Who beat bigger opponents - Gene Tunney or Jim Jeffries ?

[Unforgiven]

Who beat the bigger fighters, on average.

[OLD FOGEY]

Who beat the bigger fighters, on average.

Jeffries, I would say. Tunney fought most of his career as a lightheavy. How many opponents were over 190. Dempsey, Risko, Spalla, Heeney and possibly Renault. At 203 Heeney might be about 3 lbs heavier than anyone Jeffries defeated, but Jeff beat Ruhlin, Jackson, Goddard, Corbett, and Everett, all in the 190 to 200 lb class, with Ruhlin at 200 being the heaviest. Jack Johnson, at 208, was the biggest man either fought. Other than Fitz and Choynski, most of Jeff's opponents were over 180.

[apollack]

Why is everyone so caught up on size? In the era's these guys fought, they didn't care about size as much. That's because being too big could be a detriment. Often, the lighter boxer had more speed, had better stamina, could throw more consistently and would beat the bigger fighters. Smaller fighters had enough power to take out the bigger ones.

Most of these so called champs today would get KO'd if they had to go 20 rounds, had to take a punch from a 5-ounce glove, couldn't wear body protectors up to their bellys, had to actually fight out of clinches and protect themselves on breaks instead of referees interfering all the time, and had to fight more because the referee or judge would not give them a round if they didn't fight.

[Unforgiven]

Why is everyone so caught up on size? In the era's these guys fought, they didn't care about size as much. That's because being too big could be a detriment. Often, the lighter boxer had more speed, had better stamina, could throw more consistently and would beat the bigger fighters. Smaller fighters had enough power to take out the bigger ones.

Most of these so called champs today would get KO'd if they had to go 20 rounds, had to take a punch from a 5-ounce glove, couldn't wear body protectors up to their bellys, had to actually fight out of clinches and protect themselves on breaks instead of referees interfering all the time, and had to fight more because the referee or judge would not give them a round if they didn't fight.

I agree with what you are saying.
In those days, being tough, fast and having stamina were important because, I believe, the overall standard was higher.
The most massive fighters generally cant fight.

[OLD FOGEY]

Why is everyone so caught up on size? In the era's these guys fought, they didn't care about size as much. That's because being too big could be a detriment. Often, the lighter boxer had more speed, had better stamina, could throw more consistently and would beat the bigger fighters. Smaller fighters had enough power to take out the bigger ones.

Most of these so called champs today would get KO'd if they had to go 20 rounds, had to take a punch from a 5-ounce glove, couldn't wear body protectors up to their bellys, had to actually fight out of clinches and protect themselves on breaks instead of referees interfering all the time, and had to fight more because the referee or judge would not give them a round if they didn't fight.

Good points, but not 'everyone' is caught up on size.

I think it most interesting that size becomes far more important in fantasy matchups, in which it is often the decisive factor in giving a modern fighter the edge over an old-timer, than it ever is in "within history" actual matchups, where the biggest men have failed with rather monotonous regularity.

[ChrisPontius]

I think it most interesting that size becomes far more important in fantasy matchups, in which it is often the decisive factor in giving a modern fighter the edge over an old-timer, than it ever is in "within history" actual matchups, where the biggest men have failed with rather monotonous regularity.

From the mid to late 60's, when men grew bigger, sub 200 pounders have lost to their bigger counterparts with rather monotonous regularity.

[he grant]

So lets say starting with Sonny Liston to today, what is the ideal size for a heavyweight?

[janitor]

So lets say starting with Sonny Liston to today, what is the ideal size for a heavyweight?

It depends on their style.

If you gave me a blank sheet of paper to design a boxer, a swarmer and a boxer puncher I would come up with verry different body types.

[ChrisPontius]

I agree with janitor. There is no "ideal" size, but each design has a boxing style that works best for them. However, there are always fighters that go against the grain, yet still are very effective. Dempsey at 6'1", especially considering 6'2" was considered a giant in his time, appears to be too tall for a swarming style, but he did it and was very effective with it.

[Mendoza]

It depends on their style.

If you gave me a blank sheet of paper to design a boxer, a swarmer and a boxer puncher I would come up with verry different body types.

The shorter, sub 210 pounds, boxer types without a lot of power are pretty much out of the game today.

[Unforgiven]

All the great heavyweights scaled between 180 and 220 in their primes.200 pounds median.

Joe Louis, Muhammad Ali, Jack Dempsey, Joe Frazier, Sonny Liston, Larry Holmes, Rocky Marciano, Jack Johnson.

