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

Fighters are fighters, and I truly believe that if they had the heart of a fighter, than they would have taken that path. Just because you are a talented athlete doesn't mean that you would be a great fighter, or even an average one. People change A LOT when punches are being thrown at them.

 

If Dempsey or Louis hit a current HW on the chin it's good night .this bulls#it about giant fighters is very funny .can't put muscles on chins.Tyson was shorter than both jack and Joe and had a shorter reach used speed and power and so would they.

 

You realize that Tyson's prime was nearly 30 years ago, right?

You also realize that he struggled with bigger, taller fighters, right? Even below average ones. Most of the guys from the distant past aren't even actual heavyweights. It's basically like saying Bernard Hopkins vs Klitschko.

 

They may be bigger today but better.....really? Size has become the be all and end all in today's HW scene but the many of the greats from yesteryear would be more than able to deal with today's big boys. When I look at the fighters today I don't see the same skill set of yesterday's heavies. Shorter rounds, bigger gloves and heavier fighters don't equal better in my book. Alot of todays fights look like games of tag. One guy holds his gloves up, blocks a few shots then fires back. Where's the footwork? Or subtle feints that throw the other man off? Or good body punching for that matter. I find myself wondering whatever happened to bobbing and weaving or slipping punches. I have a lot of respect for Vlad but what highly skilled big man has he fought? Where are the rivalries...the trilogies like Ali/Frazier or Ali/Norton? Heavies fought more often years ago as well. After Ali/Frazier I Ali fought something like 14 fights after that until he finally regained the title from Foreman in '74. Now we're lucky if we see 1 or 2 fights in a calendar year from a top heavy. How can you stay in top form from such a schedule? If the division is weak you can I guess. The depth just isn't there today. Put Joe Louis in today's division...or Ali and Holmes...and Frazier and Foreman...Dempsey and Liston..Tyson and Holyfield and then we would have some fun. Skill and ferocity and Grit. Make it 15 rounds again with smaller gloves not the pillows they use today. Forgive my rambling but I just don't see the quality that used to be.

 

Great post.

By and large, todays HW's do seem a lot less skilled all round. Slow plodding feet, one paced, no effective feighting, fighting in straight lines, high held guard with no upper body movement and no in fighting ability or ability to break a clinch.

 

I think a lot of people confuse the range of skills displayed by fighters with their head to head ability.

There has got to be a reason that bigger guys who seem to display fairly rudimentary skills are on top today. There has got to be a reason why a relatively skilled guy like Povetkin can't win a single round against Klitschko but an apparently unskilled guy like Fury beats him- and not just "the ref".

Big clumsy guys get to the top because they beat smaller more skilled guys. Head to head, being much bigger and taller is an attribute in and of itself...and maybe the most important attribute of all. We don't expect 5'6" 125lb guys to fight 6' 175lb guys because it would be a horrendous mismatch. Is it so hard to accept that 6'2" 210lb vs 6'8" 260lb is also a horrendous mismatch?

I'm not trying to stick up for the bigger fighters. It may well be true that they are generally less skilled. However, that doesn't make it untrue that H2H they might simply be better than more skilled smaller guys primarily due to the size advantage. Results speak for themselves. If being smaller and more skilled was the key, smaller and more skilled guys would be on top.

 

Bit sad that this era missed out on all the good 5'10"-6'0" 190lb heavyweight boxers.

 

Why don't Americans have the intellect to realise and admit that size matters in boxing? It's the reason there are different divisions and they don't throw Amir Khan in with Kovalev.

Size is a big advantage. The heavyweights today may not look as skilled, but that's a sign of the changing division where the fighters are bigger and heavier. Your not going to see a 6'5+ twinkling around on his tippy toes.

I put it down to the fact Americans just can't get over the fact the era of the black, African American boxer dominating boxing is over and we're now in the era of the Caucasian European boxer dominating so they're looking to the "glory days" to dismiss the current generation of fighters.

Incidentally, if the heavyweight division is so "bad" today, that surely speaks volume about the calibre of American fighters when you can't even produce ONE world class fighter in a supposedly "weak" division.

 

Wilder..

 

It's also sad that the purists won't just tune in to Cruiserweight fights where they can see all these 200 pound fighters with those "lost skills" live and in high definition. Then again, there is a certain charm to the "heavyweight" label and grainy film footage.

 

Not world class until he fights a world class opponent. So far he hasn't fought a single top 10 fighter.

 

Would you say modern NFL players are better than past ones, because they're bigger?

 

Leaving the insults and sarcasm aside; it'smore accurate to compare the past heavyweights to the light-heavyweight and cruiserweight divisions because that's what they would fight in.

Steve Cunningham is considered a small heavyweight. He's 6'3, the same height as Ali. Going further back than Ali's era we have Marciano at 5'10 and Ezzard Charles at just 6'0. No way would they be able to cope with the size of todays fighters.

It's better and more accurate to compare them to todays cruiserweights and light heavyweights.

 

Mike Tyson was about 5'10". Do you seriously think he couldn't compete with the Klitschko or Fury that fought last weekend?