Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-03-2008, 04:43 PM   #1
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,326
vCash: 1000
Default The small slick lightheavy wanabe heavyweight vs the superheavyweight jab

It is a bit of an article of faith here that small slicksters will loose to big rangy heavyweights who know how to use their physical advantages.

It generaly holds true but are we taking the principle too far?

When I look at the 50s there were a lot of big technicaly sound heavyweights around like Nino Valdez, Clarence Henry and Bob Baker. They were all kept from title fights by Archie Moore, Harold Johnson, and Bob Satterfield.

Tommy Loughran beat Impelitiare and Campolio who were both ranked in the top 10 and over 6' 8''. Of course he couldnt repeat the feat against Primo Carnera.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-04-2008, 06:39 AM   #2
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,641
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The small slick lightheavy wanabe heavyweight vs the superheavyweight jab

I've never believed a 6'5 240 pound heavyweight automatically deals with cagey slick 175-180 pounder any better than he deals with bigger guys. It's all a matter of ability.

If it's consensus around here I certainly dont follow it.

I've read posts on here that go something like, "Joe Louis struggled with 170 pound Billy Conn - imagine what Lennox Lewis would have done to Conn ! He would have blown him out of the ring !" ..... but I dont see anything on Lewis's record to back that up much at all. In fact, just as Marciano might lack many quality big (reasonably tall and heavy) heavyweights on his resume, the jury is still out on how Lennox would cope with quality smaller fighters. I suspect an Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore or Tommy Gibbons would do better against Lewis than Golota, Grant or Ruddock did.
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 06:43 AM   #3
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,659
vCash: 238
Default Re: The small slick lightheavy wanabe heavyweight vs the superheavyweight jab

Impeltiere and Campolio were horrible. Valdes, Baker and Henry weren't superheavyweights, just normal heavyweights. The amount of superheavyweights with good skill and athletic ability to go with it is countable on one hand.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 06:43 AM   #4
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,309
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The small slick lightheavy wanabe heavyweight vs the superheavyweight jab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unforgiven
I've never believed a 6'5 240 pound heavyweight automatically deals with cagey slick 175-180 pounder any better than he deals with bigger guys. It's all a matter of ability.

If it's consensus around here I certainly dont follow it.

I've read posts on here that go something like, "Joe Louis struggled with 170 pound Billy Conn - imagine what Lennox Lewis would have done to Conn ! He would have blown him out of the ring !" ..... but I dont see anything on Lewis's record to back that up much at all. In fact, just as Marciano might lack many quality big (reasonably tall and heavy) heavyweights on his resume, the jury is still out on how Lennox would cope with quality smaller fighters. I suspect an Ezzard Charles, Archie Moore or Tommy Gibbons would do better against Lewis than Golota, Grant or Ruddock did.
Lewis would easily defeat Chalres, Moore, or Gibbons. Lennox could end it early or late. I think Charles and Morre would be early fights because they liked exchanges. Conn would not have much of a chance, but he could run a while. Lewis used to say, so and so has never faced a fighter like me. And he's right. Who else was tha skilled, that big, and hit that hard?

Lewis isn't likely to be outboxed. When you've got a very good boxer who has many inches in height and reach, and huge edge in power, the much smaller boxer type is pretty much out of business.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 07:02 AM   #5
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,641
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The small slick lightheavy wanabe heavyweight vs the superheavyweight jab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
Lewis would easily defeat Chalres, Moore, or Gibbons. Lennox could end it early or late. I think Charles and Morre would be early fights because they liked exchanges. Conn would not have much of a chance, but he could run a while. Lewis used to say, so and so has never faced a fighter like me. And he's right. Who else was tha skilled, that big, and hit that hard?