[OLD FOGEY]

From the mid to late 60's, when men grew bigger, sub 200 pounders have lost to their bigger counterparts with rather monotonous regularity.

Except when they don't. If Chris Byrd begins his career at 169 in 1993 and ends it in 2008 at 174, how is he a 215 lber? The supplements make it a different issue. Certainly Spinks, Toney, Jones, and Byrd, all of whom fought at lightheavy when well into their 20's, did very well against superheavyweights and Spinks, Jones, and Byrd were champions.

By the way, why move up? Jones is probably going to make more fighting Calzaghe than he could fighting Klitschko. Except for Tyson, and perhaps Holyfield, the big box office draws in the post-Ali era have been smaller men, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, Duran, De La Hoya, Jones, Calzaghe, etc.

[janitor]

The shorter, sub 210 pounds, boxer types without a lot of power are pretty much out of the game today.

How much of that is because they can make easy money in lower weight classes?

If you had a situation where Joe Calzaghe or Antonio Tarver couldnt make big money in the lower weight clases then we could see some interesting results.

[ChrisPontius]

Except when they don't. If Chris Byrd begins his career at 169 in 1993 and ends it in 2008 at 174, how is he a 215 lber? The supplements make it a different issue. Certainly Spinks, Toney, Jones, and Byrd, all of whom fought at lightheavy when well into their 20's, did very well against superheavyweights and Spinks, Jones, and Byrd were champions.


Why says Byrd could've taken those big shots at 175 or 190? I won't take the recent fight as a barometer obviously, but i think bulking up helps a great deal in not being thrown around the ring and taking punches.

Toney's record against ranked heavyweights is 1-1-1-1, nothing to write home about. Spinks beat an old Holmes, should've lost the rematch when Larry was better trained, then got annihilated in 90 second by Tyson. A great accomplishement considering he came from 175, but again, not exactly consistent succes against the bigger guys. Jones just had one fight and everyone picked him to get KO'd by Lewis.



By the way, why move up? Jones is probably going to make more fighting Calzaghe than he could fighting Klitschko.


That's because no one is going to pay to witness an execution. In general, certainly the paydays at heavyweight are a lot more than at LHW or CW.



Except for Tyson, and perhaps Holyfield, the big box office draws in the post-Ali era have been smaller men, Leonard, Hagler, Hearns, Duran, De La Hoya, Jones, Calzaghe, etc.

Are you sure about that? I believe Tyson-Lewis was the biggest money maker and Tyson-Holyfield for that.

And yeah, of course the smaller weightclasses would take it on depth.

It's matching up money makers from 10 weight classes vs 1 weight class! Hardly a fair comparison, but if you look at the individual fights, on average heavyweights make a lot more.

[mcvey]

Who beat the bigger fighters, on average.
I don't think the difference in averages is significant at all ,what might need to be remembered is Jeffries was up to 30lbs heavier than Tunney so he had a definite advantage over the sub 200 pounders,whereas Tunney never scaled over 192 and that only once in his last fight.

[OLD FOGEY]

Why says Byrd could've taken those big shots at 175 or 190? I won't take the recent fight as a barometer obviously, but i think bulking up helps a great deal in not being thrown around the ring and taking punches.

Toney's record against ranked heavyweights is 1-1-1-1, nothing to write home about. Spinks beat an old Holmes, should've lost the rematch when Larry was better trained, then got annihilated in 90 second by Tyson. A great accomplishement considering he came from 175, but again, not exactly consistent succes against the bigger guys. Jones just had one fight and everyone picked him to get KO'd by Lewis.




That's because no one is going to pay to witness an execution. In general, certainly the paydays at heavyweight are a lot more than at LHW or CW.




Are you sure about that? I believe Tyson-Lewis was the biggest money maker and Tyson-Holyfield for that.

And yeah, of course the smaller weightclasses would take it on depth.

It's matching up money makers from 10 weight classes vs 1 weight class! Hardly a fair comparison, but if you look at the individual fights, on average heavyweights make a lot more.

The two fights you mention had Tyson. The issue is how much are top level fighters paid. How much more is Wlad Klitschko paid per bout than Joe Calzaghe?

Bryd bulked up and used supplements. So did his opponents. I think the real issue is would he have fought at the weight he did if his opponents were not using supplements. If he were around a couple of generations ago, he would probably never have fought over 190 or so at the most.

