Which Heavyweights fall from Rocky's right?

That is completely backward. Knockouts are the result of the acceleration of the head. A bigger, more massive skull is attached to a bigger neck, bigger spine, bigger body, and is thus more difficult to accelerate with a given amount of force. That is the common sense version of this.

 

Rusak

Lack of evidence isn't proof of the contrary. Marciano ko'd every fighter over 200 lbs he fought. He had more trouble with the smaller men. It is true that Marciano did not fight a really good big man larger than the 213 lb Louis,

but Dempsey and Louis did and the men they fought going up into the 240's to 260's were all knocked out. As Marciano showed the same (or even better) power against the lighter men, it seems reasonable to assume he might have been able to stop someone like Carnera.

The high-powered rifle was just an analogy. I wish I could think of a better one, but the point that size alone doesn't prove resistance.

Your case about Marciano and bigger men would be better if he fought and failed to knock out bigger men. But as the bigger men he did fight were easily knocked out, this argument is shaky, based on something that didn't happen rather than drawing conclusions from what did happen.

 

haye made Valuev do the chicken dance but Marciano cant carry his power up

 

You might well be right, but

"a bigger, more massive skull is attached to a bigger neck, bigger spine, bigger body"

exactly, and therefore the torso is going to be harder to move. But that big skull? Does that mean the brain wouldn't move within the skull? And does the size and thickness of the skull increase at the same rate as body weight? Does a 270 lb man automatically have a 50% thicker skull than a 180lb man?

Heavens, I don't know, but common sense or not, big men historically were not that hard to knock out and just saying that because you are bigger you can take a punch better is not something that is historically easy to prove.

 

Marciano only fought several fighters over 200 lbs and most of them were trash. Old Louis at 213 is not a big man and shouldn't even be mentioned. Louis was a shell of his former self in that fight, moving and punching in slow motion. Again, Marciano never beat a good big man. It never happened. As for Dempsey and Louis, the big guys that they stopped were also trash. They were not good boxers by any stretch of the imagination. And if you look at Dempsey-Willard, Willard was not knocked unconscious despite Dempsey hitting him with everything he had, hitting him while he was defenseless, etc. It is no accident, in my opinion, that no small fighter ever took that kind of beating from Dempsey and remained conscious.

 

Haye is a much bigger man than Marciano. I know that in Codger City, 20-30 lbs is nothing, but in reality it matters.

 

Rusak

Willard took the ten count but was saved by the bell. The films of Dempsey against smaller men is limited, but I would consider it a poor argument that Gibbons and Tunney didn't stand up to Dempsey better than Willard and Firpo.

No dispute that the heavyweight division in the old days was generally dominated by men much smaller than today. Louis was in my judgment the best 210 plus pound fighter Marciano could have fought. The rest were lesser fighters.

"the big guys that they stopped were also trash"

Why is that? According to your argument they have all the advantages of being able to take a punch better and being able to punch harder. They were definitely the best big fellows out there for decades.

 

All good and sensible post EM.....even the better big men have been KO'd and in the case of Lennox, McCall & Rahman were not light men but not elite punchers and in the case of Vlad, Brewster was 6'ft Sanders could hit but lacking in class and Purity tired him out by round 11, Vitali lost to Byrd who was a blown up light-heavyweight...Primo lost badly to Louis & Baer and Willard was Ko'd by Dempsey....and these are the best of the big men....Brown Bomber took down many a big man and actually had more trouble with the smaller guys, Ali beat the big muscled guys like Foreman and Liston but had some tough moments against Henry Cooper 180lbs, Doug Jones 6' 188lbs & Joe Frazier 5'10 205lbs...throw in Bonavena 5"10 205 ...Marciano fought 6"4 Vingo and other heavier guys (the smaller tougher winners were tougher fights & cleaned out the big guys in # 1 spot)

If a known heavyweight puncher catches a big man on the chin he goes

Marciano was one of the best punchers and a freak as was Sam Langford before him ( a rarity of power in a smaller frame) , whether he gets that punch in is one thing but should he land that Walcott,Layne,Charles,Moore,Louis,Vingo shot I think it does the trick no matter who he hits

 

"big guys they fought were trash"

I want to hone in on this.

There seems to be a central flaw in this argument. You say big men punch harder and take punches better. But then you argue that the big men for the better part of a century were "trash." But why? There was a lot of money to be made being heavyweight champion. Why did the 6' 6" 230 lbers let it all go to the runty 180 lbers?

With all the advantages you claim for them, why didn't they do better?

You do seem to be arguing against yourself. These men are naturally better, you say, but in the real world they were trash.

 

Gibbons and Tunney didn't take the punches that Willard did. I'm arguing that Willard was able to remain conscious through that beating in large part because of his size. You are saying nothing that contradicts or disproves that.

Not every big man has a good chin, but on average, the ability to take a punch increases with size. Why are you arguing with basic common sense that is confirmed in reality?

 

Because most of them were circus freaks, not trained boxers. At what age did Willard take up boxing? At what age did Willard develop a decent jab and learn to use his height? That would be never. I would argue that most of these guys weren't even great athletes. Primo Carnera may have had a muscular physique but he never displayed anything like the quickness and agility of a Wlad.

 

They were athletes, just of a different sort. Certainly not elite boxing talent. But strong mother****ers and tough guys... which in the heavyweight division goes a long way. See Hasim Rahman or Tex Cobb or George Chuvalo or quite a few others.

 

rusak--"On the average, the ability to take a punch increases with size."

Elroy--"In general, the bigger they are, the better they can take a punch."

Prove these statements.

What is the evidence historically you can provide. Give proof that in fact big men are harder to knock out not by stating your theory as fact, but by providing historical examples.

I would say history completely argues the opposite. The old big men were knocked out by much smaller men of their era who could punch. The modern big men are knocked out by the punchers of their era. Few showed exceptional durability.

Lewis and Wlad were certainly hard to outbox, and in fact have never been outboxed, but Wlad has been stopped three times and Lewis twice. Their records point to their skills as their main assets, not their chins.

 

rusak--"Most of these were circus freaks."

Elroy--"The other premise that the big, strong men of the past were no good is also obvious."

Yes, it is obvious and not in dispute, but it certainly undercuts that big men punch harder and take a punch better. Truth is the evidence seems to point to most of the big men of the old days having at best average to mediocre chins.

Willard is given as an example of durability, but he went down from the first punch Dempsey landed, was down seven times, and would have been counted out but for the bell. Firpo was down nine times and out in the second round. Morris went out in 14 seconds. Fulton in 18 seconds. It is obvious that Tunney, Gibbons, and Miske showed more durability against Dempsey, and in fact throughout their careers. Willard and Firpo were each stopped three times in not all that many career fights. Morris was stopped often. Fulton had a glass jaw.

Louis' big opponents follow the same pattern, and so do guys like Impellitierre and Campolo and Jose Santa and the rest who didn't fight the major champions.

No one is disputing that these big men were not very good.

But it seems to me that if you are going to stand on an argument that they have critical natural advantages in taking a punch, and punching power, the burden falls on you fellows to explain why they were so mediocre.

Boxing was extremely popular and lucrative. A heavyweight champion made big money. Why were there no big men capable of doing better?

 

Elroy

"The premises that his man Rusak has put forward are straight forward and obvious."

"Why would any of you nuts question this stuff???"

The direct answer is because they are wrong.

The truth of a premise or theory is judged by whether it is supported by the evidence of history. These aren't. Historical evidence does not make it obvious that a big man takes a punch better.

"straight forward and obvious"

Lots of things once widely believed--for example that the sun revolves around the Earth--seemed to everyone straightforward and obvious.