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

[nevapatton]

The perception that old-time heavyweights were "too small" to compete in the modern era is a widely debated topic in boxing circles. Many modern boxing fans and analysts argue that the size, athleticism, and training techniques of today's heavyweights give them an insurmountable edge.

[Anomalocaris]

It's just common sense.

Technique can only overcome so much and vast super-heavies like Lewis, Vlad and Fury were technically excellent anyway - and so is 225 pound Oleksandr.

The 185 pound Marciano was relatively crude, it's ludicrous to think he could walk right through Lennox like some do.

[Marchegiano]

So just to be clear, y'all are happy just chucking out names like as if it is hard for any of us to get on boxrec and find the appropriate disparity as evidence for either logical fallacy?

And me call you all s t u p i d is harsh is it?


1*eMbiefRQ9GRFbuRW-ZEKOQ.webp

Not scientific or medical proof size has deficits to stamina doe?



That's not far more significant evidence for a real actual fact than "but Usyk put on 2 pounds over the Bridger limit doe" or "But Bill Tate sucks doe"?





We're going to deny this science, supplement some assumptions based off boxing win/loss records, not even bother with a data set because we like cherry picking, throw out time all together, throw away equipment all together, and top it all off with citing this same science as the reason the old time super heavies ****** nuts at boxing?


... And me telling you all this is a dumbass argument held on dumbass grounds by dumbass people is being mean is it?


Now go ahead and play semantics like that's done well for any of you.

[Marchegiano]

Dear M,Many of us used to upload ourselves in our youth,hopefully most of us eventually found a willing partner to help us in our endeavours to relieve our tensions.

Let us look at your choices
Spinks v Holmes Spinks added 30lbs to his frame to take on Holmes Why?

Spinks was prime Holmes was past prime.Prime Holmes stops Spinks ,imo
Spinks undertook a scientifically designed strength and weight gain programme,under sports nutritionist Mackie Shilston too compete as a heavyweight . Why?

Spinks scaled 208 3/4lbs to fight Cooney,that's 33 1/4lbs more than he weighed previously. Why?

RJJ went from175lbs to 193 lbs a18lbs weight gain to challenge Ruiz. Why?

Once Jones had beaten Ruiz,why did Jones not entertain fighting ,Holyfield or Lewis,which was where the real money was?
Why in fact did he select Ruiz in preference to them in the first place?
Could it be because Ruiz was the lesser danger?

Chambers was at his second career highest to face Peter. Why?
In his next fight he was lighter against an even bigger man,would that be because he did not think Dimitrenko was half as dangerous as Peter?
What do you think?

Tyson 222lbs v Golota 240lbs.
I've said many ,many times a man 200lbs+ can beat any man If he is good enough.Tyson was twice the fighter Golota was and at 222lbs plenty big enough to overcome the 18lbs weight deficit.

Bill Tate? He lost to Norfolk because Norfolk was a world class fighter whereas Tate was sparring partner level,simple as!
In my statements about smaller men beating bigger ones I have always maintained one crucial element and that is"all things being equal," Your examples do not fit into that category.

You are justifiably proud of your career as a prosthetist,and I do respect that, but just 2 things if I may?

1. Why do you feel it necessary to introduce it into every post you make?

2.Why do you believe it qualifies you to hold lordly court on boxing over us ordinary posters ,who have no skill in making false limbs?

I expressed my sincere gratitude to you when you defended me when I was banned.I meant it then and I mean it now.
However, that does not give you licence to insult me with every post you make,there is a limit to my gratitude.


Take care of yourself M.

Jesus you're a messed up guy sometimes.

I don't stop bringing it up? Are you sure? You sure I didn't mention it once and since then been asked repeatedly? Like presently? You sure you want me to bring all those quotes into on spot? Did I say anything about it in the post you quoted? Nope, yet here you are bringing up in the form of an accusation


I read a whole lot of excuses. Let me let you in on a wee secret. Human limitations can not be excused.


Pretty sure you got lost in this guy. You're ranging from nonsense to no sense at all.


