse in the past.
My guess is that the reason for the recent criticism is because there have been a few extremes recently (Toney & Johnson) and mostly, because people don't like the current heavyweights.


Fantastic Chris Pontius.:good

Classic case of romaniticising the past and giving the current crop no credit at all. This HW division is not a strong one, but it's also far from a truly weak one. The 90's was a strong one, the 80's a tad bit stronger than now.

[Grabonator]

It's common sense..

They are only fighting for 12 rounds..Go back to 15 and you'll see a change for the better..All those lumbering dinosaurs will surely dissappear..

Boxing has ALWAYS had fatasses and giants..but the length of the Title fights kept them from the top

It has nothing to do with 12 rounders.

[Decker]

Fantastic Chris Pontius.:good

Classic case of romaniticising the past and giving the current crop no credit at all. This HW division is not a strong one, but it's also far from a truly weak one. The 90's was a strong one, the 80's a tad bit stronger than now. Second that, damn good analysis Chris P.

Amsterdam, agree about the "romaniticising the past" part, but I think the current HWs are among the best - just as in the 90s w/the emergence of Lewis as a dominant HW. The haters "HW no good now" infinite loop is based on predudice.

[box03]

Second that, damn good analysis Chris P.

Amsterdam, agree about the "romaniticising the past" part, but I think the current HWs are among the best - just as in the 90s w/the emergence of Lewis as a dominant HW. The haters "HW no good now" infinite loop is based on predudice. The current heavies our far from the best and closer to the worst. Out of the the top 10 that was shown only 6 of them I would even recognize if they were in a bar, you could say Im in love with the boxers of the past but Decker you really are delusional if you think todays heavywieghts stack up with the heavys of the 90s.

[Decker]

The current heavies our far from the best and closer to the worst. Out of the the top 10 that was shown only 6 of them I would even recognize if they were in a bar, you could say Im in love with the boxers of the past but Decker you really are delusional if you think todays heavywieghts stack up with the heavys of the 90s. :rofl I'm delusional comparing the 90s with the 2000s, but you're on solid ground arguing that CWs from the 30s & 40s could beat todays HWs?! :nut Oooooooooooooookaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay :roll:

[Amsterdam]

Second that, damn good analysis Chris P.

Amsterdam, agree about the "romaniticising the past" part, but I think the current HWs are among the best - just as in the 90s w/the emergence of Lewis as a dominant HW. The haters "HW no good now" infinite loop is based on predudice.

HW is not strong now, but it's certainly better than the Ruiz/Byrd time period. It's getting better.

Calling them all fat is absurd, as Pontius pointed out.

[Decker]

:happy :happy :happy

Anybody claiming todays heavies aren't LOUSY have an agenda..

These guys make Primo Carnera and Jess Willard look like ATG's

At least they can get off the canvas and continue fighting
An agenda? You're projecting your bias on to me and others. :yep

Carnera & Willard would get beat by Byrd & Iggy, and look what Wlad did to Byrd twice. Yeah, they got off the canvas and continued getting beat within an inch of their lives. :-(

Of course you'll give Wlad credit for continuing to get up from Sanders shots, huh. No?
Maybe you have an agenda - a nation or race based one. :hi:

[TanstA]

In between sets of hitting the heavy bag they down a twinkie or 2.

Look at that sad excuse of a photoshopped picture :lol:

[cross_trainer]

HW is not strong now, but it's certainly better than the Ruiz/Byrd time period. It's getting better.

Calling them all fat is absurd, as Pontius pointed out.

Chagaev, Ibragimov, Valuev, Skelton, and Peter all have more fat than they need on them. Povetkin too, for that matter.

Then again, it doesn't appear to impact their athletic performance (at least, not compared to highly muscular Shannon Briggs, for instance), so it doesn't matter that much. I suspect it's partly a genetic issue.

[Amsterdam]

Chagaev, Ibragimov, Valuev, Skelton, and Peter all have more fat than they need on them. Povetkin too, for that matter.

Then again, it doesn't appear to impact their athletic performance (at least, not compared to highly muscular Shannon Briggs, for instance), so it doesn't matter that much. I suspect it's partly a genetic issue.

With the slav's, you'll find that many of them have extra meat on them, take Fedor for example as the best MMA fighter, who has no impressive physique. This is genetic like you said.

