Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size

[AdamGB]

Forget the differences in weight divisions too...

Doesn't mean much come fight night, when one fighter has rehydrated 4lb and the other fighter has rehydrated 14lb or more...

You've got middles fighting down at Welter and light Heavyweights fighting at middleweight, at least the heavyweight division is honest about it.

[p4pking]

Adam is dead on in both of his posts. Saying Lewis wouldn't have been dominant without his size is just as stupid as saying the same of Ivan Calderon for the most part.

The point about divisions is a crucial one to. Guys who are huge for a weight or have a size advantage on fight night anywhere below HW, do so because they are able to shed water and rehydrate more than their opponent. Everyone is different in that sense, and obviously many guys put themselves in terrible shape doing the same thing that works tremendously for others.

To me there isn't a lot which can be done about this as far as changing the weigh in times etc. Being able to cut weight while retaining power and the ilk is down to a science just like any other aspect of elite training. If some guys are better at it then that is a natural advantage just as being faster or stronger than someone is, at least the way I see it.

[brocktonblockbust]

I say go to my proposal: you create a SuperHeavy Composite INdex based on 3 factors:

whoops I .........wait OK

1. Reach
2. Height
3. Weight

for example, if a guy is above 6'4", has more than 80 inches in reach and weighs over 225 pounds, he would be scoring into the SuperHeavy division on all 3 criteria.

if another guy is 6'7", 85 inch reach but only weighs 210, he would still---by taking the composite of the 3 criteria, qualify into the SuperHeavy division.

but if a guy is 6'2" tall, 78 inch reach and weighs 217 pounds----how the fuck is that a fiar fight against a Lewis or a Klitschko? Thats my point.

[IamInuit]

@brocktonblockbust

I understand the point fundamentally Brockton. Given two men of equal skill and intangibles the bigger man wins. When this is not the case you get the Valuev’s and Carnera’s of the world and once in awhile a guy like Foreman who imo was short on skill but found a way because of his mutant power and sheer will.

It took awhile for Wlad to get on track even with his size and skill set. One little thing like not knowing how to clinch or tie up allowed smaller less skilled guys to get to him. After years of honing his craft he now seems unbeatable albeit against a less then stellar crew of contenders. That’s where your theory may have some traction. How would these talented bigger guys do against a much better crop of smaller guys both skill wise with loads of drive and desire? We don’t have the division to test that hypothesis. Instead Mitchell will become the next challenger. And Lewis had the skill set along with above average power and he got ko’d by two people that couldn’t carry his jock strap. His size and pedigree as a fighter was trumped by his tendency to get lazy with an approach almost like a Rastafarian.

Not a hev but still applicable is Paul Williams. Here is a guy that had every physical advantage you could ask for including the same wing span as both K brothers and yet he fought as if he was 5 foot 5 with a Ricky Hatton reach.

Cool topic

[AdamGB]

We're not quite at the point where it's needed yet.

Most Smaller heavies could get down to cruiser - if you're under 225 and you can't drop a few pounds and sweat the rest out then you must be extremely lean (how many heavies look in shape now days?). There's more money and prestige at heavyweight and seeing as how most cruiser walk around well over 200lb, it's easier for them to just not bother cutting weight... It's their choice, so if their effective fighting weight is 200lb but they chose to fight guys 225+ then they can't complain.

The other point is that weight and height don't give you a godlike advantage, look at Valuev, look at Carnera, look at how Tyson made it a disadvantage to be taller than him.

You're telling me that the likes of 219lb Sultan couldn't do 200lb?

I don't think the problem is that heavies are too big, too many guys shouldn't even be in the division, which is why we get all of these mismatches.

[Mr140]

I think brockton is just pissed because Rocky would get his ass kicked into days heavyweight division. I mean ever sense he admitted it he has had some kind of agenda against the big guys in the division. Did Tyson or Holyfeild do so poorly against big guys not really. I mean Holyfeild beat Bowie in the rematch and Took Lewis in rematch to a draw at the very least and he was like fucking 37 years of age. If being big was such a advantage then how come Vitali, Wlad and Lewis are the only champs you can think of who were huge and good at boxing. There are plenty of big guys now yet not one is even close to those guys you know why there not because they are not as skilled in boxing being big can work against you to. I mean you lose speed and in the inside it can be rough for you with long arms but the guys i mention have worked on it because there great heavys.

[greynotsoold]

The single most obvious example in the history of boxing is Tommy Hearns. If he was not 6'2" tall, if he were a 5'8" WW, he'd have gone 16-11 in his career.
That is easy for me to say because I think Hearns is incredibly overrated. This physically hurts me. I do not think Little Red Lopez would have done so well had he not been so tall for his weight.

[Memphis]

Yeah this is a not so thinly veiled moan about big lumps because the rock was a midget.

Go make some videos about beer you bastard and stop bitching

[brocktonblockbust]

I think brockton is just pissed because Rocky would get his ass kicked into days heavyweight division. I mean ever sense he admitted it he has had some kind of agenda against the big guys in the division. Did Tyson or Holyfeild do so poorly against big guys not really. I mean Holyfeild beat Bowie in the rematch and Took Lewis in rematch to a draw at the very least and he was like fucking 37 years of age. If being big was such a advantage then how come Vitali, Wlad and Lewis are the only champs you can think of who were huge and good at boxing. There are plenty of big guys now yet not one is even close to those guys you know why there not because they are not as skilled in boxing being big can work against you to. I mean you lose speed and in the inside it can be rough for you with long arms but the guys i mention have worked on it because there great heavys.

point 1---Rocky would not fight somebody 6 foot 7 and 250 pounds. Thats ridiculous. He was 3 weight divisions under that stature. Why would I even consider Rocky fighting Lennox Lewis or Wladimir Klitschko or Tyson Fury? Neither I nor Rocky would even consider it.

point 2---I love Foreman he is probably my number 2 alltime favorite. Nothing against big guys.

point 3---they are not the only 3. currently no one seems to be able to beat either Klitschko, nobody soundly ever beat Valuev, nobody can seem to touch Tyson Fury, nobody could get past Lennox's reach except for those 2 freak times lets call them, and how many other boxers actually were there over the past 10 years who were above 6 foot 5 and 250 pounds anyway? Its becasue there weren't very many human beings in boxing who were that size. Its rare for a boxer to be 6 foot 5 and 250 pounds-plus. The ones who are that size seemed to be champions in my opinion.

Could Rocky Marciano ro Joe Frazier or Mike Tyson or Jerry Quarry or Evander Holyfield even REACH THE FUCKING CHIN OF TYSON FURY?

[Silkeyjoe]

Without reading anything other then the opener to this thread, its seems pretty pointless to me. You cant say a fighter is only good because of there size because thats part of them. You could then say what fighter would not have been so great without their speed, their power etc.

You could take one think from any fighter and they would not have been so great.

[jon09]

I wonder what Mike Tyson would have been like if he was Valuev's size?

[X]

I think ' a good big un usually beats a good small un'

Throughout history, there have been heavyweights who's main claim to fame (or success) has been their size: James J Jeffries, Primo Carnera, Buddy Baer, just to name a few old timers and to show that this debate isn't new.

In an unlimited weight class, of course the bigger guy has the advantage.

If Tyson Fury was not a whopping 6'8'', I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be undefeated by now.

Having said that, it does mean that people like Jack Dempsey, Rocky Marciano, Floyd Patterson, Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson should get perhaps even more credit by being the exceptions that prove the rule