Why were "small" men able to dominate the HW division?

It's like in the old days you couldn't have a tall man who could run fast because their leg turn over was too slow. Then there was Usain Bolt and he changed sprinting. It's the same thing and you can put it down to whatever reason they're just bigger and better.

 

Jack Johnson wasnt known as the Galveston Giant. His boxing nickname was Lil Arthur. It was only the Ladies who nicknamed him the Galveston Giant. :deal

 

The 'small boys' would have been bigger in 2000. And, as a previous poster tried to point out, they would not necessarily be slower by any means.
I'm repeating myself but...would a 21st century Klit destroy Dempsey? Probably.
Now, had the Klit boys, or Lennox, etc. been born in 1900 and were prime by 1930 (we can adjust the years a bit) would they be the specimens that we've seen or would they be constrained by their era? What would a prime 30's-40's Klit look like if the Soviet Union let their pugs into the professional arena at that time? Certainly not the beefcakes we've seen!
I should stick to other threads. F**k the era comparisons!

 

Johnson had many wives and women for sure. Somethings never change! When asked what would they most change about their husbands women's #1 reply is they wish he made more money.

Johnson had a lot of money!

But did he have any children? I read he stuffed a sock down his pants.

 

Johnson spent all his money, he was a spendthrift
, on himself and whoever was his current bed mate
He stuffed what was in his pants into a lot of white p***y, and a few white ar**s too and there's a few around that still can't handle that.

 

It is interesting though, as a general rule, in most cases when we have a bigger champion it is usually because of a poorer era. In theory, as the skill levels drop, size becomes to big a hurdle to overcome.

Jeffries (who was big not huge) came along at a time when most thought the standards had dropped from the golden era of Corbett, Fitz, Jackson, Sullivan etc.

Willard was considered a dreadful era.

Carnera another similar time.



Lewis/Bowe era is often touted as the exception,(and they probably were) but was it really? I dont think there is much doubt that a prime Tyson would have ripped through the era (as it is an old version pretty much ripped through all bar the top 3 fighters. As it is a bulked up cruiser in Holyfield seemed on par with the two big guns, and for such a strong era, it really is unbelievable that two ancient (not just old) versions of 70s and 80s fighters were very competive in the era. It may very well be that this era also was a lot poorer than what is often considered.

The Klitchsko era is often considered the weakest era ever. If this is true and correct then is it any wonder that the big figthers are currently dominating.

The other thing to consider is that because it takes so long at the lighter weights to establish a dominance (and once they do, there is probably more money staying at the lighter weight anyway), fighters are all past prime by the time they start weight jumping.

Even allowing for this, the success rate of good light heavys making the jump in weight is a hell of a lot better than what we are lead to believe. Off hand, in recent times, I can think of Toney, Tarver, Adamek, Danny Green, Byrd, Jones Jr , Hopkins and quite a few others who went up substantially in weight and were as succesful at this weight as they were at the lighter weight, even though they were older and not in as good a shape as they were when fighting at the lighter weight. If they can be successful then, i dont understand why they couldnt be successful when fully primed and weighing in lighter.

When i think about it, i think it is probably more of a challenge to find guys who went up in weight and did worse, I am sure there were plenty but i cant think of any examples of good fighters who did this. Who was the last light heavyweight world champion to move to heavyweight for at least three fights and not beat at least one top ten contender? I certainly cant think of one that was under 30.

Historically, the best light heavyweight has usually been one of the top 5 fighters in the world (Off hand - Langford,Tunney, Braddock, Charles, Moore, Moorer). Maybe if we gave the Light heavy champion an instant no 5 World ranking, they would be encouraged to fight the top heavyweights when they are in their prime and not wait until they are completely washed up?

 

This Holyfield thing is ridicolous. Holyfield was far away from his best
against the 100% prime Lewis.The 1-4 is a lie.It was 1-1-3.
When Holy was about 217 pounds and in very good shape
he beat Bowe.(First time Bowe beat an about 205 pounds Evander.)
Lewis or Bowe never beat a "big good prime man" without lucky factors .
At least Holyfield did.
Otherwise Bowe had only one dangerous "big" opponent the mediocre Golota
and by performane vs performance Golota was the better.
The 37 years old Evander was better against the prime Lewis
than the prime 37 years old Lewis against Vitali Klitschko.

