Comparing heavyweights from different eras

Thing that has bugged me lately is the stock phrase when comparing heavys from different eras "modern heavyweights are too big & strong for the older heavyweights"

You could argue this point if you are talking about someone like Bowe or Lewis perhaps but, for example, recently it was used over over & over again in the imaginery matchup between Holmes & Louis.

In reality though Holmes was 6 3" & Louis 6 2". Holmes was 15 stone 1 when he fought Ali & Louis 15 stone 2 when he beat Walcott. This size thing is often a bit of a myth.

You might think Holmes would beat Louis but size is not a factor. Puts a different slant on it I reckon.

Yeah - I totally agree.

If size really was everything, why weren't Valuev and Carnera in the tournament.

Dempsey and Louis absolutely butchered Willard and Buddy Baer (who were both at least 6'6"), just as Ali did to the similar sized Ernie Terrell. Tyson handled the Bonecrusher and Tucker with general ease ... though a great deal was made about the fact they actually landed a punch (!)

Skill, technique, heart, conditioning, talent and toughness will always out against someone who has less than these, even if he is bigger.

I agree, but the point is often it's just assumed that because a fighter is from the 50's or 40' he must be much smaller but that isn't necessarily true.

Too just presume old fighters were always smaller just shows ignorance and lack of knowledge.

All great points so far and I'm in total agreement.

Also some of the Heavyweights from past years had to fight for 45 rounds etc. Now imagine people like Shannon Briggs, Frank Bruno etc trying to last that long they just couldn't do it.
Which makes a mockery of posters who claim that Heavyweights now are better conditioned, tougher and fitter.

Someone a few years ago came up with the idea the bigger the Better the fighter, unfortunatly they forgot one thing that stops bigger men getting fit its called Gravity.

Agree in general but Joe Louis fought at his best under 200lb for superstitious reasons and Rocky was a cruiserweight. Size does matter as my woman always tells me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

but Joe Louis fought at his best under 200lb for superstitious reasons

---

I'm not sure it was superstitious .... I thought that the only time that Joe tried hard to get under 200 was when he didn't want to be perceived as a big bully against Conn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Googoogachoob

Thing that has bugged me lately is the stock phrase when comparing heavys from different eras "modern heavyweights are too big & strong for the older heavyweights"

You could argue this point if you are talking about someone like Bowe or Lewis perhaps but, for example, recently it was used over over & over again in the imaginery matchup between Holmes & Louis.

In reality though Holmes was 6 3" & Louis 6 2". Holmes was 15 stone 1 when he fought Ali & Louis 15 stone 2 when he beat Walcott. This size thing is often a bit of a myth.

You might think Holmes would beat Louis but size is not a factor. Puts a different slant on it I reckon.

---

Louis was bit out of shape when he fought Walcott Holmes was in his best fighting shape thats big difference.

I have read that Joe Louis fought under 200lb and only went over during the latter part of his career when he was not at his peak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X

Yeah - I totally agree.

If size really was everything, why weren't Valuev and Carnera in the tournament.

Dempsey and Louis absolutely butchered Willard and Buddy Baer (who were both at least 6'6"), just as Ali did to the similar sized Ernie Terrell. Tyson handled the Bonecrusher and Tucker with general ease ... though a great deal was made about the fact they actually landed a punch (!)

Skill, technique, heart, conditioning, talent and toughness will always out against someone who has less than these, even if he is bigger.

---

Butter Bean is a living example of big but less talent.lol