Why do the largest HWs in history lose to relatively small HWs?

[Marchegiano]

Isn't size the biggest advantage of them all? At least at HW?

Willard - Dempsey 245 vs 187

Primo - Baer 263 to 209

Valuev lost to Haye giving up 100 pounds

Vitali lost to Byrd giving up 35 pounds

Now Fury at 281 losing to a man only 226 pounds ... despite having the single most important advantage in the sport.






i'm just ****ing with youse. We can all make childish besides the points threads that assure we get the answer we want. Doesn't change anything.

[Biledriver]

Isn't size the biggest advantage of them all? At least at HW?

Willard - Dempsey 245 vs 187

Primo - Baer 263 to 209

Valuev lost to Haye giving up 100 pounds

Vitali lost to Byrd giving up 35 pounds

Now Fury at 281 losing to a man only 226 pounds ... despite having the single most important advantage in the sport.






i'm just ****ing with youse. We can all make childish besides the points threads that assure we get the answer we want. Doesn't change anything.

It is getting out of hand, isn't it? I haven't been posting much over the holidays because all the threads just seem like pointless rehashes of battles that get the rinse and repeat treatment every few months.....and it's gotten far more personal than it should between a few really good posters I don't mind it when things get nasty when it's with forum detritus like Dr Z and Queenie, but that's another story

[Mr Mitts]

Size is one element. It may be the most important too when the contestants are pretty evenly matched at the lower weight. Nobody doesn't look at the weights before fight time. Smart bettors notice and it could even change their bet.

[Dr Z]

Isn't size the biggest advantage of them all? At least at HW?

Willard - Dempsey 245 vs 187

Primo - Baer 263 to 209

Valuev lost to Haye giving up 100 pounds

Vitali lost to Byrd giving up 35 pounds

Now Fury at 281 losing to a man only 226 pounds ... despite having the single most important advantage in the sport.






i'm just ****ing with youse. We can all make childish besides the points threads that assure we get the answer we want. Doesn't change anything.

I take a stab.


Willard - Dempsey 245 vs 187. Willard was old and inactive.

Primo - Baer 263 to 209 Not size reason, Baer was better and could hit harder.

Valuev lost to Haye giving up 100 pounds. Haye fought the way he did and that was enough to beat the mediocre Valuev. Haye also hit harder.

Vitali lost to Byrd giving up 35 pounds Vitali was way ahead on the cards, fighting hurt and the injury had everything to do with the result.

Now Fury at 281 losing to a man only 226 pounds. Simple Fury was fat, and Usyk was very good.


Now we all know that anything can happen in heavyweight boxing, but there are 25+ examples of where the bigger man who had 30 + pounds wins over the smaller man.

[shawnkemp804]

Isn't size the biggest advantage of them all? At least at HW?

Willard - Dempsey 245 vs 187

Primo - Baer 263 to 209

Valuev lost to Haye giving up 100 pounds

Vitali lost to Byrd giving up 35 pounds

Now Fury at 281 losing to a man only 226 pounds ... despite having the single most important advantage in the sport.






i'm just ****ing with youse. We can all make childish besides the points threads that assure we get the answer we want. Doesn't change anything.

Lol first off until recently nobody acted like being taller or fatter than somebody was a advantage. Second Tyson Fury isn't a 281 pound guy. He is a 230 pound guy who comes in the ring fat. Usyk isn't a 226 pound guy. He is a 190 pound guy who put on weight to be 226. Jess Willard ******, he was just a big oaf the white race needed to beat Jack Johnson. Vitali quit because he hurt his arm against Chris Byrd. Byrd was down on the score card by far. Primo Carnera was just a huge goof ball who was controlled by the mafia and Valuev was huge but extremely unskilled

This is funny because you would frequently see 6'6 plus 250 pound plus guys like Michael Grant, Lance Whitaker, Jorge Luis Gonzales, Mike White, Stanley Wright, Corey Sanders, Jameel McCline etc guys in the 1990's and nobody made big deal about their size or were shocked when a "smaller" man beat them. The moment a person brings up the term super heavyweight or act like boxers are bigger now you know they are casuals. You know, like most people you see talking about boxing.

Once you are legit 200 pounds you are a true heavyweight and based off the last 50 years of boxing I will say the ideal heavyweight is between 6'1 and 6'4/6'5. But being taller than somebody or just being heavier than somebody once you are over 200 pounds isn't a advantage.

[Bronson66]

Isn't size the biggest advantage of them all? At least at HW?

Willard - Dempsey 245 vs 187

Primo - Baer 263 to 209

Valuev lost to Haye giving up 100 pounds

Vitali lost to Byrd giving up 35 pounds

Now Fury at 281 losing to a man only 226 pounds ... despite having the single most important advantage in the sport.






i'm just ****ing with youse. We can all make childish besides the points threads that assure we get the answer we want. Doesn't change anything.

