When size is just too much to overcome

[GoldenHulk]

I recently watched Vitali's fight with Danny Williams. I started to wonder if Vitali or Lennox went back in time how they would fare against other heavyweights of the past. Other than Liston, Ali and Holmes, i see very few past great champions being competetive against a Vitali or Lennox. Even Jim Jeffries who at 6'2 and 220 lbs would be a small heavyweight if he fought today.
Vitali at 6'7 250lbs with an enormous 29.5 inch armpit to the end of the fist reach I believe would be too much for many iof the champions of the past. unless a freak incident like VK injuring his shoulder during a fight, I really cant see the smaller champions of the past winning. True, Danny Williams doesnt have the technical ability of a Max Schmeling, Jersey Joe Walcott, or Ezzard Charles, but Williams hit very hard, was 270 lbs that Klitschko knocked around the ring for the entire duration of their fight, and had tons of heart.
In the past there were giants like Willard and Carnera, but Klitsckos and lewis's of today finally were able to combine size with great boxing ability and power. What are your thoughts?

[pugilist_boyd]

IT WOULD BE HARD FOR ALL EXCEPT THOSE WHO DIDNT FIGHT TALL,IF THEY STAND STRAIGHT ,LIKE ALI,FOREMAN,WILLARD,LOUIS,BUT FOR THOSE WHO DIDNT THOSE THAT COULD CAPITILIZED ON HEIGHTH ,SLIPPING,DODGING,DUCKING LANDING,HOOKS,UPPERCUTS,AND BODY BLOWS IT WOULD BE AN ADVANTAGE ,GENERATING EVEN MORE POWER WITH THERE LEGS,SUCH AS ROCKY,FRAZIER,AND MAINLy DEMPSEY HE CAPITILIZED ON LARGE OPP.

[Bokaj]

Of course, when you see hulks like Klitschko and Lewis who also has good speed and boxing skills it seems unlikely that the smaller guys could be much of a challenge. But it's easy to overestimate size. Smaller HW's like Holyfield and Byrd (as well as Toney and RJJ) have done well in recent times without being outragously skilled or having a freak set of abilities (Rocky's stamina, Dempsey's explosiveness etc). So one shouldn't really discard the possibility.

But as the previous poster I would give a greater chance to the crouching type of fighters like Dempsey and Rocky than a straight standing type like Louis. Great as Louis was I see Wladimir' jab and powerful straight right causing him all kinds of trouble. Of course, much lesser fighters than Louis have beat Wladimir and you really have to think twice before you favour anyone over Louis, but stylistically I think Wladimir is a more diffiult prospect for him than for example Marciano.

[janitor]

I recently watched Vitali's fight with Danny Williams. I started to wonder if Vitali or Lennox went back in time how they would fare against other heavyweights of the past. Other than Liston, Ali and Holmes, i see very few past great champions being competetive against a Vitali or Lennox. Even Jim Jeffries who at 6'2 and 220 lbs would be a small heavyweight if he fought today.
Vitali at 6'7 250lbs with an enormous 29.5 inch armpit to the end of the fist reach I believe would be too much for many iof the champions of the past. unless a freak incident like VK injuring his shoulder during a fight, I really cant see the smaller champions of the past winning. True, Danny Williams doesnt have the technical ability of a Max Schmeling, Jersey Joe Walcott, or Ezzard Charles, but Williams hit very hard, was 270 lbs that Klitschko knocked around the ring for the entire duration of their fight, and had tons of heart.
In the past there were giants like Willard and Carnera, but Klitsckos and lewis's of today finally were able to combine size with great boxing ability and power. What are your thoughts?

Thoughts?

Williams main problem in that fight was that he was a comonwealth grade heavyweight fighting the world champion not the disparity in size.

[Mendoza]

I recently watched Vitali's fight with Danny Williams. I started to wonder if Vitali or Lennox went back in time how they would fare against other heavyweights of the past. Other than Liston, Ali and Holmes, i see very few past great champions being competetive against a Vitali or Lennox. Even Jim Jeffries who at 6'2 and 220 lbs would be a small heavyweight if he fought today.

Vitali at 6'7 250lbs with an enormous 29.5 inch armpit to the end of the fist reach I believe would be too much for many iof the champions of the past. unless a freak incident like VK injuring his shoulder during a fight, I really cant see the smaller champions of the past winning. True, Danny Williams doesnt have the technical ability of a Max Schmeling, Jersey Joe Walcott, or Ezzard Charles, but Williams hit very hard, was 270 lbs that Klitschko knocked around the ring for the entire duration of their fight, and had tons of heart.

