how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

[lufcrazy]

I'm talking very generally here but in recent times we've seen guys pile on muscle and become a threat in the he division to varying degrees of success.

Holyfield, hide, Byrd, Toney, Jones, adamek, Huck, chambers and haye.

Some reached the top and almost all cracked the top 5 at some point.

Should it be assumed that today guys like marciano, Dempsey, Paterson, Corbett, fitz, Charles, Walcott and others could campaign successfully as 200+ fighters?

I'm not saying all would beat wlad but I'm asking whether all could carry the weight as easily as others have done.

I mean if Byrd can reach the pinnacle of the division in the post 90's era should we assume that others could as well?

[Boxed Ears]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: People vastly overrate heavyweight size. There's a reason why it took so long to even bother with cruiserweight and why there is now no super heavyweight division. And why some of our best heavyweights either came from cruiserweight, or are the same damn size as your average cruiserweight on fight night. No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, the size differences, sometimes very big ones, but there is way too much made of it. Styles and skill levels mean more at these weights than anything else, at the highest level.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

I've said it before and I'll say it again: People vastly overrate heavyweight size. There's a reason why it took so long to even bother with cruiserweight and why there is now no super heavyweight division. And why some of our best heavyweights either came from cruiserweight, or are the same damn size as your average cruiserweight on fight night. No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, the size differences, sometimes very big ones, but there is way too much made of it. Styles and skill levels mean more at these weights than anything else, at the highest level.

I agree to an extent but using marciano as an example, if he is giving away 70+ pounds in weight he will definitely lose to wlad. If he could train up to say 220 and be a power punching tank, I'm suddenly not so sure :

[mr. magoo]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

I've said it before and I'll say it again: People vastly overrate heavyweight size. There's a reason why it took so long to even bother with cruiserweight and why there is now no super heavyweight division. And why some of our best heavyweights either came from cruiserweight, or are the same damn size as your average cruiserweight on fight night. No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, the size differences, sometimes very big ones, but there is way too much made of it. Styles and skill levels mean more at these weights than anything else, at the highest level.

If Vitali Klitschko were 6'2", 215 lbs, theres no way he'd be around still kicking ass at age 41.

[LittleRed]

Let me ask a hypothetical. Let's say Julian Jackson had James Toneys skills. His defense, his ability to counterpunch, add his chin. Let's say he doesn't bulk up. How far does 160lb Jackson go? Is he more or less successful than Bob Fitzsimmons?

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

Let me ask a hypothetical. Let's say Julian Jackson had James Toneys skills. His defense, his ability to counterpunch, add his chin. Let's say he doesn't bulk up. How far does 160lb Jackson go? Its he more, our less successful than Bob Fitzsimmons?

I dismiss anyones chances if they weight that low. I'm wondering whether it's a safe assumption that they could successfully bulk up.

[LittleRed]

Oh. I think that depends. Are steroids allowed?

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by LittleRed

Oh. I think that depends. Are steroids allowed?

Lets say modern training. By that I mean if you assume modern big guys are using steroids then assume these guys can. If you assume they're clean then assume these guys would be clean.

[Boxed Ears]

Originally Posted by mr. magoo

If Vitali Klitschko were 6'2", 215 lbs, theres no way he'd be around still kicking ass at age 41.

You're right. No one in their forties kicks ass unless they're massive. This is a very good point. Also, he'd fight exactly the same way if he were five inches shorter and forty pounds lighter. Of course, you can't prove or disprove what you're saying. It's a guess, even if it's spoken as a statement of fact. We have no more idea of what Vitali would do at 6'2, 215 than if we made Baby Jake the same size as Bob Foster. It's all meaningless jibber-jabber when you float stuff like that.

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I agree to an extent but using marciano as an example, if he is giving away 70+ pounds in weight he will definitely lose to wlad. If he could train up to say 220 and be a power punching tank, I'm suddenly not so sure :

These discussions rarely go anywhere, do they? I'm out. It's going to be the same thing every time. PP's going to come in with his modern training and nutrition, it's going to descend into a weird Klitschko argument and then we'll get some trolls and then Seamus is going to post something about Meehan and I'm going to crack some jokes about how big Liston wasn't. I've got to go for a BM.

