Boxing  

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


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-12-2007, 06:21 PM   #1
Shake
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,604
vCash: 75
Default Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

I'll put forth the argument in its simplest form.

The race of man is continually growing larger. Because of that, boxers at heavyweight are bigger now, both on average and extremes. There have been many successful big heavyweights who've used their size-advantage in the past -- however, there is a larger pool of big men to produce boxers from currently.

Does Rocky Marciano stand a chance against a Lennox Lewis? Against a Wladimir Klitschko?

The question I ask is -- is it possible the champions of yore are at a disadvantage when facing modern fighters because heavyweight prizefighters are now much more physically imposing, and despite any technical advantages and intangibles in the favor of the classics, they are simply physically overmatched?

Two points I put up for debate.

1) The 6'5-6'11 range of fighters are more skilled now than they were in the past.
2) Does it feel uncomfortable to anyone that a great champion in his time might lose to a lesser modern boxer head-to-head simply because he was born in a 'bigger' era? It does to me.

My personal opinion is that I'd give men like Wladimir Klitschko and Lennox Lewis a lot of grudging wins over fighters I love purely because they are so much more physically imposing, all the while I firmly believe they'd easily lose if both fighters were the same size.
Shake is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 08-12-2007, 06:26 PM   #2
Club Fighter
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Bronx, New York, USA, North America, Earth, Milky Way
Posts: 2,167
vCash: 1972
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake
I'll put forth the argument in its simplest form.

The race of man is continually growing larger. Because of that, boxers at heavyweight are bigger now, both on average and extremes. There have been many successful big heavyweights who've used their size-advantage in the past -- however, there is a larger pool of big men to produce boxers from currently.

Does Rocky Marciano stand a chance against a Lennox Lewis? Against a Wladimir Klitschko?

The question I ask is -- is it possible the champions of yore are at a disadvantage when facing modern fighters because heavyweight prizefighters are now much more physically imposing, and despite any technical advantages and intangibles in the favor of the classics, they are simply physically overmatched?

Two points I put up for debate.

1) The 6'5-6'11 range of fighters are more skilled now than they were in the past.
2) Does it feel uncomfortable to anyone that a great champion in his time might lose to a lesser modern boxer head-to-head simply because he was born in a 'bigger' era? It does to me.

My personal opinion is that I'd give men like Wladimir Klitschko and Lennox Lewis a lot of grudging wins over fighters I love purely because they are so much more physically imposing, all the while I firmly believe they'd easily lose if both fighters were the same size.
Of course not.
Club Fighter is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 06:30 PM   #3
Rock0052
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: All up in Djibouti
Posts: 11,168
vCash: 79
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

One way to deal with that discomforting thought is to remember that if those fighters were fighting today, most of them would be a few inches taller and/or bulkier themselves due to the advances in nutrition and training.

I'm not saying prior methods are outdated by any means, but the best trainers can take all that worked and build on that. I think a trainer combining what worked from the earlier eras of boxing combined with a specialized routine of plyometrics and olympic-style weightlifting could make those "classic" fighters just as effective today.
Rock0052 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 06:54 PM   #4
Heavyrighthand
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,989
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Strange how a thread about immensize and skill does not mention the massive and highly skilled Tye Fields.

What, is this man not skilled enough for you people?

Last edited by zivic1941; 04-29-2006 at 10:04 AM.
Heavyrighthand is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 06:59 PM   #5
ripcity
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: "Somebody may beat me, but they are going to have to bleed to do it."
Posts: 10,232
vCash: 967
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock0052
One way to deal with that discomforting thought is to remember that if those fighters were fighting today, most of them would be a few inches taller and/or bulkier themselves due to the advances in nutrition and training.

I'm not saying prior methods are outdated by any means, but the best trainers can take all that worked and build on that. I think a trainer combining what worked from the earlier eras of boxing combined with a specialized routine of plyometrics and olympic-style weightlifting could make those "classic" fighters just as effective today.
Is it posible to make your self grow in hight? If so how?
ripcity is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 07:02 PM   #6
sthomas
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,003
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

1) If you go into a time capsule fight, your size changes. The dutch have done a study on this and they are on average, 6" taller than they were 50 years ago! Marciano today would be about 6'3" and weigh about 230 Lbs. I think the modern day Rocky would do just fine.

2) Tyson did just fine while he was properly managed

3) Ali won his first championship 2/25/64. On 4/22/95 George Foreman defened his IBF title for the last time. In their only bout Ali beat Foreman in 74'. The direct championship lineage of Ali lasted more than thirty-one years!!!!!!!!

JR Head
sthomas is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 07:05 PM   #7
Rock0052
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: All up in Djibouti
Posts: 11,168
vCash: 79
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ripcity
Is it posible to make your self grow in hight? If so how?
As Evisceration already pointed out, the foods we eat every day naturally take care of that (I'm referring to the nation as a whole). Our diets today have more protein, vitamins, and minerals- so it's not too much of a stretch that somebody growing up as a child in the 70's will be more likely to be bigger than someone raised in the 20's or 30's.