In the past there were giants like Willard and Carnera, but Klitsckos and lewis's of today finally were able to combine size with great boxing ability and power. What are your thoughts?

GoldenHulk,

What do you think Vitlai would do to some 200 pound fighters with old timer lighter gloves?

[ripcity]

Being bigger and taller alone is not going to over come a more skilled boxer but knowing how to use a size advantage will give a boer with less skill a huge advantage.
In other words Lennox Lewis, Wladimir Klitschko, Riddick Bowe, and Vitali Klitschko would all do very well if they got into a time mechine and fought the great heavyweights of the past.

[radianttwilight]

The poster that mentioned smaller heavyweights that fight small as being able to compete hit it right on the head.

Guys like Tunney and Ali would have more problems with a tall boxer-puncher like the Klitschkos and Lewis than someone like Marciano, Tyson, or Dempsey would.

A fairly common aspect of great H2H fighters' styles is that they either fought very tall (Lewis and to a lesser extend Tunney/Ali/Holmes and co.) or very small (Dempsey, Tyson, Marciano).

[SuzieQ49]

What do you think Vitlai would do to some 200 pound fighters with old timer lighter gloves?

Well he lost to a blownup 200lb chris bryd, who is nowhere near a great fighter.

[GoldenHulk]

I think the Klitschko's or Lewis fighting with lighter gloves would seriously hurt an under 200 pound fighter. I respect Marciano, Patterson, Charles, Walcott, etc. But these guys give up too much physically. As for Chris Byrd, he was an excellent defensive fighter who was way behind on the scorecards when Vitali retired with a shoulder injury. Joe Byrd, Chris's father and trainer always insisted that Vitali was the better fighter than Wladimir by the way.

[Vantage_West]

Thoughts?

Williams main problem in that fight was that he was a comonwealth grade heavyweight fighting the world champion not the disparity in size.danny williams is all right. you could hardly say vitali was a great fighter either.

he was outgunned of course. but i think this is more to do with his style of fight.being straight up while swarming... it equals walking in on shots when your most vulnarable.

[Bummy Davis]

A lot of the old timers always told me a perfect Heavy would be around 6"1 6"2... 210-220, so I guess Joe Louis would be the perfect example...Lennox, Vlad, and Vitali are the best of the big men...but McCline,Goofi,Tye Fields and Valuev are also Big men..In Louis's day there was 6"6 Buddy Baer...does anyone really think Vlad or Vitali or Lewis would have no problem vs Louis...There have been some good Big men Lewis,Vitali and Vlad but before them WHO...and Valuev, Goofi W. McCline and Fields have all lost to smaller men....so I don't think size is an issue

[pugilist_boyd]

Regarding The Lighter Gloves The Old Timers Proved They Could Take Those Shots,unlike Todays Heavys With Heavier Gloves.and Here Go (above) With Alot Believing Todays Heavier Opp. Having So Much More Power As Ive Stated Before Once You Reach A Certain Size,180-190-200-220-the Punch Depends More On The Individual.such As Fraziers Left Hook Was Definatly No Harder Than 185 Pnd Dempsey,or 328 Pnd. Valuevs Right Hand Is Defitnatly No Harder Than Rockys Ect.-ect-ect.

[punchy]

If we worry about size then Valuev is the greatest of all, a good powerful fighter in the Dempsey, Marciano, Frazier and Tyson mould will always do well but they would have to be quick and Holyfield would do well especially against Wlad.

[GoldenHulk]

I agree that size alone doesnt make a great champ. If it was that easy then any basketball player would be putting a pair of boxing gloves on, and there are many examples of big men who failed big, I think of Michael Grant most recently.
It's the guys who know how to use their height, reach and their range, like Lewis and the Klitschko's that I'm talking about.
Emanuel Steward seems like the ideal trainer for tall fighters, in the lighter weights he had tall guys like Hilmer Kenty, Milton McCrory, and his most famous Thomas Hearns, among others and he trained Lewis for the second half of his career and now has Wlad. If I was a tall heavyweight I would want Steward in my corner rather than anyone.

[fists of fury]

Unfortunately, at some point simply being bigger is a (pardon the pun) massive advantage.
The old adage of a good big man beating a good little man is indeed true. Bowe v Holyfield 1 is a good example - Holy fought a valiant, courageous fight but Bowe outweighed him by 30 pounds, and it was telling, especially in that type of fight.