[OMGWTF]

Originally Posted by Boxed Ears

I've said it before and I'll say it again: People vastly overrate heavyweight size. There's a reason why it took so long to even bother with cruiserweight and why there is now no super heavyweight division. And why some of our best heavyweights either came from cruiserweight, or are the same damn size as your average cruiserweight on fight night. No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, the size differences, sometimes very big ones, but there is way too much made of it. Styles and skill levels mean more at these weights than anything else, at the highest level.

This.

Its natural to over estimate size and muscle, its either instinctual or part of societal/media nurture or both combined.

Only the educated and or experienced know this.

Any kid or adult thats never seen a bodybuilder before would assume he is much stronger than a much smaller less defined less muscualr athlete, but its the athlete that is much stronger.

Most people would assume with "common sence" that a bigger man would hit harder than a smaller man, but they dont realise some people are very explosive and this is not visible till they move quickly or KO someone.

Since this is a speed and power endurance based sport and not so much a strength based sport, and since bigger men are extremely likely to be slower and less explosive with less cardio, the size difference dosnt make a huge difference.

I would go as far as saying its a disadvantage to be huge due to a lack of speed and endurance. Hence why huge guys only rise to the top when the competition pool is very low (as do middleweights like roy jones and james toney) point is they wouldnt make it into the lime light if there was the same level of competition as the 80's 90's etc

Throughout Tysons career they were saying this next guys just too big for tyson, and theve been saying the same thing throught history with other fighters like Dempsey, Rocky etc and I bet they will continue to say the same things in the future. In answer to your question the old greats would do exceptionally well especially within their division but also still in the HW weight division.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by OMGWTF

I would go as far as saying its a disadvantage to be huge due to a lack of speed and endurance. Hence why huge guys only rise to the top when the competition pool is very low (as do middleweights like roy jones and james toney) point is they wouldnt make it into the lime light if there was the same level of competition as the 80's 90's etc

Being a giant never was an advantage untill the heavyweight division started to be about how big you can get. Thats when it gave the big old has beens a chance.

Heavyweights started to have a different training regime. People talk about skilled athletic giants - its not true. There are exceptions but mostly its a case of a slower pace suiting body builders and old men.

you can make a young man as slow as an older man if you put enough weight on him. It is harder to expose an older fighter now because the youngsters are carrying artficial weight. Experience counts if you control the pace ....and the pace is slow now.

I think If the best classic sized heavyweights trained before 1960s would still be good enough as they were.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by choklab

Being a giant never was an advantage untill the heavyweight division started to be about how big you can get. Thats when it gave the big old has beens a chance.

Heavyweights started to have a different training regime. People talk about skilled athletic giants - its not true. There are exceptions but mostly its a case of a slower pace suiting body builders and old men.

you can make a young man as slow as an older man if you put enough weight on him. It is harder to expose an older fighter now because the youngsters are carrying artficial weight. Experience counts if you control the pace ....and the pace is slow now.

I think If the best classic sized heavyweights trained before 1960s would still be good enough as they were.

It's always beenan advantage which is why we have weight classes.

I'm asking if the lighter champs from yesteryear could put on the weight successfully and compete.

[Seamus]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

I agree to an extent but using marciano as an example, if he is giving away 70+ pounds in weight he will definitely lose to wlad. If he could train up to say 220 and be a power punching tank, I'm suddenly not so sure :

I hate to envision what a 5 foot 11 guy with stubby 67" arms, an extremely long torso and already thick legs, would look like with an additional 40 pounds on him. He would be an immobile fire plug, with less explosion, no stamina... a sitting duck for longer, speedier fighters to tee off upon...

Flawed concept.

[Flea Man]

I agree.

I also think that Eddie Chambers would be a better heavyweight if he was an in-shape 190-195.

Blubber means nothing.

To bulk up a guy like Marciano? Wouldn't work. Seamus is spot on.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by Seamus

I hate to envision what a 5 foot 11 guy with stubby 67" arms, an extremely long torso and already thick legs, would look like with an additional 40 pounds on him. He would be an immobile fire plug, with less explosion, no stamina... a sitting duck for longer, speedier fighters to tee off upon...

Flawed concept.

But would he though? We've seen guys putting weight on without much ill effect in terms of speed and stamina. Look at the guys listed in the op.