Does anyone still think the old time heavyweights were too small to be competitive in the modern era?

[Bronson66]

Louis did not have two left feet and was not easy to hit. If he were than why couldn't any of the bigger men he fought beat him? Louis was only stifled by speed, which today's fighters don't have compared to the men that troubled Louis.

Louis had 69 fights ,and was stopped just twice,once when pre prime, through overconfidence, and once when he was washed up,and 37years old
If he was easy to hit,and chinny he would not have dominated the division for nearly 12 years.
If he had two left feet he would not have caught up to boxing slicksters like Conn and Pastor.
Unfortunately we have a notorious Louis hater on this forum who has stated Louis had crooked judges and referees in his pocket and was mob controlled.Such imbeciles are not worth the trouble of giving them the credibility of a response.

[ShoulderRoll]

Because he wasn't as good as Usyk,therefore the size differential did not make the difference,had they been of equal ability,and speed it might have.

So by that logic, as long as modern heavyweights weren’t as good as the old time greats the size wouldn’t make a difference either then?

[IronDanHamza]

So by that logic, as long as modern heavyweights weren’t as good as the old time greats the size wouldn’t make a difference either then?

Not if they're 185 lbs you dumb fuck.

[dan_cov]

I think it'd be more fair to compare them to todays or yesteryears light heavyweights as that is where they would likely compete. Their walk around weight wouldn't even make the CW limit.

They just do not have the bone structure or anything to take a HW punch.

I think Floyd Patterson practically had the same issue - Very good fighter, naturally a big puncher for his size also but he was just too small even back then. He was basically a light-heavyweight maybe even a blown up super middleweight (today) fighting guys who wouldn't be undersized in todays CW division.
A lot feel he was chinny and while I get it I think it was more to do with him fighting naturally much bigger men. I'd dread to think the effects of todays HWs would have on someone like that.

[ShoulderRoll]

Floyd Patterson isn’t typically considered to be an all-time great heavyweight, though.

[IronDanHamza]

Floyd Patterson isn’t typically considered to be an all-time great heavyweight, though.

The only way this thread would make any sense would be if Usyk was shorter and 185 lbs, which he's not.

He's 6 ft 3 and 225 lbs. So you have no point what so ever. He's not an overly small guy, he's the same size as Muhammad Ali.

[ShoulderRoll]

Louis was 6'2" with a 76" reach, and the most technically gifted heavyweight we've ever seen. He also dispatched fighters the size of fighters today with relative ease.

And Jack Dempsey was 6’1”. Really not much shorter.

The fact that they tended to be leaner than today’s heavyweights was just to their benefit…they valued fighting stamina and had to go 15-rounds. Excess muscle or flab would have made them less effective fighters, not more effective.

[IronDanHamza]

And Jack Dempsey was 6’1”. Really not much shorter.

The fact that they tended to be leaner than today’s heavyweights was just to their benefit…they valued fighting stamina and had to go 15-rounds. Excess muscle or flab would have made them less effective fighters, not more effective.

Jack Dempsey was 185-190 lbs, what aren't you getting about that?

[Willie Pep 229]

"still think"

Good thing your not shaping the question. LOL

[ShoulderRoll]

"still think"

Good thing your not shaping the question. LOL

Anybody who has been around the History section of this website for a while knows that there are several posters who think less of the old time heavyweights. That’s who I was addressing.