Being bigger is a real advantage in fights of attrition, where the bigger man can use the size and weight advantage against you by leaning on you, pushing you around and making you work twice as hard as he does. He can wear you down.
If the big guy has a good chin, decent skills and knows how to use his size to his advantage, he is going to be tough to beat, like Valuev. Let's face it - Valuev isn't particularly talented but he has sufficient ability that, when coupled with his vast size, is a hard package to beat. If Nikolai was only 6'2 and 235, he'd probably have lost more than once. It's his immensity that has helped him more than anything else at the end of the day.

Obviously Valuev is an exception but the good big men of the modern era - the likes of Bowe, Lewis, the Klitschkos - would be bad news for many arguably more technically talented fighters of the past. I can't imagine small heavyweights like Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott and Floyd Patterson being competitive against them.
Great heavies like Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey and Marciano would also immediately be at a tremendous size disadvantage. Even if they did win, they would have had to work twice as hard as they would normally had they fought similarly sized opposition.
As much as I am a fan, I have to be honest. Rocky warred with Charles, Walcott and LaStarza - all of them much smaller and physically less imposing than a Bowe, Lewis or Klitschko.
If a Charles was tough for the Rock, how tough would a Lewis be, a guy not only some 60 pounds heavier than Charles, but also several inches taller and with a much bigger punch? Ditto Bowe, ditto the Klits. Shit, even an on-form Golota would be really tough.
Sacrilege?

I'm a big believer in the theory of natural selection. In the 60's the heavyweights started getting bigger, Liston being probably the first true modern heavyweight. However, other big guys like Ali, Terrell, Williams and other weren't long in coming.
Suddenly, the smaller heavyweights like Patterson found it tough to compete, because suddenly technical competence alone wasn't enough. The heavies needed to get bigger, and during the 70's and 80's they did. The average size of your basic big man of the 70's was larger than during the 20's. 30's, 40's etc.

In many ways, bigger size means more efficiency. You can do more with less effort. I'm sure most here have play wrestled with an older brother, cousin or friend. I used to, and after three minuted I was exhausted because I had to work twice as hard as he did.

So, what does the future hold? It looks like heavies are getting bigger yet, judging from some of the monsters coming through. I think the (rumoured) plan of reducing championship rounds to just 10 in the future will help the big man even more, as endurance and stamina will not be as big a factor as it was in the past.

It's a pity that size plays such an important part in fighting because I am more entertained watching the likes of Joe Louis or Marciano than most of the lumbering giants of today, but what can you do?

[ripcity]

Glove size dosen't make that much of a diffrence the damage is done because of the ability to twist the hand on impact.

[JIm Broughton]

Listen to Fists Of Fury because he's right. Last night I stayed up late to watch Ezzard Charles vs Rex Layne and to be honest, I wasn't that impressed. A Bowe, Lewis, Ali, Holmes or Klitschko would've had a picnic. Size matters if you're good and these guys are good. I also watched Louis/Schmeling and was rather underwhelmed as well. A modern big skilled HW would probably be too much for them also. I think we have to start separating HW's by time periods when making comparisons say 1900-1950 and 1950-2000 for example. I'm really having a hard time seeing a six foot 185-200lb HW beating a six foot three to six foot six inch 240-250lb behemoth ala Lewis or Klitschko or a slightly smaller but faster Ali or Holmes. We're not talking about a Willard or Buddy Baer or dare I say Primo Carnera here after all. We're talking about big mobile men who can box and move, not oversized stationary targets with mediocre skills at best. Does anyone think that the Celtics of say 1950-1960 would beat the Celtics that just won the championship. Or the Giants of the same time period beating the Giants that won the last Super Bowl? I didn't think so. Athletes today are bigger, stronger and faster than thier predecessors. Look at the tough time Marciano had with men like Charles, LaStarza and Moore. Do we really think he beats a prime Ali, Holmes, Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe or Klitschko? I don't think so. That's not a rap on Marciano or any of the great old timers who should be given all the credit for what they accomplished in thier own time. I just don't think it's fair to pit them against the best of the modern era, against men generally much bigger and faster if not equally skilled.

[janitor]

[quote=fists of fury]Unfortunately, at some point simply being bigger is a (pardon the pun) massive advantage.
The old adage of a good big man beating a good little man is indeed true. Bowe v Holyfield 1 is a good example - Holy fought a valiant, courageous fight but Bowe outweighed him by 30 pounds, and it was telling, especially in that type of fight.


