A few posters on here constantly make the argument that size greatly determines the outcome of the fight particularly in the heavyweight division. Could you all please enlighten me on this concept because there have been so many real scenarios where smaller men have beaten bigger men. Tyson vs many guys; Dempsey vs Willard and Fulton; Louis vs both Baers, Galento, Carnera, Abe Simon; Langford vs a lot of guys; Greb vs a lot of guys during his careers; you get the picture. I really want to know why so many guys in these fantasy match ups who were mediocre in reality become ATG's against anyone they didn't actually fight.
It doesn't. Weight division are an oppressive and artificial construct intended to suppress the greatness of smaller men.
how can size not matter? size has always mattered to a degree. if size didn't matter there would be no need for weight classes measuring size/mass.
I see you went back and deleted one of your comments in this thread just 1 minute before linking it here.
its one factor. there are fools who think it predominates at hw, but no because Andre the Giant never ruled the HW scene in the 70s. HW is where it is least a factor, simply down to proportions. each progressive weight incremental increase offers diminishing returns.
HW is where it is least a factor? you are so confused I cant help you Herol,,,,, you have it perfectly backwards :smoke at all the other weights their size from mass is the same, thus size is irrelevant for comparing all the other weight classes,,, at HW size comes into play the most as its the only weight class that has size/weight/mass differences :hat yeah don't worry, keep believing what you want :thumbsup
are you being simple on purpose? Why do you think there is no upper limit at HW? All these years you never asked yourself that.
I was being simple on purpose no seriously, I don't think you understand what you are saying or the concept of size, that's probably why you are so confused all the time on this forum :good for instance, how can you be so awful at ignoring me? How hard is it? Flop Mate :deal
It's a factor that should be considered. For example I rate Eder Jofre as a greater fighter than Louis, but I would favour Louis to win prime for prime. That's extreme but where do we draw the line? I rate Robinson greater than Charles but prime for prime I'd favour Charles to win. At some point size advantage is able to overcome weight advantage. An example at HW, I class Jersey Joe as a better p4p fighter than George Foreman but Foreman is too big for him and would beat him. I seem to get the impression people think comparisons between greats is fine, they take umbrage with say a match up between Fitzsimmons and Briggs. To me it's patently obvious that Briggs knocks him out in round 1 and walks right through him. That's a combination of size and skill (for me, Fitz looks awful on film). Gets harder for me with say Marciano vs Briggs as Rocky is a better fighter p4p for me but not enough to give up 60 pounds of weight. At that point I say I favour Rocky, assuming he bulks up to about 205 pounds. Because 185 pounds of Rocky is not beating 245 pounds of Briggs.
Nobody disputes that size matters, the disagreement seems to be how much you can hang on it. Where hypothetical fights are concerned, you should judge it on a case by case basis, and ask the following questions: 1. Does history lead us to believe that this sort of size disparity can be overcome at this level? 2. Do the styles of the participants make this a likely scenario? 3. Does the smaller fighters track record lead us to think that they are likely to overcome this sort of size disparity? The possible answers to these questions are: 1. Yes or no. 2. Yes, no, or arguably. 3. Yes, no, or it doesn’t prove anything either way.
Mr.DagoWop; Most of the old time big men lacked skills. Willard, Fulton, Simon, et all do not compare skill-wise to modern skilled super heavyweights like Bowe, Lewis, or Klitschko. Just look at the films. The last sub 210-pound ring Magazine champion was Mike Spinks, and 30 years has passed. Heavyweight boxing has evolved into a game of long ranged artillery and mobile feet. Smaller fighters simply can not get into range to land often enough. The 6 footers theses days are bringing a knife to a sword fight. The final four in the Olympic super heavyweight division were all 6'5" or taller, and the current champions in Fury, Wilder and Joshua are very big men who can box and punch. It is what it is. My theory is size matters big time. A super heavy with skills is essentially 2-3 weight classes above a 210 pounder. Having said that a smaller fighter if he has good power and good durability can certainly win, but he'll need an attacking type of style because out pointing a much bigger man with skills on the outside isn't very likely.
Don't you think it's puzzling how Heavyweights near enough never get mentioned as p4p greats yet they are the ones doing the most impressive jobs and proving it for real, not in a what if bout... take Evander Holyfield for example, fighting men over 30lbs heavier than himself and winning. He deserves to be on every p4p list....
