Rocky Marciano vs Lennox Lewis

McG is spot on. And I'm sure Choklab himself has previously argued that SHW guys with a 30 pound advantage are nigh impossible to beat so I'm it sure why he's trying to take that advantage away from them.

For me it would be a lot more even if they couldn't clinch and then the more technical boxers of a smaller stature atleast have a chance if they get inside.

Because otherwise you are relying on am ATG talent like Holy or Tyson to overcome the weight disparity.

 

Some people just get bigger with age, like Ali did.

 

I read in a bodybuilding magazine years ago that Norton only started lifting weights after he retired from boxing; he said it himself.

 

Lewis in the days of Jack Dempsey would not have looked like the Lennox we knew. He would be trained by a coach from that time and eating like fighters did at that time.

He still would have been World class. But he would have to develop against a different type of heavyweight than he fought against. He could have evolved into something better than he was, and he might have to of had. He could have been less effective. He would have been different, that is for sure.

I don't see how all that Lewis became in order to be successful in his own era necessarily eclipses everything that came before. And that if he was transported as he was back then he automatically creates a future superheavyweight vs cruiserweight scenario. I don't think it is as simple as that. They were real heavyweights. Just ones that evolved into whatever was a success for that day.

Those guys were heavyweights, and they were what it took to be successful then. Everything they looked like was necessary for that day. We have heavyweights now and they are doing and have become what is required today.

Perhaps it works both ways? What works now won't work then and vise versa?

 

I agree with all of this.

Weight itself is used as an assset. It is often an enhanced excess weight. A percentage of success is afforded to this weight advantage and clever use of it to negate the opposition.

This is required in the current climate and has created the superheavyweight class because modern contenders with the disadvantage find it too difficult to both carry excess weight and slip a jab.

As you say the weight is used offensively and can limit a fighter defensively so it favours the one with the longer arms and friendliest referee.

One fighter using this in an earlier era might not have found it so advantageous because the control of tempo is required. But that does not matter today, nor does it need to be tested today. The fact is champions are what they are because of the environment or heavyweight landscape at their own particular time.

 

Ali put on a ton of fat, Norton didn't.

 

I agree. More superheavyweights are the future.

I agree. Smaller fighters have to be so much better just to make an impression. It is tough waiting for an exception to the rule who can do this.

I won't touch upon steroids because it's the easy answer. I prefer "changes in training" because there may be advances in diet, nutrients, blood or whatever that will benefit sportsman individually that are going on for now and forever.

I think we disagree on "better". To you it just means successful at any cost. Or successes when circumstances allow. Vitali and Lennox became successful veteran fighters. Controlling a less experienced less large opponent where the advantage is size, experience, controlling pace, the advantage if being the defending champion etc etc is a hell of a lot stacked against the opposition.

Their success improved as they got bigger but it's a lot like the young George old George argument. Foreman was effective both old and young but he never had the best of both worlds at the same time. So athletically the klits and Lewis were better younger and older the combination of size and experience still allowed them to be effective because of changes within the division.

That their best performance or more important wins came during this period has more to do with the time frame and heavyweight landscape at the time it happened.


Size and experience certainly did NOT help Jim Jeffries or Joe Louis or Sonny Liston in comebacks did it?

I think fans of boxing would prefer that boxers use boxing to dominate one another rather than size.

There's boxing. The art of boxing and superheavyweight tactics.

They were way more successful at using size advantage and that's fine.

I think that for a good boxing 6'5" heavyweight to come along under traditional methods took all the way into heavyweight history for Ernie Terrell to arrive. I think that an explosive punching 6'5" heavyweight at championship level we had to wait all the way for Lennox Lewis to arrive. That's a long time. And that's just my opinion.

 

Not everyone can use the tactic as effectively as Lewis did against Holyfield though.

Apart from Wlad and Ruiz who else is a jab and grab type of fighter?

 

But he needed size and his experience to project all of this under Steward didn't he? That reach came in handy didn't it? If you could combine the best of his younger lighter days with all of this he would have been even better wouldn't he?

But he needed the extra size to drain the opposition within the clinch to get a rest in fights with Holyfeild and Mavrovic didn't he? The weight allowed him an advantage too. And that's ok. Lewis was a great SHW. He has been influential on the division.

success and "athletically better" are seperate things today. It used to be a fighter was at his best when he was athletically better too. That a big fighter can now control a lesser fighter who is younger and able to demonstrate his experience and dominance by use if distance is something else. An old fighter who was always a good boxer to begin with who is able to slow things down can demonstrate more economical skill. So what?

it's factually incorrect that functional size and age advantage has been more of a factor over the last 20 years or so?

Yes and all these improvements were reflected on the level of opposition. Lewis did improve his skill set under Steward but he also demonstrated a better control of distance and pace. Appart from Holyfeild Lewis was more experienced than those he fought under Steward too.

No I never said it was because of size alone. Your just trying to trip me up. At least stick with what I said. I can tell you I said it was ALSO experience to control the pace and have the advantage of being the defending champion. They also were successful using size but no more than distance and experience.

All that has been demonstrated is that the art of boxing has been compromised at heavyweight to factor in weight advantage and experience is able to make older champions more relevent than it was under Joe Louis, Jim Jeffries and Sonny Liston when they embarked on comebacks.

 

Tyson Fury against Cunningham and chisora. He can fight inside, he can box too but he will resort to grab and jab if need be. He is a SHW.

 

He fought on the inside with Cunningham which is why he got dropped.

Against Chisora he only held when he was wobbled, at one point he chose to rope a dope rather than stumble and hold.

I think the point I'm making is jab and grab is not SHW tactics, it's Wladimir Klitschko tactics. Aside from Ruiz he's the only man who consistently uses that strategy. Everyone else tends to clinch as a defensive measure or to take a break.

 

McG I'm not convinced he would have beaten Holy without the extra size tbh. Mavrovic he'd have still schooled.

 

The younger versions of Mitch Greens were caught up in the violence of the crack era and mass incarceration. Being a Bronx street tough had more unforgiving consequences for kids coming of age in the 80s and 90s than it did in the early 70s.

Those who escaped those fates tended toward basketball and football. I would bet that there are many, many athletes in the NBA and NFL who could beat most of our current upperweight champions if they'd had years of training in boxing.