I could use the Holyfield Bowe analogy to make the opposite point.

Hollyfield was far from being the hardest hitter or the best boxer of his size historicaly and he still gave Bowe three verry close fights winning one.

What happens theoreticaly when the former cruiserweight can punch like Jack Dempsey or box like Gene Tunney?

then what happens to Bowe?


Obviously Valuev is an exception but the good big men of the modern era - the likes of Bowe, Lewis, the Klitschkos - would be bad news for many arguably more technically talented fighters of the past. I can't imagine small heavyweights like Ezzard Charles, Joe Walcott and Floyd Patterson being competitive against them.


I think you are going a little overboard here.

Jersey Joe Walcott for example would bring things to the table that none of them had seen in terms of slickness and moobility and he is not really much smaller than Holyfield.

I wouldnt bet a lame mule on any of the superheavyweights beating him.


Great heavies like Joe Louis, Jack Dempsey and Marciano would also immediately be at a tremendous size disadvantage. Even if they did win, they would have had to work twice as hard as they would normally had they fought similarly sized opposition.


They would also have a nice big target to aim for.

That would make half their job a lot easier relative to fighting some small slickster like Conn Charles or even Byrd.


I'm a big believer in the theory of natural selection. In the 60's the heavyweights started getting bigger, Liston being probably the first true modern heavyweight. However, other big guys like Ali, Terrell, Williams and other weren't long in coming.


There have always been heavyweights the size of Liston and bigger.

Jim Jeffries and Max Baer to name just two.

Incidentaly people getting bigger over the years has nothing to do with natural selection. It is all a function of nutrition.



So, what does the future hold? It looks like heavies are getting bigger yet, judging from some of the monsters coming through. I think the (rumoured) plan of reducing championship rounds to just 10 in the future will help the big man even more, as endurance and stamina will not be as big a factor as it was in the past.


I think the big men are here to stay. Shorter fights and the widespread use of weightlifting will ensure that the fighters of the future are bigger than those of the past.

I will venture a bold prediction however.

In the future a fighter who has held a title at light heavyweight will exploit a loophole to become the lineal heavyweight champion even if he weighs 210 lbs the night he wins the title.

[freelaw]

I recently watched Vitali's fight with Danny Williams. I started to wonder if Vitali or Lennox went back in time how they would fare against other heavyweights of the past. Other than Liston, Ali and Holmes, i see very few past great champions being competetive against a Vitali or Lennox. Even Jim Jeffries who at 6'2 and 220 lbs would be a small heavyweight if he fought today.
Vitali at 6'7 250lbs with an enormous 29.5 inch armpit to the end of the fist reach I believe would be too much for many iof the champions of the past. unless a freak incident like VK injuring his shoulder during a fight, I really cant see the smaller champions of the past winning. True, Danny Williams doesnt have the technical ability of a Max Schmeling, Jersey Joe Walcott, or Ezzard Charles, but Williams hit very hard, was 270 lbs that Klitschko knocked around the ring for the entire duration of their fight, and had tons of heart.
In the past there were giants like Willard and Carnera, but Klitsckos and lewis's of today finally were able to combine size with great boxing ability and power. What are your thoughts?

I agree. Dempsey defeated Willard because he basically mooved there like a tree trunk with boxing gloves. Apart from Foreman who himself admitted that he wanted no part of Lennox I don't see the old champions (even Ali) doing well against modern skillful giants. You never konow though..

[SuzieQ49]

watching walcott on film against a fair heavyweight 6'6 220lb Hein Ten Hoff, Walcott like u said janitor would bring many tricks to the table only a few capable big heavyweights in history would be able to handle.

[janitor]

I agree. Dempsey defeated Willard because he basically mooved there like a tree trunk with boxing gloves. Apart from Foreman who himself admitted that he wanted no part of Lennox I don't see the old champions (even Ali) doing well against modern skillful giants. You never konow though..

You seem to be suggesting that Willard and Carnera did not know how to use their size against smaller oponents.

They clearly did but it wasnt enough.

Carnera for example was a prety technicaly sound big fighter and his win over Tommy Loughran was a textbook display of how such a fighter should overcome a small slick heavyweight.

Willard for all his technical limitations clearly used what he had to good effect against Jack Johnson.

[freelaw]

You seem to be suggesting that Willard and Carnera did not know how to use their size against smaller oponents.

They clearly did but it wasnt enough.

Carnera for example was a prety technicaly sound big fighter and his win over Tommy Loughran was a textbook display of how such a fighter should overcome a small slick heavyweight.