They are not 'fatasses' though, they just have some minor padding. A 'fatass' would be James Toney in every bout after the Holyfield fight, and even then, he was functional but chubby.

Tua is also quite chunky, but he's not ranked now and the weight seems to be coming down. 230 is solid for his body type and he was 235ish recently.

Skelton's a bit overweight, but he's only a domestic brit level fighter, Peter is not fat either and around 245, he looks very good in my opinion for his body type.

[Heavyrighthand]

Good response, Chrispontius. You illustrated how off base and exaggerated this whole thread topic is.

In truth, only a few of the top heavies are what you'd call, fat. This thread topic has proven to be rather rediculous.

[cross_trainer]

With the slav's, you'll find that many of them have extra meat on them, take Fedor for example as the best MMA fighter, who has no impressive physique. This is genetic like you said.

They are not 'fatasses' though, they just have some minor padding. A 'fatass' would be James Toney in every bout after the Holyfield fight, and even then, he was functional but chubby.

Tua is also quite chunky, but he's not ranked now and the weight seems to be coming down. 230 is solid for his body type and he was 235ish recently.

Skelton's a bit overweight, but he's only a domestic brit level fighter, Peter is not fat either and around 245, he looks very good in my opinion for his body type.

I agree. My point is that, when you take the extra fat into account--genetic, or whatever other cause you choose to assign to it--fighters aren't quite as big in terms of muscle mass as their weight would indicate.

[Decker]

You have a LOT of bitch in you:rofl

You're playing race card just because I dissagree with your faggot ass:lol: Yeah, about as much all the other brainiacs on here :rofl including you :yep
Speak for yourself about the faggot ass issue. It shows you have no argument when you throw words around like that. Hell many like you suggest that Lewis or K bros are "gay". Why? Because they have UK and East Euro accents. Listen to Tyson speak - who sounds more gay? :lol: :rofl I had better put down material in grade school. And I don't need to see pix of the K bros semi nude - does nothing for me, but seems to get more than a few ESBers stiff. :hey You one of them?

I do not play the race card - I state that it is one of the main agendas most don't own up to. I'm also very consistent regarding nationality & race. I have argued that the Dempseys & Marcianos would not stand a chance vs modern HWs anymore than black HWs of yesteryear. And I don't "hate" any of them. In fact I think the fighters of the past had much more class on average than todays.
But I'm noticing some backlash from too much trash talk. It's been worn out. :tired

The heavyweight division has been dead for almost 30 years..

Tyson's era was the WORST..:deal OK, that's your view. I think the past 15-20 years has been among the best. It is interesting that you'd say Tyson's era was the worst, since you seem to think so highly of bob & weavers. That is something to debate.

We can f you and call each other fag and whatnot all day long. Frankly it's plain boring to me. Some barbs or sarcastic counters are fine, even funny. The other bullshit is silly since most of us don't and won't ever get to know who we really are. It gives the image of the nerdy keyboard "warrior" or somebody that's lost the debate. :deal

[Decker]

Good response, Chrispontius. You illustrated how off base and exaggerated this whole thread topic is.

In truth, only a few of the top heavies are what you'd call, fat. This thread topic has proven to be rather rediculous. Agree 100%. It's entertaining to debate some ESBers, but the "HW no good now" brigade :| isn't even good for laughs anymore - except for the ones that can at least attempt an argument losely based on facts. :yep

[Maxmomer]

I think the current HWs are among the best

HAhahaha! Oh man, I just pissed myself.

[Decker]

HAhahaha! Oh man, I just pissed myself.
:good Glad I made your day ! :lol:

[curmudgeon]

Anybody claiming todays heavies aren't LOUSY have an agenda..



Yes, an agenda of beeing sane.

[Decker]

Yes, an agenda of beeing sane. :good Love those quick, short snappy comebacks - like a great 6" punch :D

[Butch Coolidge]

Take off the rose colored glasses. Too bad it's impossible to actually summon up prime versions of Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey and let them compete against the current crop, I think the majority of them would be "exposed" by the current crop of "bums". The " old time heavyweights were better than today's heavyweights is as old as boxing. " If you are inclined to do so by some old boxing magazines and you'll see the pencil necked boxing writers of bygone eras bemoaned the lack of talent during their time, not that their time has long since past the current day heavies can't compete with the "bums of yesteryear". I don't think the majority of greats of the past would fare well vs the modern day big men anymore than I think Johnny Weismuller could comeback in his prime and repeat his gold medal winning Olympic performance or Byron Nelson would beat Tiger Woods, or Babe Ruth could keep up with Barry Bonds and so forth.