 

Holyfield had three draws against big men?

 

The rules, gloves, holding, # of rounds all help bigger men.

Size means LESS at the highest weights, But it still helps.

Holyfield with PEDs was great at HW.
While he like many fighters may have been more prime earlier-at least FOR their size...Having the extra muscle & power/punch resistance usually will make them at least a bit better in ABSOLUTE terms, even if not quite as sharp.

Moorer & Spinks were more dominant lighter, & never sharper.
But if they did not bulk up they would NOT have done as well at HW.

Maybe in earlier eras if not facing the very few best ATGs like Louis they WOULD, because being max 190's was fine.

But yes, Evander needed to be 217 against Bowe & Tyson to do as well.Especially to have the strength to kind of bully Tyson in the clinches.
Even so he needed to tie him up fairly often.

Unless it is a true ATG, nobody is gonna do as well at the Ali & Louis height to weight proportions as if heavier.

Holyfield was about the LIGHTEST great modern ('90's & up) HW at ~ 6' 2", & even that was due to all his weight being in the upper body, & Lewis is a good 3" taller & was great when only ~ 10 lbs. more. Wilder even taller & lighter...

So you could argue that some guys do not need to have the bulk to succeed, but they have a lot of height & length, & we do not yet know how good Wilder is.

So still it seems tougher to not be a certain amount of muscle, at least if not very tall. It would take an exceptional talent to be like Joe Louis-close to 6' 2", dominant close to & up to ~ 8 lbs. over 200 in his pre-war prime.

 

Lots of good tall sprinter competed before Bolt.
For example Carl Lewis.His Ben johnson problem is another question.
Otherwise the stamina isn't too important for a sprinter.
We talk about 12,15 or more rounds.The sprint is nothing to do
with the boxing. For example i think Lennox Lewis was a lame
"runner".

 

Well Jeffries for many was considered better than his predecessors wasn't he? And his talent was if you excuse the simplification to be the strongest of his time. Sullivan claimed boxing had moved on with Jeffries too so I don't think that can be said to be a golden era.

Johnson was bigger than his predescors bar Jeffries but hailed as a giant in his era.

Louis was bigger than most of the earlier champions.

Ali was the first to combine a near SHW frame with true athletic speed and skill. Holmes continued that but was less exciting.

Lennox/Bowe were the first to combine 6'5 230lb with conditioned athletic scientific boxing. Wlad continued that in a more systematic less exciting approach.

I think there's an awful lot of doubt Tyson could beat Bowe or Lewis, given he said Lewis would always be 'too big' for him. And that he never faced any opponent nearly as good as either. And that he lost to Holyfield who in turn lost the series to both men.

Wlad's a top 5 H2H of all time comfortably for me and I'm not a fan but he is. The era isn't nearly as good as the 90s or 70s but it's as good or better than most eras. It is boring because the Klits win without breaking a sweat. There aren't many exciting boxers either.

This isn't really true, they move up when they can bulk up and be strong enough. Not bulking up is pretty much suicidal. There's so many reasons why you need that size/strength in boxing. And even then none have been a top HW.

The LHWs who move up can't handle 230lb punches for the most part. There maybe examples of beefed up LHWs who beat contenders but they don't generally do very well. None of the men you've mentioned have done particularly well at HW, they s****ed a few wins.

 

The size and the muscle mass are different things.Different words.
More muscle mass obviously bigger size but better than more
fat mass.I think Holyfield never was fat.
Otherwise sometimes an athlete with bigger muscle mass
is weaker than a smaller man.
Weightlifter/powerlifter vs. bodybuilder the best example.
Holyfield-Tyson 1. was about the stamina a tired athlete
can't use his power.