Willard for all his technical limitations clearly used what he had to good effect against Jack Johnson.

Well I'm not an expert.. In the Dempsey fight Willard was like 37 or sth - that may have contributed to my view of him. But since you probably watched a lot of these old fights..

Can you honestly say that those old time big heavies are comparable to Lennox or even Vitali when it comes to the power/size/speed/skills combined? It seems to me that back then they were (no disrespecting) more of a freaks of nature that chose to fight because of the size advantage - not nearly that technically sound and powerful as the two mentioned.

[janitor]

Well I'm not an expert.. In the Dempsey fight Willard was like 37 or sth - that may have contributed to my view of him. But since you probably watched a lot of these old fights..

Can you honestly say that those old time big heavies are comparable to Lennox or even Vitali when it comes to the power/size/speed/skills combined? It seems to me that back then they were (no disrespecting) more of a freaks of nature that chose to fight because of the size advantage - not nearly that technically sound and powerful as the two mentioned.

Lennox Lewis is in a class apart from the other superheavyweights that have been before or after for that matter.

Vitaly Klitschko is verry impresive on paper but for my mind something of an unknown quantity.

The bottom line is that while Lewis is something new, guys like Ramhan, Briggs and Akinawande are not. I am not saying that Jack Dempsey would go through Lennox Lewis like he went through Jess Willard but he probably would have taken apart the superheavyweights that Lewis proved himself against.

[mcvey]

Loughran at 186 was giving Carnera 84 lbs ,there are limits.

[janitor]

Loughran at 186 was giving Carnera 84 lbs ,there are limits.

Loughran lacked a key equaliser eg power.

Jack Dempsey at 186 lbs would presumably have taken Carnera.

[mcvey]

Loughran lacked a key equaliser eg power.

Jack Dempsey at 186 lbs would presumably have taken Carnera.
Loughran was a little past his best days,Carnera stamped all over his feet,I dont think Primo was especially good at using his size Louis manhandled him,Gains beat him without too much trouble ,and he was not a big heavy.Dempsey would have killed Carnera.

[janitor]

Loughran was a little past his best days,Carnera stamped all over his feet,I dont think Primo was especially good at using his size Louis manhandled him,Gains beat him without too much trouble ,and he was not a big heavy.Dempsey would have killed Carnera.

Carnera got a lot better technicaly after the Gains fight and the first Sharkey fight and also got better at using his size.

I would venture to say that he got about as polished as he was ever going to get.

[mcvey]

Carnera got a lot better technicaly after the Gains fight and the first Sharkey fight and also got better at using his size.

I would venture to say that he got about as polished as he was ever going to get.
Sharkey did say that Carnera had improved between their fights.

[punchy]

I think one key difference between the Big heavyweights like Willard and Carnera compared to Klitschko and others is they held their hands low which is akin to suicide against a Dempsey or a Louis, modern superheavies are harder to crack but they can be cracked.

[Mendoza]

Glove size dosen't make that much of a diffrence the damage is done because of the ability to twist the hand on impact.


This is false. A mere 2 oz in the lower weights makes a difference. Take it form me, there is a big difference in the force of a blow from 6oz to 12 oz.

[ripcity]

This is false. A mere 2 oz in the lower weights makes a difference. Take it form me, there is a big difference in the force of a blow from 6oz to 12 oz.
This report suguests that it is the thickness of the glove and not the weight that makes a diffrence
[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[mcvey]

I think one key difference between the Big heavyweights like Willard and Carnera compared to Klitschko and others is they held their hands low which is akin to suicide against a Dempsey or a Louis, modern superheavies are harder to crack but they can be cracked.
The major difference between Willard ,Carnera and the modern big men eg the Klitschkos and Lewis is TALENT.Jack Dempsey once had a sparring partner over 7 foot tall,Dempsey was notoriously hard on his partners and was in an especially bad mood one day ,he broke the giants jaw and thrashed him unmercifully,I doubt he would have dealt with him so summmarily if he has had a tenth of the ability of a Lennox or a Vitaly.

[fists of fury]

[quote]

I could use the Holyfield Bowe analogy to make the opposite point.

Hollyfield was far from being the hardest hitter or the best boxer of his size historicaly and he still gave Bowe three verry close fights winning one.

What happens theoreticaly when the former cruiserweight can punch like Jack Dempsey or box like Gene Tunney?

then what happens to Bowe?