As far as gratitude, bro them my colors. If you got banned again I'm going to fight for you because you're a good poster. I will not coddle you. You can call that disrespect if you want but I don't sit here claiming you are a know nothing who never did anything. You do that to me and do not like it when I tell you not only have I but also that was a ***** ass thing to ask.

Gratitude? You've shown me gratitude on your own terms like how I show you respect on mine. Doesn't mean **** to either of us.

[Bronson66]

So just to be clear, y'all are happy just chucking out names like as if it is hard for any of us to get on boxrec and find the appropriate disparity as evidence for either logical fallacy?

And me call you all s t u p i d is harsh is it?


1*eMbiefRQ9GRFbuRW-ZEKOQ.webp

Not scientific or medical proof size has deficits to stamina doe?



That's not far more significant evidence for a real actual fact than "but Usyk put on 2 pounds over the Bridger limit doe" or "But Bill Tate sucks doe"?





We're going to deny this science, supplement some assumptions based off boxing win/loss records, not even bother with a data set because we like cherry picking, throw out time all together, throw away equipment all together, and top it all off with citing this same science as the reason the old time super heavies ****** nuts at boxing?


... And me telling you all this is a dumbass argument held on dumbass grounds by dumbass people is being mean is it?


Now go ahead and play semantics like that's done well for any of you.

I consider myself of average intelligence,so maybe that's why I fail to see the relevance of your graph to the argument that all things being equal a big man beats a small man? I'm just not clever enough.

As you said ,a dumb ass,like all the others here who disagree with you.

B M I is now being seriously challenged as to how it apertains to the classification of obesity. At the present moment in time ,and I heard this on the radio yesterday Mike Tyson is classified as clinically obese,which is clearly nonsense.
As I said being not too bright I don't see what your graph proves in terms of two men of equal ability,but one being 40lbs heavier and taller, but still in shape proves? Perhaps you can break it down in terms a layman like me can understand?

As to the respective talents of Usyk v Tate?
imo Usyk is a very skilled boxer with ,great footwork,fine defensive capabilities,a high boxing IQ,an excellent variety of punches, power enough to keep any heavyweight honest, with courage and dedication to spare.

Tate was a mobile punching bag for Dempsey. with a near 50/50 record, his size meant he was capable of absorbing lot of punishment in sparring ,which is why Dempsey who never took it easy on his big sparring partners used him and George Godfrey to ,"cut loose," in sparring,Jack had Panama Joe Gans and, Jamaica Kid for speed,and the bigger men for slugging.
There is no correlation between Usyk and Tate that gives us any opportunity to form a definitive opinion about the subject at hand.
One was a world class fighter ,an unbeaten and undisputed champion at two weights.

The other was a professional sparring partner who often picked up bouts on the undercard of his employer.

[Marchegiano]

I consider myself of average intelligence,so maybe that's why I fail to see the relevance of your graph to the argument that all things being equal a big man beats a small man? I'm just not clever enough.

As you said ,a dumb ass,like all the others here who disagree with you.

B M I is now being seriously challenged as to how it apertains to the classification of obesity. At the present moment in time ,and I heard this on the radio yesterday Mike Tyson is classified as clinically obese,which is clearly nonsense.
As I said being not too bright I don't see what your graph proves in terms of two men of equal ability,but one being 40lbs heavier and taller, but still in shape proves? Perhaps you can break it down in terms a layman like me can understand?

As to the respective talents of Usyk v Tate?
imo Usyk is a very skilled boxer with ,great footwork,fine defensive capabilities,a high boxing IQ,an excellent variety of punches, power enough to keep any heavyweight honest, with courage and dedication to spare.

Tate was a mobile punching bag for Dempsey. with a near 50/50 record, his size meant he was capable of absorbing lot of punishment in sparring ,which is why Dempsey who never took it easy on his big sparring partners used him and George Godfrey to ,"cut loose," in sparring,Jack had Panama Joe Gans and, Jamaica Kid for speed,and the bigger men for slugging.
There is no correlation between Usyk and Tate that gives us any opportunity to form a definitive opinion about the subject at hand.
One was a world class fighter ,an unbeaten and undisputed champion at two weights.

The other was a professional sparring partner who often picked up bouts on the undercard of his employer.