[cross_trainer]

Take off the rose colored glasses. Too bad it's impossible to actually summon up prime versions of Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey and let them compete against the current crop, I think the majority of them would be "exposed" by the current crop of "bums". The " old time heavyweights were better than today's heavyweights is as old as boxing. " If you are inclined to do so by some old boxing magazines and you'll see the pencil necked boxing writers of bygone eras bemoaned the lack of talent during their time, not that their time has long since past the current day heavies can't compete with the "bums of yesteryear". I don't think the majority of greats of the past would fare well vs the modern day big men anymore than I think Johnny Weismuller could comeback in his prime and repeat his gold medal winning Olympic performance or Byron Nelson would beat Tiger Woods, or Babe Ruth could keep up with Barry Bonds and so forth.
People haven't changed biologically since Weismuller and Ruth, though. Countries with low GDP's and sports budgets are still capable of pumping out excellent athletes (especially boxers). I would expect the same to be true of previous eras in history.

Much of this question boils down to whether you believe that a fighter today can train "old school" and still win. Do you?

[box03]

Decker you claim the 2000s were just as good as the 90s, we should make a list of all the fighters in this decade versus 90s and lets just see what people think.

[Decker]

Take off the rose colored glasses. Too bad it's impossible to actually summon up prime versions of Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey and let them compete against the current crop, I think the majority of them would be "exposed" by the current crop of "bums". The " old time heavyweights were better than today's heavyweights is as old as boxing. " If you are inclined to do so by some old boxing magazines and you'll see the pencil necked boxing writers of bygone eras bemoaned the lack of talent during their time, not that their time has long since past the current day heavies can't compete with the "bums of yesteryear". I don't think the majority of greats of the past would fare well vs the modern day big men anymore than I think Johnny Weismuller could comeback in his prime and repeat his gold medal winning Olympic performance or Byron Nelson would beat Tiger Woods, or Babe Ruth could keep up with Barry Bonds and so forth. :good Well said. If I or anybody said that MLB, NFL, NHL, or NBA players of 50 years ago were better than todays players, I'd be considered a loon. And rightly so. Yet when it comes to HWs it's the reverse that's logical :huh :nut with some here. You can make all the points you want w/the "HW no good now" crowd and they'll end up calling you a fag or some similar lame comeback. What else can they say? They have no real argument - only some serious bias issues.

Now I think it is reasonable to compare smaller men, LW, WW, MW, etc from different eras. Training, diet are better now, but the older fighters were nearly as good. Times were hard 50-100 years ago, even for many Americans. Gives you the "eye of the tiger". But that's not enough for smaller HWs of the past to overcome modern HWs like Lennox, Wlad, and others.

Oh, c_t that cutting water weight debate you had w/others was interesting. I'm not going to act like I know as much about it as you & the others. I have someone in the family (way up in age now) that was a good amateur boxer. He used to tell me about dry weight, etc. And I've read a bit about it. Still it just didn't make sense to me that Joe L would cut 20 lbs of water. Why as a HW? :? That's 10% of his total weight ! Seems more like dehydration. :blood I know they had weigh ins earlier in those days...

[cross_trainer]

:good Well said. If I or anybody said that MLB, NFL, NHL, or NBA players of 50 years ago were better than todays players, I'd be considered a loon. And rightly so. Yet when it comes to HWs it's the reverse that's logical :huh :nut with some here. You can make all the points you want w/the "HW no good now" crowd and they'll end up calling you a fag or some similar lame comeback. What else can they say? They have no real argument - only some serious bias issues.

Now I think it is reasonable to compare smaller men, LW, WW, MW, etc from different eras. Training, diet are better now, but the older fighters were nearly as good. Times were hard 50-100 years ago, even for many Americans. Gives you the "eye of the tiger". But that's not enough for smaller HWs of the past to overcome modern HWs like Lennox, Wlad, and others.