Your point is noted, but at the same time Holyfield possessed an iron chin, great stamina, tremendous determination and am underrated punch as well. Despite all this, it was not enough.

Holyfield came in a little lighter than normal - 205 - with the gameplan of outspeeding Bowe. Note that the 205 he carried was still a fair bit more than the 188 of Dempsey and 185 of Rocky.
This clearly did not work, as Holyfield found himself continually sucked into a brawl with the bigger man.

Why did Holyfield add 10 pounds (I think he came in at 214 for the rematch) and suddenly achieve success? I think he realised that the earlier theory was flawed, and that he needed more strength to compete.
He also never weighed below 210 for a fight again in his life.
Telling? I think so.

I think what you said about Dempsey or Tunney is significant. So the little guy either needs a paralysing punch or tremendous ability to overcome the bigger guy? What if he has only mediocre power and average ability?


[quote]
I think you are going a little overboard here.

Jersey Joe Walcott for example would bring things to the table that none of them had seen in terms of slickness and moobility and he is not really much smaller than Holyfield.

I wouldnt bet a lame mule on any of the superheavyweights beating him.


I agree that he would bring things they may not have seen before, BUT (and this is part of the 'natural selection' theory) in my mind it still would not have been enough. His superior technique is going to be offset and rendered redundant by the raw size and power of a Klitschko for example.
Simply getting inside such a long reach is going to be problematic and if he does there is a big, booming right hand waiting for him. How would you suppose a Walcott or Charles deals with a Lewis or Klitschko?

Maybe in terms of frame Walcott was not much smaller than Holyfield, but he is considerably outweighed overall, and it's pure muscle that makes up the difference.


[quote]
They would also have a nice big target to aim for.

That would make half their job a lot easier relative to fighting some small slickster like Conn Charles or even Byrd.

Not really. The big guys today can box and move. They have a ring generalship earlier juggernauts like a Carnera or Willard lacked. I'm not saying they're Ray Robinson, but they have suffiecient all-round ability coupled with vast size and power, making it a very difficult package to beat.
Carnera could box a bit, but he lacked real power and I don't think he was well versed in tying a man up inside, which is an important technique for the big man in today's scene.

The small slickster is going to present problems, but of a different kind. Ironically Conn lost to the bigger man twice (Louis) when they fought. Byrd's slickness helped him not one jot against Wlad.

I think saying "a nice big target to aim for" is simplifying things too much.

[quote]
There have always been heavyweights the size of Liston and bigger.

Jim Jeffries and Max Baer to name just two.

Incidentaly people getting bigger over the years has nothing to do with natural selection. It is all a function of nutrition.


Sure there have always been big men the size of Liston, but they were a rarity. By the 80's, most fighters were Liston's size or even bigger. Certainly this is true today, only more so.
Baer had a big frame, but he had skinny spindly legs and weighed considerably less than many big guys today.

When I say natural selection I also mean in terms of skillset, not only size. You're 100% right about the nutritional aspect. I find it quite difficult to articulate what I mean accurately.

I'm not discounting the possibility of a skilled little guy beating a talented big guy as history has proven that it's always possible, but in general you have to favour the man who considerably outstrips the other in size, provided he has the skillset to use it to his advantage.

[Mendoza]

fists of fury

Your point is noted, but at the same time Holyfield possessed an iron chin, great stamina, tremendous determination and am underrated punch as well. Despite all this, it was not enough.

Holyfield came in a little lighter than normal - 205 - with the gameplan of outspeeding Bowe. Note that the 205 he carried was still a fair bit more than the 188 of Dempsey and 185 of Rocky.
This clearly did not work, as Holyfield found himself continually sucked into a brawl with the bigger man.

Why did Holyfield add 10 pounds (I think he came in at 214 for the rematch) and suddenly achieve success? I think he realised that the earlier theory was flawed, and that he needed more strength to compete.
He also never weighed below 210 for a fight again in his life.
Telling? I think so.

I think what you said about Dempsey or Tunney is significant. So the little guy either needs a paralysing punch or tremendous ability to overcome the bigger guy? What if he has only mediocre power and average ability?

I agree that he would bring things they may not have seen before, BUT (and this is part of the 'natural selection' theory) in my mind it still would not have been enough. His superior technique is going to be offset and rendered redundant by the raw size and power of a Klitschko for example.
Simply getting inside such a long reach is going to be problematic and if he does there is a big, booming right hand waiting for him. How would you suppose a Walcott or Charles deals with a Lewis or Klitschko?

