Does size count even just a little bit?

Yes man has got bigger and bigger as populations historically reached their growth potentials around the world. Technically humans are getting bigger as a whole but this is only as parts of the world "catch up". Numbers increase. There are more people as a whole too.

It's all to do with living conditions improving. Americans towered over everyone whilst their living conditions was the best in the world but after 1960 the US maxed out, the rest of the western world caught up with living conditions and their big people got as big as the Americans then took over as American growth reached a plateau which experts think could have something to do with bad diets, junk food etc.

The Dutch are a healthy nation of cyclists and currently they produce more big people than anyone else head for head but collectively because Holland is only a small nation I would expect the largest quantity of big people to still be in larger nations.

 

4-1. But a lot of folks I knew liked the Spinks chances going in.

But both guys were going in off less than A+ performances; Holmes against Williams and Spinks against Davis. And the consensus was Larry was ripe for the taking at that point in time. But picking the guy moving up in weight based on that Davis effort was no sure thing.

But a good fighter was going to lose the fight. An undefeated champion was going to lose.

 

He might have been the favourite but he was not even close to his prime.

 

I don't see the relevance tbh.

 

I do, would Spinks have beaten Holmes that was 5 years younger? I highly doubt that.

 

So often we get fighters that are ready to be taken for whatever the reason.......and the opponent does not capitalize on that silver platter. I think that is a skill all by itself. Without that skill in his toolbox, Spinks does not win. The ability to capitalize to the degree a guy can win the bout.

 

Hard to say. I don't much like discrediting real life results any more.

I used to all the time, but now I'm a bit more of the mindset that the actual result is as good an indicator as we'd ever get.

Like all these who Tyson would have beaten Douglas 3 years earlier. The man lost, that's that.

 

There's a big difference between the Tyson/Douglas fight and the Spinks/Holmes fight imo.

 

One of the key differences being you would pick Douglas over Tyson prime for prime but Holmes over Spinks prime for prime.

I don't buy excuses like Tyson was unprepared or Holmes was too far gone. Both men lost and should both deal with it.

 

Spinks was big enough to beat Holmes when he beat him and he beat him by adding 25lb of size to his frame within three months in a way that was entirely new within the field of boxing. It was new because it was claimed he had not reduced any speed and was even 1lb leaner even though he was 25lb heavier.

Spinks had overcome a size advantage and the size he developed within just thee months definitely had mattered in that win. He made size matter by developing it in a way that did not exist before. The spinks experiment changed boxing.

Giant boxers could also add speed and size. Size mattered to them to the extent that Giant boxers came more sought after by top trainers like never before.

 

You don't buy excuses

To deal with father time is easier said than done.

 

Wlad is past his best now, would you expect prime Rocky to be able to beat Wlad in April?

 

Stop saying this.

Giant boxers have always been sought after because the old adage has always rang true "a good big man beats a good little man".

If you can make the biggest man good you have a great shot at creating a champion.

Guys like Carnera, Willard were not known for being skilled. They were known for being big.

Most of the changes of championship have happened in part to a man being bigger.

In 100 years time we'll have you're great great grandkids on here talking about how unfair it is that 240 pound fighters are too small to compete.

Ironically I have started watching a lot of UFC lately and the giant Sumo wrestlers were ridiculously outmatched in terms of speed and agility.

We'll never know if that's still the case due to weight classes, but we do know Haye outclassed Valuev with those traits despite being 100 pound lighter. But boxing would not allow a flyweight face a HW with a 100 pound deficit.

As I've said a few times now, if someone is a sub 200 pound fighter they either boil to LHW, exist as was at CW or bulk to HW.

 

So why did they used to say "the bigger they are he harder they fall"

Why wasn't jack Blackburn and Ray Arcel Joe Gore and co not interested in Primo Carnera types?

 

That's also true. Carrying that much weight for a 15 plus round fight is a huge athletic ask, when a man that big gets tired and drops it is a long way up for him.

How do you know they weren't, how do you know they didn't scout men of that size only to be disappointed with those they saw!

More often than not a HW champion will lose to a heavier man. History has taught us this. Evolution means men have got bigger, history has taught us this as well. Men no longer need to prepare for 15 plus rounds, the maximum is now 12. All this means the division will get bigger and bigger and bigger over time.

Fitzsimmons is a great champion but he's not even in a position to be sanctioned for a HW fight today let alone win one.

What's your problem with HW fighters getting bigger anyway?