Does size count even just a little bit?

You asked if the smaller fighters of the past were better.

I would say that while the heavyweights have got bigger since then, the size disparities that can get sanctioned have got smaller.

In an era where the heavyweight class starts at 154lbs, or 160, or 175, necessity become the mother of invention.

 

Of course it does. That's why there are weight classes in boxing.

 

Nah, there are weight classes in boxing because of sanctioning fees!

 

This should make more sense. When I was referring to expectations I was talking about the past HW who usually weighted as much as a modern crusierweight. Back then they were still super heavyweight sized fighters. Like Willard, Fulton, Carnera, Simon, etc. Yet the smaller HW's were still expected to go out and fight them. Unlike now where they can just stay in the crusierweight division with other 180-200 pound guys. Very few today would expect them to fight a super heavyweight, but from about the fifties back those crusier size guys did. They had no choice back then 180 was a HW. Didn't matter if the opponent was 6 feet 6 inches 240 pounds. If you were 5 foot 10 180 you had to fight him. So naturally trainers had to prepare for that short of scenarios should it occur. Now they just don't have to worry about it.

Another reason they don't move up is becasue they're already making millions in their own weight class. WHy move up taking a big risk. If they challenge a SHW they're really putting their neck out there. Especially since they just don't fight these size guys like they use to.

 

Look at it this way:

If Golovkin and Kovalev were making a pittance, but could make serious money for beating heavyweight contenders, wouldn’t they give it a try?

Then the weaknesses in the fat undertrained heavyweight contenders would be ruthlessly put on trial.

 

Yes size matters but so does skill level.

There is a balance between the two. A man has to be good enough to make his size an actual advantage.

 

Yes, but there is a peak. Once you become too big, you have poor balance and speed.

And a good puncher around 200lb can KO any human being of any size:
Dempsey - Willard
Louis - Baer RD 1
etc

 

To be honest, you make some good points. I tend to agree with LouisA's take on the size argument(see his earlier post) and can meet you halfway.

PEDS have radically changed a heavyweight physique, and it's incredibly hard to compare eras because of this. I honestly believe some guys are fighting at artificially high weights. For example Haye weighing more than Liston: who is the naturally bigger man? Sonny would probably weigh 240 lbs now!

 

For example Haye weighing more than Liston: who is the naturally bigger man? Sonny would probably weigh 240 lbs now!

THIS

 

For example Haye weighing more than Liston: who is the naturally bigger man? Sonny would probably weigh 240 lbs now!

THIS

 

OP says Loughran beat nobody of note above 202 pounds.

Is shown Loughran beat a 6'5" 250 pound contender.


OP says...uuuuh, the era was weak.

You'll just find something else.

 

I think the question applies mainly to heavyweights and their shrunken sidekicks, cruiserweights.

Yes, size matters very, very much. Don't listen to those who say otherwise. For every Dempsey stopping a Willard, or a Tyson mauling a Ruddock, there are ten Foremans, Klitschkos, and Lewises knocking out smaller guys.

 

So are you saying size counts for nothing?