Maybe in terms of frame Walcott was not much smaller than Holyfield, but he is considerably outweighed overall, and it's pure muscle that makes up the difference.

Not really. The big guys today can box and move. They have a ring generalship earlier juggernauts like a Carnera or Willard lacked. I'm not saying they're Ray Robinson, but they have suffiecient all-round ability coupled with vast size and power, making it a very difficult package to beat.

Carnera could box a bit, but he lacked real power and I don't think he was well versed in tying a man up inside, which is an important technique for the big man in today's scene.

The small slickster is going to present problems, but of a different kind. Ironically Conn lost to the bigger man twice (Louis) when they fought. Byrd's slickness helped him not one jot against Wlad.

I think saying "a nice big target to aim for" is simplifying things too much.


Sure there have always been big men the size of Liston, but they were a rarity. By the 80's, most fighters were Liston's size or even bigger. Certainly this is true today, only more so.

Baer had a big frame, but he had skinny spindly legs and weighed considerably less than many big guys today.

When I say natural selection I also mean in terms of skillset, not only size. You're 100% right about the nutritional aspect. I find it quite difficult to articulate what I mean accurately.

I'm not discounting the possibility of a skilled little guy beating a talented big guy as history has proven that it's always possible, but in general you have to favour the man who considerably outstrips the other in size, provided he has the skillset to use it to his advantage.

This is a good post. I have seen it this way for years.

[fists of fury]

Thank you, but it's just logical...no great brainwork on my part was required.

(Of course, that doesn't mean tomorrow that I won't pick Rocky over Bowe in a theoretical matchup.) :p

[SuzieQ49]

How would you suppose a Walcott or Charles deals with a Lewis or Klitschko?


lennox lewis is different from V klitschko. lennox was a great fighter, klitschko was a proven fraud. lennox was a much better all around fighter than vitali. Vitali is another what if, we dont know too much about him going by his resume.


I dont pick walcott over bowe and lennox, but i do see him beating a non great big man like vitali.

[CottoDaBodykill]

Of course, when you see hulks like Klitschko and Lewis who also has good speed and boxing skills it seems unlikely that the smaller guys could be much of a challenge. But it's easy to overestimate size. Smaller HW's like Holyfield and Byrd (as well as Toney and RJJ) have done well in recent times without being outragously skilled or having a freak set of abilities (Rocky's stamina, Dempsey's explosiveness etc). So one shouldn't really discard the possibility.

But as the previous poster I would give a greater chance to the crouching type of fighters like Dempsey and Rocky than a straight standing type like Louis. Great as Louis was I see Wladimir' jab and powerful straight right causing him all kinds of trouble. Of course, much lesser fighters than Louis have beat Wladimir and you really have to think twice before you favour anyone over Louis, but stylistically I think Wladimir is a more diffiult prospect for him than for example Marciano.i agree 100% if a guy like byrd can be successful being a speedster defense type .. why couldn't someone like gene tunny be successful today?.. or if a guy like holyfield who got by on stamina hart ..and a bit of pop with some speed can get by ..why can't a guy like dempsey come out blasting?! ... yeah they weighed 180 then..but with the same proper training and diets we have today ..whose to say they couldn't move up to 200-205 ..maybe even 210-215 in some cases...and still be right

[radianttwilight]

yeah they weighed 180 then..but with the same proper training and diets we have today ..whose to say they couldn't move up to 200-205 ..maybe even 210-215 in some cases...and still be right

I think this is the point that many are trying to make.

Yesterday's good small men have become today's good big men.

I don't think any well-learned boxing fan will disagree with you on the "time transplant" theory -that an early 1900s Klitschko would probably be smaller, while a 2000s Dempsey could be bigger, but the facts are that they are different sizes.

The next time a sub-200 heavyweight puncher comes along, I'll change my opinion.

[radianttwilight]

i agree 100% if a guy like byrd can be successful being a speedster defense type ..



Byrd may have been successful, but I don't think he was all that good. He was a good contender "for the era" but his era was especially weak.



why couldn't someone like gene tunny be successful today?..



Not saying they couldn't, but "successful" and "great" are two entirely different things. Chris Byrd is not an ATG.


or if a guy like holyfield who got by on stamina hart ..and a bit of pop with some speed can get by ..why can't a guy like dempsey come out blasting?!

[quote]

Holyfield is a hell of a lot bigger than Dempsey. Also notice the fact that, after his 205lb self got handled by the much bigger Bowe in their first fight, he never came in under 210 for a fight?