[Mendoza]

The two fights you mention had Tyson. The issue is how much are top level fighters paid. How much more is Wlad Klitschko paid per bout than Joe Calzaghe?

Bryd bulked up and used supplements. So did his opponents. I think the real issue is would he have fought at the weight he did if his opponents were not using supplements. If he were around a couple of generations ago, he would probably never have fought over 190 or so at the most.

Old Fogey,

Byrd was only a few pounds less as an amatuer as Joe Frazier and Ali. They gained weight in the 1960's.

While not a big heavyweight, Byrd did not carry much fat on him either. He was in shape, and quick in his prime at the weight 210 poudns or so.

Byrd's attmept to go back to light heavyweight was a disater for him. He was well past his prime.

[Boilermaker]

Why says Byrd could've taken those big shots at 175 or 190? I won't take the recent fight as a barometer obviously, but i think bulking up helps a great deal in not being thrown around the ring and taking punches.



It is possible, but it seems highly unlikely. There is certainly no evidence to suggest what you are saying, and it pretty much goes against common sense and all traditional thinking. If you are trimmer and fitter, you should have a better chin. Anyone who has been in shape and has been out of shape will tell you that. I think it is very unrealistic to think that because a fighter loses 20 or 30 pounds by training hard they cant take as much of a punch. It would be like saying that if Tua got dropped 30 lbs and trained hard and for endurance, he would no longer take a punch. Or if Toney went back down to Cruiserweight, he wouldnt have as good a chin as he has now.


Toney's record against ranked heavyweights is 1-1-1-1, nothing to write home about. Spinks beat an old Holmes, should've lost the rematch when Larry was better trained, then got annihilated in 90 second by Tyson. A great accomplishement considering he came from 175, but again, not exactly consistent succes against the bigger guys. Jones just had one fight and everyone picked him to get KO'd by Lewis.



Spinks beat an old Holmes twice, the same Old Homes (who was competive with every fighter he ever fought in the 90s superheavy era, except Tyson, when he was an awful lot older and out of shape than when spinks beat him. Spinks beat every heavy he fought other than Holmes and Tyson very easily. Tyson caught him clean, but still, when he caught Holmes (a proven atg heavy chin) clean he KOd him. Same with Berbick, who had a decent proven record, Biggs, Bruno and many, many others. In fact, virtually everyone who was caught clean.




That's because no one is going to pay to witness an execution. In general, certainly the paydays at heavyweight are a lot more than at LHW or CW.





Well Jones Jr vs Klithcsko would have certainly been the biggest fight klithchsko could sign in terms of making money, at one stage.
Are you sure about that? I believe Tyson-Lewis was the biggest money maker and Tyson-Holyfield for that.

And yeah, of course the smaller weightclasses would take it on depth.

It's matching up money makers from 10 weight classes vs 1 weight class! Hardly a fair comparison, but if you look at the individual fights, on average heavyweights make a lot more.[/quote]

[OLD FOGEY]

Old Fogey,

Byrd was only a few pounds less as an amatuer as Joe Frazier and Ali. They gained weight in the 1960's.

While not a big heavyweight, Byrd did not carry much fat on him either. He was in shape, and quick in his prime at the weight 210 poudns or so.

Byrd's attmept to go back to light heavyweight was a disater for him. He was well past his prime.

All this is true, but it doesn't really come to grips with the impact supplements had on Byrd.

Ali was a teenager when he fought in the 170's--18 I believe. Byrd weighed 169 at 23. At that age Ali was all muscle and would never see 200 lbs again. Supplements destroy direct historical comparisions, but if Byrd fought in Ali's era, he would have been smaller than Ali, and it is possible, and I think probable, that if Byrd fought in Marciano's era, he would have been lighter than Marciano. Marciano was never a lightheavy.

[OLD FOGEY]

Why says Byrd could've taken those big shots at 175 or 190? I won't take the recent fight as a barometer obviously, but i think bulking up helps a great deal in not being thrown around the ring and taking punches.

Toney's record against ranked heavyweights is 1-1-1-1, nothing to write home about. Spinks beat an old Holmes, should've lost the rematch when Larry was better trained, then got annihilated in 90 second by Tyson. A great accomplishement considering he came from 175, but again, not exactly consistent succes against the bigger guys. Jones just had one fight and everyone picked him to get KO'd by Lewis.




That's because no one is going to pay to witness an execution. In general, certainly the paydays at heavyweight are a lot more than at LHW or CW.




