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

[ShoulderRoll]

- - So would bareknucks unlimited rounds spell the end of boxing starting with John L Vs Corbett.

178 lbs beat 212 lbs by KO at 1:30 in round 21

Bareknuckle is a totally different thing. People can go into BKFC if they want to go that route.

Whereas modern boxing had 15 round fights all the way up until fairly recently.

[Dr Z]

They knew how to fight inside, which is almost a lost art among modern heavyweights.

True. But the only matters if you have power , and the heart to dig while living you chin open to attack. So who among the old times can take the modern power? Very few.

[Bronson66]

[QUOTE=IronDanHamza;n32410699]

NOBODY!

[IronDanHamza]

NOBODY!

Exactly. Arguing with himself as usual.

Not a single person has made the argument that bigger=better.

In fact almost everyone opposing is on the same page that the ideal weight for an elite HW is 220-230 and if anything this laughable attempt at calling Usyk a “small heavyweight” does nothing but prove that point.

However ShoulderRoll won’t address this because he’s the biggest coward on this forum

[Bronson66]

That IS my point. You did not say anything I disagree with even a little bit here.




You don't have any problem at all with my takeaway it is my explanations you do not like. Best I can tell anyway. Your problem is you're trying to explain physical limitations and historical context to a man whose scope encircles your own? Maybe, I dunno, I'm fishing. I larn plenty from you but you out right refuse to learn anything older than 1895 from anyone so ... there is a scope difference here.



When I get into this is what's good for X, this is what's good for Y, and these are the rules that effect them, then you're all sorts of "know better".


If all I ever did was say dumb **** like "we got divisions for a reason" You would agree with that. If I explain those reasons you disagree and go on an attack that claims there is no advantage to smaller size.



If you accept stamina advantage we have no argument because I couldn't give less hoots which you believe has more intrinsic effect on style or anyone else for that matter. I don't think I have an opinion to defend on that tbh. It's like leverage; case by case.


I will say this, that absurdity is 100% tied to the time limits. No limits, makes it a lot less absurd. You can tire a man out without ever even being in range to be punched, that's just Melankomas.

I'll leave on this thought. There was never a time when 250 pound men were not being produced. There was only ever a time when 250 pounds of man was a liability. This idea there was no good men for 3k years, or there was no big men for 3k years. Is just plainly factually wrong. They ****** because their rules didn't favor them as much. Period, no, Tyson's not made out of special magic fat that changes his metabolic rate. He would suck at boxing in any time before the modern period. The same science you want to throw around and claim Fury is some how improved over Allus tells you he hasn't. The history is there. The science is there, and it is not that big a damn deal to admit average size is average size because it does better where large and small fail, or that boxing's rules have an effect weight not seen by height or reach or even age. Both those final statements seem obvious and beyond argument to me.

I'm not really interested in boxing before Corbett, I see it as an entirely different combat sport.
Your opinion,and that's all it is,your opinion, that Tyson would suck at boxing before the Modern Era has no factual basis,you have no idea how he would do. His speed, power and especially his body punching would make him an ideal candidate for top honours up to Sullivan's day.
Men back then threw one punch at a time,combination punching was unheard of,very few fighters concerned themselves with a real effort at defence people like Mace and Mendoza were anomalies ,with a few tiny exceptions the bob and weave was not employed, men fought standing straight up ,their lead hand extended.
A Tyson would be completely out of their experience.

I've had BK fights so I know little about what I'm talking about.I know punches that land on elbows and skulls,more often than not hurt the puncher more than the punched,shots to the body do not.

You continually ascribe views to me which I have never held.I'm not and never have been a fan of Fury I was rooting for Usyk to beat him both times.
I've never said there was ever a time giant men did not box, nor that most of these giants until modern times ,were anything but useless to average Potgeiter , Cully,Mitu,Rankin,Jones,were all rubbish and White,Carnera , Impelletierre,Valuev though better, not really top level .

Your problem is you think making artificial limbs some how qualifies you to lecture boxing people about the sport,and I don't think it does.
I think over 60 years of following the sport, watching films of it and reading books on it,plus practising it for nearly2 decades qualifies me rather more than you,which still does not mean I am an expert.I'm not.

For the record I have never said bigger always beats smaller,what I said was.all other things being equal the bigger usually beats the smaller man.
Fighters, when they move up to a higher division,invariably add weight to their frames.
This is just a fact,and the answer is the Elephant in the room for Apples and Co,and one they continually refuse to address.
We have ATG trainers like Emmanuel Steward stating," Marciano would be too small for todays heavyweights."
Is he wrong? Should we believe Marciano's fan boys instead of Steward?
I SAY NO!

[Anomalocaris]

Steward also praised Sonny Liston to the heights.

He commented that Sonny achieved something that no other heavy ever did - wiped out the entire division before he even got a shot at the title.

I always thought Manny's opinion really mattered, far more than media caricatures like Bert Sugar.

[Willie Pep 229]

I would not take any black trainer's opinion of Marciano to heart.

It has always been a black-thing to discredit Marciano as much as it has always been a white-tging to over praise him.

The BS flows both ways.

[Anomalocaris]

I would not take any black trainer's opinion of Marciano to heart.

It has always been a black-thing to discredit Marciano as much as it has always been a white-tging to over praise him.

The BS flows both ways.

It annoys the hell out of me.

People should just judge a fighter by their achievements.

I could not give a flying **** if a boxer is black, white or sky blue pink.

[Willie Pep 229]

It annoys the hell out of me.

People should just judge a fighter by their achievements.

I could not give a flying **** if a boxer is black, white or sky blue pink.

I agree but there is a problem.

On one hand we want fans to embrace their fighters because of their nationality or ethnicity. That's great for the fight game. E.g. Puerto Rico vs. Mexico

But then, not surprisingly, the whole thing can get twisted back onto itself and create racial and cultural embitterments.

IDK it seems, to have the one, the other will eventually rear its ugly head.

[Anomalocaris]

I agree but there is a problem.

On one hand we want fans to embrace their fighters because of their nationality or ethnicity. That's great for the fight game. E.g. Puerto Rico vs. Mexico

But then, not surprisingly, the whole thing can get twisted back onto itself and create racial and cultural embitterments.

IDK it seems, to have the one, the other will eventually rear its ugly head.

Very true.

Fortunately there are plenty of people intelligent enough not to be drawn into such childish b*llocks.