I agree with the idea just drumming up names is a waste of time. I wonder if you just needed to put that into your own words before you were willing to agree.

What should be just absurdly obvious to you is larger people have a harder time keeping oxygen supplied to their muscles.

Where it's going is right back into time. You have 3 min rounds regardless of weight. You have 1 min breaks regardless of weight. This is a rules based bias that favors the big man during the action and the small man between the action. a 36 minute cut off favors larger men. No limit favors smaller men. Your history supports this. Science supports this. The only thing that doesn't is some cherry picked names from boxrec and the opinions of people who need data parsed for them.

[Bronson66]

Jesus you're a messed up guy sometimes.

I don't stop bringing it up? Are you sure? You sure I didn't mention it once and since then been asked repeatedly? Like presently? You sure you want me to bring all those quotes into on spot? Did I say anything about it in the post you quoted? Nope, yet here you are bringing up in the form of an accusation


I read a whole lot of excuses. Let me let you in on a wee secret. Human limitations can not be excused.


Pretty sure you got lost in this guy. You're ranging from nonsense to no sense at all.


As far as gratitude, bro them my colors. If you got banned again I'm going to fight for you because you're a good poster. I will not coddle you. You can call that disrespect if you want but I don't sit here claiming you are a know nothing who never did anything. You do that to me and do not like it when I tell you not only have I but also that was a ***** ass thing to ask.

Gratitude? You've shown me gratitude on your own terms like how I show you respect on mine. Doesn't mean **** to either of us.

You call me dumb ass ,****** and tard an ,abbreviation of ******.It doesn't bother me,I'm just pointing it out.

Now I'm going to point something else out and it's said with no malice whatsoever.

You are probably the most learned poster about the ancient boxers and bareknuckle era ,on the 3 forums I post on, as far as facts go.
I take my hat off to you for that.

However , as to the actual nuts and bolts of boxing as it is commonly practised ,I don't think you know a damn thing about the game.

That being said your posts are always worth reading.and you a really valuable asset to any boxing forum,and long may you be with us!

[IronDanHamza]

So just to be clear, y'all are happy just chucking out names like as if it is hard for any of us to get on boxrec and find the appropriate disparity as evidence for either logical fallacy?

And me call you all s t u p i d is harsh is it?


1*eMbiefRQ9GRFbuRW-ZEKOQ.webp

Not scientific or medical proof size has deficits to stamina doe?



That's not far more significant evidence for a real actual fact than "but Usyk put on 2 pounds over the Bridger limit doe" or "But Bill Tate sucks doe"?





We're going to deny this science, supplement some assumptions based off boxing win/loss records, not even bother with a data set because we like cherry picking, throw out time all together, throw away equipment all together, and top it all off with citing this same science as the reason the old time super heavies ****** nuts at boxing?


... And me telling you all this is a dumbass argument held on dumbass grounds by dumbass people is being mean is it?


Now go ahead and play semantics like that's done well for any of you.

This argument doesn’t make sense because no one is saying bigger=better.

Also, are you going to tell me Bill Tate is an elite fighter now?

[Anomalocaris]

Bill Tate was the most formidable fighter in history - even combined a tag team of Liston, Foreman, Ali and Lewis fighting him all at once would be wiped out in three rounds or less.

[Anomalocaris]

You call me dumb ass ,****** and tard an ,abbreviation of ******.It doesn't bother me,I'm just pointing it out.

Now I'm going to point something else out and it's said with no malice whatsoever.

You are probably the most learned poster about the ancient boxers and bareknuckle era ,on the 3 forums I post on, as far as facts go.
I take my hat off to you for that.

However , as to the actual nuts and bolts of boxing as it is commonly practised ,I don't think you know a damn thing about the game.

That being said your posts are always worth reading.and you a really valuable asset to any boxing forum,and long may you be with us!

Arre you on Boxing24 Bronson?

If so how do I appeal my unfair ban?

Just because I mentioned the Pakistani **** gangs scandal I was banned the reason given was that I was 'obsessed' with ******s.

I sent a message that I actually was obsessed with justice for those poor girls, nothing more.