Are you sure about that? I believe Tyson-Lewis was the biggest money maker and Tyson-Holyfield for that.

And yeah, of course the smaller weightclasses would take it on depth.

It's matching up money makers from 10 weight classes vs 1 weight class! Hardly a fair comparison, but if you look at the individual fights, on average heavyweights make a lot more.

"Who says Byrd could have taken those big shots at 175 or 190?"

This is the same old big guys punch harder and take a punch better argument. Could you give actual historical evidence to support your case? Is there any historical evidence that a 190 lber (Uzcudun, Marciano, Dempsey) was easier to knock out than a 220 plus lb'ers (Neuhaus, Firpo, Carnera). I know I select names, but I think the point is still fair.

[ChrisPontius]

"Who says Byrd could have taken those big shots at 175 or 190?"

This is the same old big guys punch harder and take a punch better argument. Could you give actual historical evidence to support your case? Is there any historical evidence that a 190 lber (Uzcudun, Marciano, Dempsey) was easier to knock out than a 220 plus lb'ers (Neuhaus, Firpo, Carnera). I know I select names, but I think the point is still fair.
If it was advantageous to come in lower, then why did Byrd, and virtually every fighter who had the means, bulk up and come in a bit above 200 lbs?
I don't think durability goes up much once you get beyond, say, 200lbs.


Historical evidence is hard to provide, because boxing is involved with some many variables besides durability.

However, if you look at a list of durable heavyweight (180+lbs):

McCall
Chuvalo
Marciano
Jeffries
Godoy
Uzcudun
Dempsey
Ali
Holmes
Tyson
Galento
Tucker
McCline
V. Klitscko
Willard
Mercer
M. Baer
Braddock
Tua
Cobb
Holyfield
Valuev

I've highlighted the fighters below 200lbs. Now obviously this list is by no means "complete", but the majority of those are over the limit.




The two fights you mention had Tyson. The issue is how much are top level fighters paid. How much more is Wlad Klitschko paid per bout than Joe Calzaghe?


I don't know how much Klitschko or Calzaghe make, unfortunately. I do know that Wlad makes a shitload of money in Germany, as Calzaghe did in Wales against Kessler.


Bryd bulked up and used supplements. So did his opponents. I think the real issue is would he have fought at the weight he did if his opponents were not using supplements. If he were around a couple of generations ago, he would probably never have fought over 190 or so at the most.

Probably, but how is it relevant?

One more thing. These things often get exaggerated because it sounds much cooler to say "Yeah i went in with that guy with a 30lbs weight disadvantage" than "with a 20 lbs disadvantage". I read that Byrd left the training camp for the first W. Klitschko fight at 204lbs and then bulked up to 212lbs. But then i've also seen an article saying he was 190lbs and then ate himself up to 212lbs. Considering he is close to ripped and in very sharp shape, i question the latter article. It's not like he's walking around fat. Toney, now there's a guy who ate himself up to a weight.



It is possible, but it seems highly unlikely. There is certainly no evidence to suggest what you are saying, and it pretty much goes against common sense and all traditional thinking. If you are trimmer and fitter, you should have a better chin. Anyone who has been in shape and has been out of shape will tell you that. I think it is very unrealistic to think that because a fighter loses 20 or 30 pounds by training hard they cant take as much of a punch. It would be like saying that if Tua got dropped 30 lbs and trained hard and for endurance, he would no longer take a punch. Or if Toney went back down to Cruiserweight, he wouldnt have as good a chin as he has now.

I don't understand the Tua example. There's no way he could get to 180lbs. :huh

Foreman, Tua and Galento all took a great punch when they were fat. But those are irrelevant, i'm talking about a natural 170-180-190lbs fighter bulking up here. I don't believe Toney could've taken those monster shots from Peter and Rahman had he come in at 175 or 185lbs.



Spinks beat an old Holmes twice, the same Old Homes (who was competive with every fighter he ever fought in the 90s superheavy era, except Tyson, when he was an awful lot older and out of shape than when spinks beat him. Spinks beat every heavy he fought other than Holmes and Tyson very easily. Tyson caught him clean, but still, when he caught Holmes (a proven atg heavy chin) clean he KOd him. Same with Berbick, who had a decent proven record, Biggs, Bruno and many, many others. In fact, virtually everyone who was caught clean.