Oh, c_t that cutting water weight debate you had w/others was interesting. I'm not going to act like I know as much about it as you & the others. I have someone in the family (way up in age now) that was a good amateur boxer. He used to tell me about dry weight, etc. And I've read a bit about it. Still it just didn't make sense to me that Joe L would cut 20 lbs of water. Why as a HW? :? That's 10% of his total weight ! Seems more like dehydration. :blood I know they had weigh ins earlier in those days...
Simple answer: They cut water weight as heavyweights because they wrongly believed it would make them fight better.

Incidentally, many fighters today would be about the same weight as the ones in the 60's and 70's if they trained the same way (extra gene-related fat excluded). Which leads back to the obvious question--could a heavyweight train "old school" and do well?

[KO Boxing]

In all honesty, 80-85% of heavyweights could lose at least 10 to 20 pounds of excess weight...

And they'd all be better for it, too.

[Decker]

Decker you claim the 2000s were just as good as the 90s, we should make a list of all the fighters in this decade versus 90s and lets just see what people think. box03 quit being a wind up. Yeah, I think they're comparable. I could give a rats ass about some unscientific poll you, or most anybody, would run on ESB. Next your going to tell me you're a great statistician :roll: :lol:

In the beginning top scientists scoffed at Einstein's theories. Professors in the field were slow to accept them. Only until many years later when experiments proved that the theories were essentially correct, did the pros in the physics world all come around. :deal

ESB isn't full of unbiased boxing "professors" either.

Wouldn't surprise me a poll would give the edge to the 90s. And my main point, which you're forgetting, was that the 90s-2000s together were better than earlier eras. You can't even get fans to agree who the top HW was in the 90s - although the answer is obvious because it's not that close.

[cross_trainer]

In the beginning top scientists scoffed at Einstein's theories. Professors in the field were slow to accept them. Only until many years later when experiments proved that the theories were essentially correct, did the pros in the physics world all come around. :deal

ESB isn't full of unbiased boxing "professors" either.


Of course, none of us are Einstein either. :D

[Decker]

Simple answer: They cut water weight as heavyweights because they wrongly believed it would make them fight better. OK, got it. So you do think they were wrong.

Incidentally, many fighters today would be about the same weight as the ones in the 60's and 70's if they trained the same way (extra gene-related fat excluded). Which leads back to the obvious question--could a heavyweight train "old school" and do well? Interesting speculation. :think Hard to say (I've been up for 18 hrs :yep )

[cross_trainer]

OK, got it. So you do think they were wrong.
Yes. Clearly wrong.

If they had better hydration, it would help them.


Interesting speculation. :think Hard to say (I've been up for 18 hrs :yep )
:lol:

I know the feeling. I'm working on a few hours' sleep myself.

I'd guess that they could, since many fighters in the lighter weight classes manage to do quite well with "old school" training. The only difficulty is that it might leave them a few pounds too light to take on the big boys.

...Except that they shouldn't cut water weight, as mentioned above.

[box03]

box03 quit being a wind up. Yeah, I think they're comparable. I could give a rats ass about some unscientific poll you, or most anybody, would run on ESB. Next your going to tell me you're a great statistician :roll: :lol:

In the beginning top scientists scoffed at Einstein's theories. Professors in the field were slow to accept them. Only until many years later when experiments proved that the theories were essentially correct, did the pros in the physics world all come around. :deal

ESB isn't full of unbiased boxing "professors" either.

Wouldn't surprise me a poll would give the edge to the 90s. And my main point, which you're forgetting, was that the 90s-2000s together were better than earlier eras. You can't even get fans to agree who the top HW was in the 90s - although the answer is obvious because it's not that close. Im not trying to be an asshole I just have a hard time understanding what makes the 2000s even close to the 90s as far as great fighters go, maybe you can explain to me how you came up with this theory or in your opinion conclusion. And trust me I watch almost every heavywieght fight thats on tv and half of them I have on tape, in my opinion aside from the klit brothers, Ruslan Chagaev, and Sam Peter I have seen no even good heavywieghts in the last 4 years.

[Relentless]

chagaev, povetkin, ibragimov, samuel peter and oleg maskaev are all fat, it looks like waldo is the only heavyweight who cares.

