Why does size matter?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Mr.DagoWop, Aug 25, 2016.


  1. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,551
    47,093
    Mar 21, 2007
    No; that is not what I said. I said that most great heavyweights fall within it just now. Lewis and Wladimir both fall outside it (at a guess; it's not something i'm actually going to spend any time looking it).

    Not hopefully; definitely. Even if boxing only lasts another 50 years, there will be more great heavies.

    Things don't need improving. It's in your mind.
     
  2. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,639
    Dec 31, 2009
    if being "harder to beat" is as high value as being "great" then there is nothing wrong with heavyweight boxing right now.

    i just dont think fans in the future are going to chose watching the reign of klitchko over the reign of Joe Louis.
     
  3. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,561
    Nov 24, 2005
    How are you going to be great if you're not hard to beat ??
     
    Wass1985 likes this.
  4. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,639
    Dec 31, 2009
    There's great for being "great" and then there is great for "being hard to beat".



    which do you like best?
     
  5. Wass1985

    Wass1985 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,436
    2,839
    Feb 18, 2012
    It's not rocket science to work out why fighters are that bit heavier for their height than they were back in the days of Louis and co.....
     
    choklab likes this.
  6. Wass1985

    Wass1985 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,436
    2,839
    Feb 18, 2012
     
  7. mostobviousalt

    mostobviousalt Active Member banned Full Member

    519
    103
    Jun 4, 2016
    Bobby Chacon is greater than Mayweather?
     
  8. Mr.DagoWop

    Mr.DagoWop Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    8,129
    1,762
    Jul 1, 2015
    If adding weight helps increase chin then why did Jake Lamotta get knocked down at light heavyweight but not middleweight? He fought Sugar Ray Robinson like 5 times and plenty of other great fighters including Marcel Cerdan. They couldn't floor him once.
     
  9. Wass1985

    Wass1985 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,436
    2,839
    Feb 18, 2012
    Have a good think about that for a minute.....
     
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,551
    47,093
    Mar 21, 2007
    Being hard to beat is absolutely unarguably the key to being great.

    You are right about that; just as fans in the future aren't going to watch the reign of any defensive specialist over the reign of the greatest puncher in the history of any other division.
     
  11. mostobviousalt

    mostobviousalt Active Member banned Full Member

    519
    103
    Jun 4, 2016
    Because there are more factors at play.

    One of those is Nicardo being a harder puncher than Ray.
     
    Wass1985 likes this.
  12. Mr.DagoWop

    Mr.DagoWop Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    8,129
    1,762
    Jul 1, 2015
    Nardico*

    Not really. Robinson was a better puncher at middleweight than Nardico was at light heavyweight. Robinson probably hit harder than Nardico h2h anyway. Outside of Lamotta, Nardico didn't knock out really anyone of note other than Reynolds who was at the end of his career anyway. Just like Lamotta.

    So no Nardico did not hit harder than Robinson.
     
  13. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,639
    Dec 31, 2009
    If that was true just as many people would watch a motorcycle being smashed up with a hammer as they did to watch Evel Knievel trash his bikes in stadiums. the end result is the same to the motorcycle.
     
  14. mostobviousalt

    mostobviousalt Active Member banned Full Member

    519
    103
    Jun 4, 2016
    How many lightheavies did Ray knock down?
     
  15. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,639
    Dec 31, 2009
    I agree. being hard to beat is essential to greatness. There are great fighters who simply put were great. These guys ultimately did great things, great to watch, and were great at being hard to beat. Then there are those guys who wound up being great only because they were so hard to beat. It's just not the same.
    yes nobody will prefer to watch a magnificent defensive specialist over a hacker v Hearns type fight other than real students of clever boxing, but at least they are enjoyed by somebody.

    This SHW period is the dark ages of boxing history.