Why does size matter?

Agreed

Again, the Arcel point has nothing to do with size. Although that would be an interesting separate debate.

 

i clearly said he was the first boxer to refine good feints and combos ...you then said he wasn't a combo puncher? You are a lost cause. and everything you say is usually wrong, you even said I said Max Baer which is another lie.

"Dempsey rarely threw combos and anyone who has seen 5 minutes of footage on him can tell that."

 

My point is Ariel NEVER saw size with skill from 1990 to present, and if he did was too old to comment on it.

The size he saw, Abe Simon, Buddy Bear, Jess Willard, Primo Carnera, would be badly beaten by Bowe, Lewis or either Klitschko.

 

Not sure if there's miscommunication here or what, but again, I brought up Arcel for the Tyson-Dempsey skills point.
Literally nothing to do with size.

But let's talk about it, why not. Arcel did train Buddy Baer.
He also helped Holmes prepare for Cooney.

He wasn't around for the Klitschko-Bowe-Lewis era. But do you think it would've changed his opinion on Dempsey, if Ali, Louis, and Foreman hadn't?

 

Dempsey was a combo puncher in his time that's what he did body hto head or vice versa,he also threw in COMBOS to the head this vid shows that,he only wound up his punch when he had his opponent hury usually. I diodnt give a definition of what is a combination puncher I said he refined it by mixing the punches up more. you can still throw multiple shots in the same spot and that is a combination so I don't know what you are talking about. yes they are better and more creative today obviously .

This content is protected

 

You did. And then I presented examples that discredited your theory.

 

No I already explained this to the other oblivious guy before you jumped in.

 

Yes

 

By the way, @Mendoza...

Do you know of any good interviews about the topic we're discussing?
Do you know if there is a Stewart interview where he talks about pre and post 1990 HWs?
Or anything on the topic besides our own observations?

If you have any good sources, would love to check them out, and learn more about how prominent people in the profession view this.

I've seen Stewart ranking the HW's, and not including Marcaino because of his size. Off the top of your head, can you think of any other interviews where this kind of thing is talked about?

 

Here's what I can tell you.

Stewart actually said he felt Fury would be champion after Wlad. He did not live to see this fight. An amazing prediction.

When he had Lennox Lewis, Stewart said in the past I used to think once a heavyweight grows past 6'3" he losses coordination. Not anymore!

I hardly care for trainer rankings as they are mostly who they have worked with or know well.

Most trainers are not going to comment on size at heavyweight being important. Well, they could but it will limit them making $$$!

 

I literally just saw his interview on Fury!
I never knew that Wlad and Fury slept in Stewarts house and trained under him at the same time.

Do you have a source on that Lennox Lewis bit? It seems like a significant quote.

 

It was mentioned on one of his interviews. I do not have a link to it, but if you look its out there. By saying I used to think heavyweights past 6'3" lost coordination until I meet Lewis, it shows he had an open mind to change his opinion. Flims will prove him correct.

If the key punch in boxing is the jab, the longer the better and the taller you are the hard it is for your opponent to land it.

Boxing lost a lot when Steward passed. He was likely the last great trainer and one without a top level apprentice.