[Motor City Sam]

It has nothing to do with 12 rounders.

I agree with Grabonator on this one. I'm sure when fights were 15 rounds there were fans saying, "If only they fought 20 plus rounds like back in the old days we wouldn't have these fat heavyweights."

[Decker]

Im not trying to be an asshole I just have a hard time understanding what makes the 2000s even close to the 90s as far as great fighters go, maybe you can explain to me how you came up with this theory or in your opinion conclusion. And trust me I watch almost every heavywieght fight thats on tv and half of them I have on tape, in my opinion aside from the klit brothers, Ruslan Chagaev, and Sam Peter I have seen no even good heavywieghts in the last 4 years. Based on what you said we half way agree. It also depends on who you put in each decade set. I think LL could claim the 00s (first half) almost as much as the 90s. Most consider LL, Holy, & Tyson (yes, that version), as the top three 90s HWs. I agree - in my view LL #1. The 2000s are about 2/3rds done (3/4ths if you define as 2000-09). Who knows who'll emerge in the next few years, or what Wlad may accomplish? If you place LL only in the 90s, I'd give the nod to the 90s. That's all. If anyone says the 90s HWs were much better than the 2000s, then there's a hidden agenda which many have alluded to.

The 90s was the first decade after the fall of the Soviet East Euro block. Boxing was just beginning to become a true world sport. Now, still within the second decade after opening up East Europe, their fighters are making a bigger impact - and not just at HW. :yep

I don't know if you're a pure hater or what, as you seem to give some credit to non US HWs. I just think you, like many others, have a certain image of what a top fighter should look like that isn't jelling w/recent uh results. Thus the "HW no good now" mantra. Why not "SMW no good now" too. I mean good gawd, 2 West Euros fighting for all the marbles in a division - must be worst ever. :roll:

[cross_trainer]

One things for sure

Fighters in the heavy division get bigger as the fights get shorter..

Go to 10 rounds and they'll get even bigger..

Go 8 and they'll get even bigger still..

Boxing has ALWAYS had huge 6' 5 guys and even bigger..but what kept them from rising to the Champ level is their size became a liablility in the 15 rd format..
Or perhaps the training just makes them progressive larger, because they need to worry about stamina less and less. Ken Norton, for instance, would have been somewhat heavier if he didn't need to train heavily to maintain this sort of workrate:

hHSTSh-ypcw

[Decker]

When did I say Lewis and Vlad are gay?.."Many do. Did I directly say you called them gay?

You're just insecure..

Like you said: "The biggest bitch will always scream the loudest". :rofl

I don't call fans "faggot ass" because I disagree w/them. Your're projecting your insecurities on to me.

Talk about a keyboard warrior..you're the QUEEN of them all..:lol: Yeah, I did. And you're a blooming hypocrite. :yep


Most of today's heavies are SLOW..and predictable..
They may be slightly slower, but are more powerful and could blow out your CW/small HW idols of the past. We could have had a reasonable debate on the bob & weave style, but you chose to act like a grade school "tough guy". We disagree, no go bait & troll someone else w/your faggot ass debating "skills". :hi:

[Butch Coolidge]

I'm not a math guy but to me it seems like since there is a greater number of people on the planet now than there was "back in the old days" and a greater number of professional boxers, not only because of population growth but because of the global village effect e.g. East Europeans competing as pros that the boxers at the very top would be better than their bygone counterparts. Big fish in a much larger pond.

[cross_trainer]

I'm not a math guy but to me it seems like since there is a greater number of people on the planet now than there was "back in the old days" and a greater number of professional boxers, not only because of population growth but because of the global village effect e.g. East Europeans competing as pros that the boxers at the very top would be better than their bygone counterparts. Big fish in a much larger pond.

Perhaps. But remember that American heavyweights did beat their Eatsern European counterparts in the Olympics in '64 and '68...clearly, the 70's heavyweights that they grew into were the best of the "global" village.

In fact, there wasn't an overwhelming dominance of Eastern Europeans in the heavyweight ranks until relatively recently. The Cubans (who are still locked up under Castro) were much more successful, for instance.

[koko of phil]

because they are lazy.

And so it is a boring division nowadays.. :tired :dead