Wrong, that was not the same Holmes. The Holmes in the 90's was well prepared, just like the Holmes of the Spinks rematch. And what happened there? He beat Spinks on any decent scorecard. As for "being competitive with every fighter from the superheavyweight era", the only top fighter he faced and beat was Ray Mercer, who wasn't a superheavyweight to begin with.

And sorry to say so because Spinks is one of my favorite lightheavyweights, but outside of Holmes, the heavyweights he beat were garbage. Cooney was washed and coked up and never much to begin with... never beat a ranked contender. Spinks dropped his belt to avoid Tucker. He flopped worse against Tyson than almost all of Tyson's victims did. Impressive for his size, but not for a heavyweight.

As for your last comment, i don't really see what you mean. Holmes took a vicious beating from pillar to post for almost a minute before being stopped, and after 4 rounds .. if you think Tyson didn't land anything during the first three then i suggest you re-watch the fight. Spinks went down after the first decent shot that landed and out cold after the follow-up.



Well Jones Jr vs Klithcsko would have certainly been the biggest fight klithchsko could sign in terms of making money, at one stage.

Yes. And what does that prove? Of course it pays big money to see a big champion fight a smaller champion.

But two big heavyweight names will always bring in more money than two big cruiserweight names. Unless you think Haye-Maccaranelli was a big as Tyson-Lewis.

[SuzieQ49]

As for "being competitive with every fighter from the superheavyweight era", the only top fighter he faced and beat was Ray Mercer, who wasn't a superheavyweight to begin with.



the same ray mercer who outjabbed outworked outfought your boy prime lennox lewis. perhaps lennox wont be as dominant against great smaller heavyweights as you think?

[OLD FOGEY]

If it was advantageous to come in lower, then why did Byrd, and virtually every fighter who had the means, bulk up and come in a bit above 200 lbs?
I don't think durability goes up much once you get beyond, say, 200lbs.


Historical evidence is hard to provide, because boxing is involved with some many variables besides durability.

However, if you look at a list of durable heavyweight (180+lbs):

McCall
Chuvalo
Marciano
Jeffries
Godoy
Uzcudun
Dempsey
Ali
Holmes
Tyson
Galento
Tucker
McCline
V. Klitscko
Willard
Mercer
M. Baer
Braddock
Tua
Cobb
Holyfield
Valuev

I've highlighted the fighters below 200lbs. Now obviously this list is by no means "complete", but the majority of those are over the limit.





I don't know how much Klitschko or Calzaghe make, unfortunately. I do know that Wlad makes a shitload of money in Germany, as Calzaghe did in Wales against Kessler.


Probably, but how is it relevant?

One more thing. These things often get exaggerated because it sounds much cooler to say "Yeah i went in with that guy with a 30lbs weight disadvantage" than "with a 20 lbs disadvantage". I read that Byrd left the training camp for the first W. Klitschko fight at 204lbs and then bulked up to 212lbs. But then i've also seen an article saying he was 190lbs and then ate himself up to 212lbs. Considering he is close to ripped and in very sharp shape, i question the latter article. It's not like he's walking around fat. Toney, now there's a guy who ate himself up to a weight.



I don't understand the Tua example. There's no way he could get to 180lbs. :huh

Foreman, Tua and Galento all took a great punch when they were fat. But those are irrelevant, i'm talking about a natural 170-180-190lbs fighter bulking up here. I don't believe Toney could've taken those monster shots from Peter and Rahman had he come in at 175 or 185lbs.



Wrong, that was not the same Holmes. The Holmes in the 90's was well prepared, just like the Holmes of the Spinks rematch. And what happened there? He beat Spinks on any decent scorecard. As for "being competitive with every fighter from the superheavyweight era", the only top fighter he faced and beat was Ray Mercer, who wasn't a superheavyweight to begin with.

And sorry to say so because Spinks is one of my favorite lightheavyweights, but outside of Holmes, the heavyweights he beat were garbage. Cooney was washed and coked up and never much to begin with... never beat a ranked contender. Spinks dropped his belt to avoid Tucker. He flopped worse against Tyson than almost all of Tyson's victims did. Impressive for his size, but not for a heavyweight.

As for your last comment, i don't really see what you mean. Holmes took a vicious beating from pillar to post for almost a minute before being stopped, and after 4 rounds .. if you think Tyson didn't land anything during the first three then i suggest you re-watch the fight. Spinks went down after the first decent shot that landed and out cold after the follow-up.



Yes. And what does that prove? Of course it pays big money to see a big champion fight a smaller champion.