I think Holyfield is a great example of how smaller fighters of his style can't reasonably compete with superheavies like Bowe. He bulked up and won a close fight, but even at 215ish and ripped he was getting bossed around by Riddick.

[quote=CottoDaBodykill]
... yeah they weighed 180 then..but with the same proper training and diets we have today ..whose to say they couldn't move up to 200-205 ..maybe even 210-215 in some cases...and still be right

Addressed in my earlier post.

[janitor]

[quote=fists of fury]
Your point is noted, but at the same time Holyfield possessed an iron chin, great stamina, tremendous determination and am underrated punch as well. Despite all this, it was not enough.

Holyfield came in a little lighter than normal - 205 - with the gameplan of outspeeding Bowe. Note that the 205 he carried was still a fair bit more than the 188 of Dempsey and 185 of Rocky.
This clearly did not work, as Holyfield found himself continually sucked into a brawl with the bigger man.


Your point in turn is noted.

Was Holyfield forced to brawl with Bowe or did he just implement an unwise fight plan?

I will make the point that the key equalizer for a smaller fighter taking on a bigger fighter is power.

Holyfield had (yes under rated) punishing but not devastating power.


I think what you said about Dempsey or Tunney is significant. So the little guy either needs a paralysing punch or tremendous ability to overcome the bigger guy? What if he has only mediocre power and average ability?


then he is screwed.


[quote=janitor]
I agree that he would bring things they may not have seen before, BUT (and this is part of the 'natural selection' theory) in my mind it still would not have been enough. His superior technique is going to be offset and rendered redundant by the raw size and power of a Klitschko for example.
Simply getting inside such a long reach is going to be problematic and if he does there is a big, booming right hand waiting for him. How would you suppose a Walcott or Charles deals with a Lewis or Klitschko?


I would not group Walcott and Charles together in this context or for that matter Lewis and Klitschko.

1. Walcott & Charles.
this is like comparing Evander Holyfield to Michael Moorer physicaly. Walcott was naturaly bigger than the cruiserweight Holyfiels, faster, better technicaly and hit harder. While Charles might be his Moorer, Walcott was stylisticaly mich better able to beat bigger fighters than Charles.

2. Lewis Klitschko.
Lewis's credentials are a given. Vitally Klitschkos career never quite gained liftoff.

In my opinion he had a lot of unlucky breaks but we have to go with what we have seen..


Maybe in terms of frame Walcott was not much smaller than Holyfield, but he is considerably outweighed overall, and it's pure muscle that makes up the difference.


Perhaps Walcotts mobility, power and slickness would count for more than Holyfields muscle.

At least consider it.


[quote=janitor]
Not really. The big guys today can box and move. They have a ring generalship earlier juggernauts like a Carnera or Willard lacked.


Perhaps you are selling the big guys of the past a little short.

Carnera for example could dance and move and he got to the title by fighting a smart fight with what he had. I also think that he was good at leaning on oponents and tiring them out.



The small slickster is going to present problems, but of a different kind. Ironically Conn lost to the bigger man twice (Louis) when they fought. Byrd's slickness helped him not one jot against Wlad.


I could argue that Conns aproach against Louis was more effective than Byrds aproach against Wlad.


I think saying "a nice big target to aim for" is simplifying things too much.


Fair enough.


[quote=janitor]
Sure there have always been big men the size of Liston, but they were a rarity.


Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

You are half right.

Big men come and go to some extent.

In Jack Johnsons era there were a lot for example.


When I say natural selection I also mean in terms of skillset, not only size. You're 100% right about the nutritional aspect. I find it quite difficult to articulate what I mean accurately.


Fair enough.


I'm not discounting the possibility of a skilled little guy beating a talented big guy as history has proven that it's always possible, but in general you have to favour the man who considerably outstrips the other in size, provided he has the skillset to use it to his advantage.


Dont wory.

Im not discounting the possibility that a skilled big guyn can steamroll a skilled little guy.

Obviously that will happen more often than not but there will be dramatic exceptions.

[Mendoza]

lennox lewis is different from V klitschko. lennox was a great fighter, klitschko was a proven fraud. lennox was a much better all around fighter than vitali. Vitali is another what if, we dont know too much about him going by his resume.

I dont pick walcott over bowe and lennox, but i do see him beating a non great big man like vitali.

Saying Vitlai was a fraud makes you look bad as a poster, Suzie. We know you do not like him, but Vitlai as a genuine contender, and for a while the #1 heavyweight in the world. Such as fighter is never a fraud.