I've no problem answering your,"childish besides the point " thread.lol
1.In1919 , Dempsey was a hungry timber wolf.Willard was an out of shape, over 3 years inactive ,complacent sacrificial lamb.
2.Dempsey was a superior fighter to even the best version of Willard.


1/Carnera was a manufactured fighter with little skills or power,who had been manouvered into the title on the wave of a succession of set ups.

2. Primo was also a sucker for a right hand and did not have a good chin.
3.Baer was considered at the time, to be the hardest right hand puncher of all time and,at 6'2.1/2in 210lbs he was powerful enough to beat anyone IF he had the skills to do so ,against the lumbering Carnera he did not need those skills,and he didnt possess them anyway.All he needed was his power.

1.Valuev ONLY won the title because of his size,he beat a moderate fighter and got the crown by being in the right place at the right time.

2.Valuev did not have power or skill . all he had was his SIZE.

3. Haye at 6'3" 217lbs was big enough, hit hard enough and was TALENTED enough to beat the Russian Statue .

Vitali was in front against Byrd when he suffered a torn rotator cuff and displaying , imo a lack of determination, decided to surrender.
I fail to see how the result of this fight could be employed to prove anything,except perhaps Vitali's fighting desire.


Fury,he has embraced a lifestyle that is demonstrated by his marked fluctuations in weight and condition,this has meant his stamina,and his mobility have been permanently compromised.

I have never been sold on him and is so called greatness , his resume is not overwhelming to say the least.
Usyk, at his heaviest,223 and 226 for those bouts and being 6 '3" a southpaw, possessing tremendous foot work and a fine boxing brain would be a daunting proposition for any heavyweight imo.

In short Usyk was skilled enough, and big enough to overcome Fury's ONLY advantage SIZE.
Would he have been successful had he come in at his cruiser weight of 200lbs? Quien Sabe.

That's my response to our friend M.and its proffered with no rancour or animosity whatsoever.

I will take the liberty of in return asking M one question.
Why,against his biggest and heaviest opponent Fury,did Usyk come in at his heaviest?

[shawnkemp804]

I take a stab.


Willard - Dempsey 245 vs 187. Willard was old and inactive.

Primo - Baer 263 to 209 Not size reason, Baer was better and could hit harder.

Valuev lost to Haye giving up 100 pounds. Haye fought the way he did and that was enough to beat the mediocre Valuev. Haye also hit harder.

Vitali lost to Byrd giving up 35 pounds Vitali was way ahead on the cards, fighting hurt and the injury had everything to do with the result.

Now Fury at 281 losing to a man only 226 pounds. Simple Fury was fat, and Usyk was very good.


Now we all know that anything can happen in heavyweight boxing, but there are 25+ examples of where the bigger man who had 30 + pounds wins over the smaller man.

Lol Usyk is very good because of what? Because he beat Joshua after Andy Ruiz took his soul? Wouldn't that mean that Ruiz is better than Usyk? Then Usyk beat fatboy Fury who has been boxing for 16 years as a pro and his best win to this day was against a 40 year old Wlad. Usyk isn't good, he isn't even average. He is subpar but lucky to be in such a bad era for heavyweights.

[Mr Mitts]

Cherry picking must be fun. It does not matter that one can find opposing examples. No one ever said they couldn't. I made a bet above. Is anybody going to call? Hell no, we won't go...

I guess I made the bet in another thread. $100 that of all heavyweight matches since 1900 the man with a 25+ lbs. advantage won more often.

[Bronson66]

Lol Usyk is very good because of what? Because he beat Joshua after Andy Ruiz took his soul? Wouldn't that mean that Ruiz is better than Usyk? Then Usyk beat fatboy Fury who has been boxing for 16 years as a pro and his best win to this day was against a 40 year old Wlad. Usyk isn't good, he isn't even average. He is subpar but lucky to be in such a bad era for heavyweights.

Usyk has beaten the 3 men ranked directly below him.

[Dr Z]

Lol Usyk is very good because of what? Because he beat Joshua after Andy Ruiz took his soul? Wouldn't that mean that Ruiz is better than Usyk? Then Usyk beat fatboy Fury who has been boxing for 16 years as a pro and his best win to this day was against a 40 year old Wlad. Usyk isn't good, he isn't even average. He is subpar but lucky to be in such a bad era for heavyweights.

I agree that this is a down time to be active at heavyweight, but Usyk beat the #1 and #2 heavies...TWICE.

IMO, Usyk is a top 12 heavyweight of all time. It is laugble that you " think " he is not even average. Troll on I supose.