But two big heavyweight names will always bring in more money than two big cruiserweight names. Unless you think Haye-Maccaranelli was a big as Tyson-Lewis.

Your list of the most durable fighters is not only incomplete, it is grossly biased toward plus 200 pounders:

1. Mike Tyson--stopped 5 times in 58 fights. He ranks behind Ezzard Charles (7-112) who has been criticized as "chinny" on this board. Yes, Tyson's ko's came largely when past his best, but so did Charles'.

2. Jess Willard--stopped 3 times in 36 fights. Why is he on this list and not Billy Miske who was stopped 1 time in 103 fights and that by Dempsey (and he might have been ill).

3. Jameel McCline--stopped 3 times in 50 fights. Seems an ordinary chin--nothing like Maxie Rosenbloom with 2 stoppages in 298 fights.

4. Tony Galento--stopped 6 times in 110 fights. Young Stribling was stopped once in 288 fights and that by referee's intervention with seconds to go in the 15th round against Schmeling.

5. Max Baer--stopped 3 times in 81 fights. Johnny Risko was stopped 3 times in 142 fights, fought many more rounds, and was in with more good fighters.

Other small men who fought a lot at heavyweight and were rarely stopped--Battling Levinsky (4-289,), Tommy Loughran (3-174), Cesar Brion (1-59), Bob Pastor (2-65), John Henry Lewis (1-117), Tommy Gibbons (1-106)

I would point out that Vitali Klitschko has actually been stopped 2 times in 37 fights, nothing to get excited about. Yes, you could focus on injuries, but that was true of these older guys also. One of Greb's and one of Loughran's stoppages were with injuries.

[ChrisPontius]

Ok, like i said it's not a complete list. And to avoid a long discussion over a small point, i think it's better to discontinue discussing this particular point.... for a few reasons:

-I was discussing durability asin the ability to take a punch, not being stopped on cuts, injuries or anything similar. Tyson's ability to take a punch is proven on film against very hard punchers. It's other factors that lead to him getting TKO'd.

-The statistics of Charles (and i don't mind Charles on the list and i don't call him "chinny" - just a random example) or John Lewis are disfigured because they fought a lot of fights at lower weights

-An extension of the last point: many older fighters didn't have to deal with the talented 210+ punchers that fighters from the 60's had to deal with. I know you may not subscribe to this theory, further complicating the discussion. A guy like Tunney may have never been stopped, but exactly how tested is he against heavyweight punchers?

[SuzieQ49]

Tyson's ability to take a punch is proven on film against very hard punchers.


Ezzard Charles took flush punches on film vs very hard punchers like Rocky Marciano, bob satterfield, Joe Louis, Nino Valdez, Rex Layne, Johnny Haynes....does that mean he has a top chin?

[ChrisPontius]

I haven't seen all of those fights, but Charles certainly was very durable. He fought a ton of top contenders and only was stopped once until the Marciano fight, if i'm not mistaken.

[OLD FOGEY]

Ok, like i said it's not a complete list. And to avoid a long discussion over a small point, i think it's better to discontinue discussing this particular point.... for a few reasons:

-I was discussing durability asin the ability to take a punch, not being stopped on cuts, injuries or anything similar. Tyson's ability to take a punch is proven on film against very hard punchers. It's other factors that lead to him getting TKO'd.

-The statistics of Charles (and i don't mind Charles on the list and i don't call him "chinny" - just a random example) or John Lewis are disfigured because they fought a lot of fights at lower weights

-An extension of the last point: many older fighters didn't have to deal with the talented 210+ punchers that fighters from the 60's had to deal with. I know you may not subscribe to this theory, further complicating the discussion. A guy like Tunney may have never been stopped, but exactly how tested is he against heavyweight punchers?

No problem. It is a complicated discussion, and I don't entirely disagree about talented modern big fighters, but I do think someone should press for historical evidence rather than accepting as a given that bigger is better.

Janitor once made the excellent point that the 210 plus pounders of the past were trained by the same trainers who trained the smaller men.

[ChrisPontius]

No problem. It is a complicated discussion, and I don't entirely disagree about talented modern big fighters, but I do think someone should press for historical evidence rather than accepting as a given that bigger is better.

Janitor once made the excellent point that the 210 plus pounders of the past were trained by the same trainers who trained the smaller men.

I may open a new topic on it one of these days, but i'd like it to have a bit more substance than "heavyweights post 1960 were bigger on average" .. -"No they weren't".

Anyway, i'm off to bed now. Good night.