Does ability count even just a little bit?

Reading some of these heavyweight threads it seems not. Bigger is better 95% of the time; weight is insurmountable(unless you are Ali).

Isn't it just possible that a good enough fighter can overcome a size discrepancy?

Is it beyond the realms of possibility that Jimmy Ellis could beat Frank Bruno or Max Schmeling flattens David Haye? Is that what we are really saying?

Is size such a game changer that we overlook the fact that the current Heavyweight Champion is on film uppercutting himself in the face?

Is every fighter of the same weight identical in attributes? Is every big heavyweight a big puncher?

It's getting ridiculous, now.

 

Lots of good heavyweights would beat David Haye, quite possibly the most overrated fighter in the history of boxing message boards.

Anyway, I don't think people on the classic forum view size as THAT big of a deal. I mean, usually a great big guy like Lewis will be picked over a great smaller guy like Louis or Marciano.

But Louis will get picked over plenty of bigger HWs who aren't great fighters. For instance, I think Tyson's first reign of opponents, good but not great fighters (or faded greats like Holmes and the great LHW Spinks), pretty much everyone would pick a great smaller guy like Louis over them.

Frank Bruno was mentioned, and Tyson is a prime example of overall ability overcoming size.

But when they are roughly equal in ability, then it's hard not to pick the guy with a couple of inches and 30 lbs advantage.

 

Yes, Jimmy Ellis is likely to beat Frank Bruno, and Max Schmeling would beat David Haye.

Tyson Fury seems to be an improvement on Wlad Klitschko, since his uppercut to his own face was done in an early fight, whereas Klitschko was doing it in his 67th fight !

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLW2oA_FkSU[/url]

 

Size matters, that much I believe. But so does talent. The way I see it, success is no accident. If I fighter managed to beat all comers for an extended period of time, succeeding against multiple styles, then that fighter probably would have been successful in other eras as well.

So yes, Ali, who faced and beat everyone and proved his superiority over the field during two decades deserves to be favored in most match ups.

But the same goes for Joe Louis. The man beat boxers, punchers, swarmers and what have you. It wasn't just a lucky accident that he ruled the division for so long. I would favor him in most match ups as well, because unlike most of the ”head to head monsters” that catch peoples attention, Louis actually proved his greatness in the real world.

 

I don't know anyone who would include Valuev in their All Time top ten.:think

 

You know what I mean though, Mac. Weight is thrown into the argument as if it ends all debate by a few on here. I don't deny it is a factor, I get the idea, but it ****es me off when it's the overriding one.

I used Frank Bruno as an example. Bruno was bigger than many of the old timers(especially late in his career when he got huge), but I can't see him beating many of the really good ones.

But there are some posters who would say "Bruno weighed 235 lbs for such and such a fight" and utterly discount a smaller heavyweight from beating him. One person in particular eliminates any boxer pre 1980's from victory against later fighters full stop.

I'm not on about reasonable posters who bring up size in a top notcher like Lennox Lewis as a factor in match ups, I'm referring to the "size is everything" crew.

 

He was briefly stunned!

 

Yes I basically agree with you unless the disparity is huge, and the bigger guy is pretty decent himself.
It's question of degrees imo .

 

Many think I'm crazy for saying the likes of Marciano, and Dempsey, would rule the division today. People always say, they're to small. But they forget that neither man came in at their natural weight, and more importantly both beat plenty of big fighters themselves. Marciano beat fighters weighing up to 254 pounds! Dempsey beat fighters weighing up to 245 pounds. So it's not the impossibility everyone makes it out to be. They also faced much better competition by far.

 

There is more to it but size is a factor.

Take Roman Gonzalez. I think it's fairly likely he will go down as the goat from FLW and below with how complete a fighter he is.

As he moves up in weight he would get to a point where someone beats him not because they are better (this guy is potentially p4p number 1) but because they are bigger.

Marciano beat Johnny Shkor who was massive. But Shkor was a fringe contender, a gatekeeper. Would Marciano beat Tony Thompson? Would he beat a Pulev? Would he beat a Fury? Would he beat a Klitschko? Would he beat a Lewis? It's a leap of faith either way.

Anyone weighing 190 will struggle against the Rock but the heavier the opponent gets the better chance of success they have, assuming they have the ability to neutralise him with size alone.

For my money though, I'd back him to beat Fury.

 

Great post.

Of course everyone recognizes that ability matters. It seems that some people want to (selectively) ignore or trivialize size altogether though.

 

Heck yes, skills on offense and defense count at heavyweight. There has not been a tenured lineal champion without top skills in decades.

But skills alone won't guarantee success at heavyweight.

Size, durability, power, and stamina matter.

 

Imagine a guy like Jeffries today. He'd annihilate the division.

 

He seems to have been a tad bit overrated. Or maybe he can bounce back from this.

 

Nah not for me. Just an older fighter in a bigger weight class.

Everyone has their limitations.