There are exceptions of course- guys like Max Baer and Primo Carnera, for example- but a smaller guy like Marciano would be more likely to be larger if he were growing up today or 20 years ago as opposed to when he did because on average, people are bigger now for that very reason.
Rock0052 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 08:28 PM   #8
ripcity
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: "Somebody may beat me, but they are going to have to bleed to do it."
Posts: 10,232
vCash: 967
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock0052
As Evisceration already pointed out, the foods we eat every day naturally take care of that (I'm referring to the nation as a whole). Our diets today have more protein, vitamins, and minerals- so it's not too much of a stretch that somebody growing up as a child in the 70's will be more likely to be bigger than someone raised in the 20's or 30's.

There are exceptions of course- guys like Max Baer and Primo Carnera, for example- but a smaller guy like Marciano would be more likely to be larger if he were growing up today or 20 years ago as opposed to when he did because on average, people are bigger now for that very reason.
Thanks thats a good explaintion and answer to my question. I thought that you were saying one could take supliments to make them grow but what I think your saying is that the natural progresion in nuturtion has made us grow taller as a spicies in genral.
Another question. How much taller and biger would some of these now small heaveyweights if they were around today?
ripcity is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 08:31 PM   #9
Mrboogie23
what the??
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,372
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

good answers in general. I agree, advancements in training, nutrition etc would make the fighters of yesteryear also bigger. Because humankind in general is bigger. Give some of the great fighters of yesteryear more size and they'd do fine.

Last edited by SuzieQ49; 04-29-2006 at 11:33 AM.
Mrboogie23 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 08:45 PM   #10
Heavyrighthand
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,989
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sweet Pea
What do you mean of yore? How far back? The modern era really started around the 40's. If you wanna talk before then, you may be right. But the size thing really only applies to Heavyweights.
That's cause the heavies are the only division with unlimited size. So that's obviously the only division that it CAN apply to.
Heavyrighthand is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 08:56 PM   #11
cross_trainer
Bergeron Avatar Club
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,685
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

In the past, smaller men (sub-160 pounds) managed to beat heavyweights, so presumably there are still smaller men out there (cruisers and lightheavies--not junior middleweights!) who could take on modern ones and win. I see nothing absurd about picking Foreman over (for instance) Klitschko...especially since he actually beat Moorer and Briggs as a grandfather.

Part of it has to do with glove sizes and round limits as well--longer fights and smaller gloves tend to favor slightly smaller, fitter men.
cross_trainer is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 09:01 PM   #12
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 14,203
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shake
I'll put forth the argument in its simplest form.

The race of man is continually growing larger. Because of that, boxers at heavyweight are bigger now, both on average and extremes. There have been many successful big heavyweights who've used their size-advantage in the past -- however, there is a larger pool of big men to produce boxers from currently.

Does Rocky Marciano stand a chance against a Lennox Lewis? Against a Wladimir Klitschko?

The question I ask is -- is it possible the champions of yore are at a disadvantage when facing modern fighters because heavyweight prizefighters are now much more physically imposing, and despite any technical advantages and intangibles in the favor of the classics, they are simply physically overmatched?

Two points I put up for debate.

1) The 6'5-6'11 range of fighters are more skilled now than they were in the past.

2) Does it feel uncomfortable to anyone that a great champion in his time might lose to a lesser modern boxer head-to-head simply because he was born in a 'bigger' era? It does to me.

My personal opinion is that I'd give men like Wladimir Klitschko and Lennox Lewis a lot of grudging wins over fighters I love purely because they are so much more physically imposing, all the while I firmly believe they'd easily lose if both fighters were the same size.
This is how I see it. Boxing has 17 different weight classes for a reason. Some of these modern super heavies are three or four weight classes bigger than your standard 190-210 pound champions of the past. Modern day super heavyweights like Bowe, Lewis and Klitschko are far more skilled than the super heavies of yesteryear. While Lewis and Klitschko might be too much for Marciano’s and Jack Johnson’s in a fantasy head to head boxing matches, it doesn’t make them greater fighters.

Being a ring legend means defining the era you live in. We know Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano and Louis, despite being small by today’s standards defined there eras. Bowe did not do that. Lewis in my opinion did. Klitschko may or may not do it.

I rather be called greater than bigger in almost all cases, except if I’m in the ring for money and risking health.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 09:10 PM   #13
Dempsey1238
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,015
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza
This is how I see it. Boxing has 17 different weight classes for a reason. Some of these modern super heavies are two or three weight classes bigger than your standard 190-210 pound champions of the past.
Yes a MERE 5 pounds parts one divison from other lol. That 5 pound weight thing relly helps you know.

We have WAY too many divisons. The reason they did that was because it makes more money when you had champions. Than they make more money when they part the titles in 2s or 3s or even 4s. lol.

I say we go back to 8 weight divsion. 17 is pushing it.
Dempsey1238 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 09:28 PM   #14
Fighting Weight
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Haye is the HW Willie Pep!
Posts: 7,722
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fluxstuff
Peak Floyd Patterson may well have been dominant and beaten Ali.
That's a joke, right?

Floyd was a great fighter, no doubt but Ali owned him. No disgrace in that for Floyd at all, he did better than 99% of the current crop would have done against a peak Ali/Clay.
Fighting Weight is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2007, 10:00 PM   #15
JJ
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 493
vCash: 1358
Default Re: Size matters. A discussion on classic vs modern heavyweights.

I think it is WAY too easy to say that if they got the right training and food, they would clean out the division.
How much speed would they loose when big?
How would their chins be against the monsters of today?
Could all of them learn all of todays training?

Taking Mayweather and magnifying him makes as much sense...
JJ is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > General 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 11:18 AM.


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