If size, reach and weight mean nothing, could prime DLH beat prime Tyson?

Frame wise, bulk wise and strength wise there's a lot more difference between 147 pound De La Hoya and 210 pound Tyson, than a 200 pound old time heavyweight and a 250 pound modern guy.
I mean that cruiserweight Holyfield didn't do too bad against super heavies like Lewis and Bowe who are both superior to the Klits.

 

The difference is that the HW greats of the past weren't protected by a weight limit and were accustomed to giving up weight against good-great opponents. Because the division didn't have a 200 lb requirement, you had guys free to come in at a lighter weight without having to worry about adding bulk and mix it up with larger fighters, causing much larger disrepancies.


Louis gave up 65 lbs against Carnera, 45 against Buddy Baer.

Marciano gave up 14 lbs to Walcott, 16 lbs to ****ell, 30 lbs to Louis.

Charles gave up 20-30 lbs to Rey, Louis, and Walcott.

Langford gave up 35-40 lbs to Wills.

Dempsey destroyed numerous larger men.

And the eratic Satterfield often knocked out quality opponents with 30-40 lb weight advantage on him.

None of these fights would be sanctioned today with the Cruiser limit in place. Loius, Marciano, Charles, Langford, Satterfield, and Dempsey would all have to add mass and tip the scales over 200 lbs.

 

Yes it happens. But at the highest level how can you not say it doesnt make a difference? The smaller mans punch angle changes, less leverage, more weight to topple over, and usually the smaller man has to work that much harder to get inside to even land anything.

Why does this logic not apply to HW's but applies to lower weight class fighters? They sometimes move up by 5 pounds and question marks immediatly come up. Can he take punches from bigger guys? how will his power translate on bigger guys? ect...

Do you see the P4P best fighter in Floyd fighting in the same manner if he were facing Kovalev or Stevenson?

 

Exactly.

Wlad gave up 20+ lbs to a fit McCline.

Are we to believe this can be seriously compared to something like Mayweather vs Froch?

 

The Klits prove that height, weight, and size advantages greatly outweigh skills. Plus, a life time of steroid use helps them too.

 

How many of these bigger guys had the physique, skill set and ring IQ of a Lewis,Bowe, Wlad.. yes old timers fought bigger men but they were low quality plodders.

 

This new group of HW's are far below the skill level of the of the old time fighters. They are pampered, over-paid, and heavily ENHANCED. Yet, they can barely fight for 10-12 rounds whereas the older fighters fought 15 or more rounds, plus fought 10 and even 20 times per year.

 

It seems you already made up your mind they were all low quality plodders with poor physiques, so no point in continuing.

I would add the words: Ring IQ and Bowe don't belong in the same sentence.

 

Size is a factor but so is skill and ability

Back on topic

Tyson himself was a freak of nature, if Delhi can't handle bhops body shots he won't last 10 seconds against Tyson

 

It seems you have also already made up yours! Which means you refuse to accept reality.

 

Tyson is also a particularly harsh example since his speed would allow him to catch a smaller guy. Tyson was murder against anyone smaller than him because of his combination of speed, explosiveness, relentless aggression and punching power.

Look, anyone who is not a total fool would admit that size does play a part. Of course it does. However, literally hundreds of variables determine the outcome of any one fight. Size is but one of them. Sometimes it is the main reason for one fighter beating another, and sometimes it makes virtually no difference at all. Sometimes it is even a liability.

If size was the only criterion that mattered, someone like Valuev would rule the roost today. He outweighed Holyfield, an old, shot Holyfield, by over 100 lbs. and had damn near a foot of height over him. He 'won', but in my mind got a lucky decision.
Just that one example is enough to blow the 'size uber alles' argument out of the water. What about Jones, all 193 lbs. of him, easily beating John Ruiz, a fighter who had well over 30 lbs. on him? Want more? There are so many that could be named.

Boxing history is littered with hundreds (if not thousands) of examples of a naturally smaller fighter beating a bigger guy - especially at heavyweight, where there comes a point of diminishing returns when it comes to size and weight.

It matters yes, but it greatly varying degrees.

 

And this is true. Combined with skill, athleticism and some speed and it makes a big difference.

Good big man beats good small man is a clique in Boxing for good reason.

 

Somebody who generalized Jersey Joe Walcott, Elmer Ray, and Harry Willis as "low quality plodders" and implied Bowe has a ring IQ comparable to Wlad or Lewis really isn't in a position to question other people's grasp of reality.

 

Someone using Valuev and Ruiz as examples likes to dodge reality.

 

Funny how the Klits get critized today for fighting blown up MW's LHW's, CW's(which refers to size advantage) yet these blown up fighters are the size of great from the past.

:think