Don't forget Lewis,Bowe and wladimir and vitali klitschko,Ruddock,wilder,briggs are/ were bulked fighters !
Why? What's your problem with Evander ? Is Holyfield's bulked body your only one problem ?

 

- Lots of man say the prime Tyson was better than the prime Lewis.

-McCall and Rahman never was great tall fighter beater but
theycould beat Lewis. Or Lewis had big problem with Mercer who
couldn't beat the 42 years old and tall Holmes.
Basically only the Lewis and Klitschko fans say Tyson was too
small for these fighters.
Tyson won the first round against Lewis. And McCall when he destroyed Lewis in the second round? I doubt it.
Tyson beat fighters who was nearly as good as Bowe or Lewis.
For example:
(Bruno who outskilled the prime Lewis.Bruno a big fighter
beat McCall who destroyed Lewis.
Other question Tyson(bad version) destroyed the 247 pounds
reigning champion pure muscle Bruno easily.
( I think the best Lewis muscle mass was far away from Bruno's.)
Tony Tucker who was faster than the glass-chinned Lewis .
Old Holmes beat easier Mercer than the prime Lewis.
Originally a bad version Tyson beat Golota.And Golota outclassed the prime Bowe two times.
The bad version Tubbs-Bowe was a close fight.
(I understand you don't like these facts but this is the situation.)


Your opinion about w. klitschko is ridicolous.
-Wladimir klitschko never beat an ATG and never won one only one round against an ATG.
He is far away from a H2H top 100.
Considering the fat 37 years old Sanders knocked him out in the
second round.
Puritty destroyed an unbeaten wladimir.
(Never beat an unbeaten Ali,Foreman or Frazier a bum like Puritty.)
Brewster destroyed a 100% prime wladimir.
Sam Peter a below avarage fat man knocked wladimir down 3times.
Panell a bum knocked wladimir down.
D. Williamson a glass-chinned fighter knocked wladimir down.
Or an amazing win:wladimir couldn't knock a glass-chinned Haye out.
(The old Carl Thompson destroyed Haye).
Etc. Maybe wladimir is a top 100 fighter but H2H chanceless.

- Because wladimir beat Byrd,Povetkin by points and Haye by points
doesn't mean he is better than Ali,Foreman,Holmes,Marciano,Joe
Louis,Frazier and others.
Maybe sad but true Ali's,Frazier's or Foreman's best win is
much more impressive than wladimir's Povetkin win.
The best win is one of the most important thing in the pro-boxing
and w. klitschko's best win is a mediocre fighter.
I know(understand) this is a very sad thing for the klit****s but
an intelligent man can accept this sad situation without
hysterical behaviour.



klitschko fanboys... I think they don't know the objectivity at all.
(The facts say Lewis,Bowe weren't unbeatable at all.)

 

VVMM you completely cherry-pick fights, never considering extenuating circumstances, stage of career, total record...Unless it benefits your case.

The era today MAY be weaker than most, or may not due to increase in size & strength for HWs keeping it close, & only deficient compared to the share of athletic potential out there.

But to say Wlad is not near a top 100 H2H HW? :nut
That is insane.


So i will just deal with the physical traits you discussed.

1) Bolt was the 1st great very tall sprinter, & the Best Ever.
Lewis is 6' 2", not 6' 5".

2) I have lfted for years & read much, I know all about distinctions between muscle mass & strength.
Hoever they are usually very correlated, though some are extreme in maximizing one side.

3) Muscle helps with sprinting to an extent never known before.
It also helps in boxing. What point is best & where dinisnishing returns or worse depends upon the fighter, genes & total training programs.

4) But fewer rounds & more holding allowed benefits those who need not have as HIGH endurance as those who may just carry less bulk, even if muscle.

5) Tyson/Holyfield 1 WAS about endurance-in part. Fanatical training & PEDs helped Evander. But his strength ALSO helped him more than hold his own in the clinches.
Without all the holding, let alone how well he pushed back, I do not think Holyfield could have derailed Tyson.

6) My "problem" with Holyfield?
I only call him on CHEATING with PEDs, as I would with ANY who we can tell have clearly lied & cheated to siucceed.