Lewis isn't likely to be outboxed. When you've got a very good boxer who has many inches in height and reach, and huge edge in power, the much smaller boxer type is pretty much out of business.
And where exactly did Lewis prove this ability against smaller pesty fighters ?
I'm not saying any of the mentioned beat him, but it's an unanswered question how he'd deal with quality small, cagey fighters.
A smaller fighter is harder to hit, quicker, and conscientously aware of the bigger man. All the men I mentioned had plenty of skill and were adaptable. It's not inconceivable that they could give Lewis many problems he didn't encounter against the likes of Grant, Golota etc.
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 10:48 AM   #6
Beebs
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,121
vCash: 1493
Default Re: The small slick lightheavy wanabe heavyweight vs the superheavyweight jab

There is certainly a point of diminishing returns for size around 190. Height is a bit more of an advantage and only begins to diminish around 6'4"
Beebs is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 11:47 AM   #7
Ted Spoon
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,056
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The small slick lightheavy wanabe heavyweight vs the superheavyweight jab

Simply, you have seen it dilute throughout history as the weights and regulations have stopped the smaller man gaining the experience necessary to overcome the bigger men.
Ted Spoon is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 04:11 PM   #8
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,326
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The small slick lightheavy wanabe heavyweight vs the superheavyweight jab

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisPontius
Impeltiere and Campolio were horrible.
Why?

Quote:
Valdes, Baker and Henry weren't superheavyweights, just normal heavyweights.
Were they though?

None of these guys ever lifted weights and they were still coming in at 210 lbs+ with a tale of the tape similar to the modern bheamoths. Today they would all be carrying significantly more weight.

Perhaps they were just thoroughbred superheavies trained lean.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 05:48 PM   #9
Russell
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,532
vCash: 118
Default Re: The small slick lightheavy wanabe heavyweight vs the superheavyweight jab

Buddy Baer was as large as Lennox Lewis was at his heaviest most of his career.
Russell is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 07:08 PM   #10
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,309
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The small slick lightheavy wanabe heavyweight vs the superheavyweight jab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unforgiven
And where exactly did Lewis prove this ability against smaller pesty fighters ?

I'm not saying any of the mentioned beat him, but it's an unanswered question how he'd deal with quality small, cagey fighters.

A smaller fighter is harder to hit, quicker, and conscientously aware of the bigger man. All the men I mentioned had plenty of skill and were adaptable. It's not inconceivable that they could give Lewis many problems he didn't encounter against the likes of Grant, Golota etc.
Lewis breezed through smaller / annoying fighters in the amateurs. In the Pro's Lewis defeated a tricky Ossie Ocasio long before he was viewed as the heir apparent of the heavyweight division. Those are the examples I would use.

A fighter like Charles is giving up about 5” in height, and 11” in reach in a fantasy match up vs Lennox Lewis. This not a slight disadvantage, it is a major disadvantage. Smaller fighters really cannot win by out fighting taller and longer fighters with near equal to or greater skills when the numbers get this out of whack.

They ( smaller fighters ) have to navigate thought no man’s land, risk getting nailed, deliver, then get out of dodge before being hit. This takes a lot of energy. They also must be able to get the larger fighter’s respect with power.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 07:30 PM   #11
Russell
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,532
vCash: 118
Default Re: The small slick lightheavy wanabe heavyweight vs the superheavyweight jab

Lennox's holding and pushing of the neck down would make Ali's look tame in comparison, the dirty bastard.
Russell is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 07:59 PM   #12
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,309
vCash: 1000
Default Re: The small slick lightheavy wanabe heavyweight vs the superheavyweight jab

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell
Lennox's holding and pushing of the neck down would make Ali's look tame in comparison, the dirty bastard.
Ali held for defense and breathers. Lewis held to deliver punches, and push down on his opponents.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 08:02 PM   #13
Russell
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 13,532
vCash: 118
Default Re: The small slick lightheavy wanabe heavyweight vs the superheavyweight jab

Y

Ali also held to tire opponents while resting himself.

Frazier II? Foreman?

His biggest fights basically.

Anyway, 240-250 pound 6'6 man leaning on the back of your damned neck = straight ****ing bullshit.
Russell is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013