Is it fair to compare Wlad and this HW era to the past?

This.

 

You're right man, I forgot that physics don't matter any more once you slap a "heavyweight" label on something.

With this epiphany, just imagine the incredible fantasy fights that can happen.

De la Hoya vs Kovalev?
Floyd vs Bob Foster?
Ike Williams vs Golovkin?

Just call it a "heavyweight" fight with no weight limit, and the usual rules of boxing fly right out the window. Good luck dealing with the magic of Mayweather, Bob Foster. You'd put him in a casket under normal circumstances, but in a true heavyweight prize fight, you're toast.

 

Do you imagine that he would just sulk when they hit him first?

 

Are modern HWs really better than past ones?

 

Your argument would hold water if there weren't plenty of examples throughout history where massive size advantages are overcome at heavyweight.

 

Stop talking **** about the past. Athletes get better and better. They fight today for money, not for fame. Unfortunately. You don't have many warriors. HW today has lots of guys who would be unique in the past due to their build. Tyson Fury is 206 cm. You are a short guy in HW today if you are under 2 metres. Combined with a style where you really try to not hurt yourself and not to use.

So, even if the fightrs might look boring, the fighters today would still beat most of the fighters of the past. Mike Tyson looked impressive against bums. All his great knockouts came against fighters who were even worse than h Duhaupas and Molinas of this earth. Whenever he stepped up, the fights stopped to be that entertaining and he lost as well.

If two really good fighters fight against each other in times like these, it will most likely look boring. Back then you had two brawlers just fighting because this was the only they could do.

If Lemieux vs N'dam would have happened in the past or even Golota vs. Saleta, you would talk about how great these men were.

Athletes get better, deal with it. Messi makes Maradonna look like Reus. But Maradonna makes Reus still look like a nobody. While anyone from the past elite might look good against Szpilka or Wilder, they would still get beaten badly against the elite from today.

 

The exceptions prove the rule.

The entire reason it's notable when it happens is that it's not normal.

What kind of odds would you give peak Floyd vs a shot Foster? He's infinitely more skilled than the late, great Bob. Much faster. He's also only giving up 7 inches in height, 7 inches of reach, and 30 or so pounds.

I've heard infinite arguments about how those advantages mean nothing when it's a prime world class heavyweight in question, so surely a peak Mayweather could defeat a shot to bits Foster with those same physical advantages.

 

Jersey Joe Walcott
Muhammad Ali
Gene Tunney
Sugar Ray Robinson
Willie Pep

No, the past wasn't full of brawlers.

 

Oh my ****ing god.

Why would I care about FMJ or Bob Foster? We're talking heavyweight.

A 37 year old, 215 pound Evander Holyfield took Lewis to the brink. The gulf in skill between Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis is not big, if there is any in the first place. Holyfield used lateral movement and attacked the body to wear Lewis down. He created a strategy to use Lewis' size against him.

Size is not end-all be-all. Size can be a disadvantage if you're fighting the wrong person.

I agree Joe Louis would be outmatched against Klitschko. But why would I think the same would be true for Tyson? Tyson would have smoked Wlad, as small as he was, because his style was bread and butter to crack giants like him.

This whole bigger=better approach is just a lazy and fallacious thought train that needs to die in a fire. Styles make fights, not size.

 

Tyson vs Wlad would go the same way Lewis vs Tyson did. Also this entire bull **** about size meaning something got started because people were saying Wlad wins only because of size, which is obvious ****. Wlad is more talented than any of the smaller heavyweights with the exception of uber Povetkin (Povetkin post Wlad).

 

He would not be the same fighter, his size advantage over his opponents would be gone, and he will not be as fast as he was before.

 

Tyson was beyond shot when he fought Lewis, his career as a top fighter was over after the second Holyfield fight. The man weighed 235 pounds and looked geriatric. He was getting his head boxed off by Francois Botha and he went on to lose to Willams and McBride...and he still looked great for about a round before he gassed out.

And obviously only re****s think Wlad keeps winning because of a size advantage.

 

I don't know if i entirely agree with that sumation.

Boxer's now may be better athletes (although the guys who regularly fought 15 rounders may disagree) due to better knowledge about diet and training, but that doesn't mean that they are more skilled or more well rounded fighters.

There are a number of sports were the participants today are better athletes, but the overall skill level isn't better.

 

I find it pointless to compare any fighters from different eras with each other. The debate is overdone and there isn't any right or wrong. Nobody really knows anything other than what everyone did against others in their own eras. We have no idea which eras were actually better (talent, head to head wise)... because they only fought against other fighters in their own eras and that is all we can base it off of. For all we know, the fighters of the 70's could have been very average, but we only saw them fight against each other, so how would we know any different?

What I will say is that the world certainly hasn't become smaller, and boxing has a much broader participation rate nowadays, worldwide. As a result, many people tend to confuse talent with star power, because there aren't many (if any) heavyweights who become household names in the United States. This is due to the fact that most of the best heavyweights aren't from the United States. So, we don't have a huge media push which creates a huge buzz and gives the impression that the fighters are great. That's really what it's all about. You have to be very closed minded to think that the division was actually deeper in talent back when the top 10 fighters were virtually all from the United States. As I said... confusing talent with star power. To think that there really aren't any good heavyweights right now in the entire world is laughable. I beg you to go down to your local boxing gym and spar the best heavyweight there. Now, take into consideration that the man who gives you the beating of your life probably will never break into the top 100. It takes SERIOUS talent to compete in ANY sport in ANY division at a world level.

 

Heavyweight today
Big guys over 200 cm gonna rule. Smaller guys dont stand much chance.
Wonder how many big boys boxing have lost to basketball...
I guess there are at least 200 basketball-players that could been better than Kltschko and Fury if they startet boxing instead of choosing basketball, american football or Baseball. Mayby so many as 500...!