No boxer shorter than 6 foot 4 inches would be favorite to beat modern super heavyweights

My original post was about George Foreman dominating the smaller heavyweights because of his size, of being the bigger heavyweight. And pointing out that the heavyweights were of Cruiserweight size, especially the 60s. You didn't name 30 boxers from the 70s 6ft 5 plus, because there were none.

Oh damn. What a pathetic individual.

 

Well spotted.

 

The classicists should really be pumping up Usyk. If Usyk, with his lack of size and lack of power, can dominate at HW, it would be an argument in favor of Ali or Holmes having a chance. I give him virtually no such chance, but if it happened, at least I'd admit it's a good data point for the classicists. I can promise you virtually no classicist would admit that it is a good data point for our side, though.

When you look back at dominant HW champs, virtually all of them have either been taller than average or harder hitting than average. I guess that is just coincidence for those that think Ali or Holmes, both of whom relied on their size, could beat the modern shws.

 

Didnt D Haye beat a 7ft 2 HW champ who had a decent resume

 

But you've also stated that Johan Duhaupas is better than Luis Ortiz for allegedly performing better vs Wilder.

So to you it's Duhaupas >>> Ortiz >>> Ibeabuchi?

 

1923- Keith Underhill vs Ignatius Updyke. 30 rounds at HW .Toaster championship. 5'8 vs 6'7.

 

I kind of agree with this thread but don't at the same time. I would peg the height at 6'2". I would also say that the shorter you are the better skills you need to have and if you're around 6'2" and below you need to be an expert at boxing. So that leaves room for a Holyfield and prime Mike Tyson and the like but they trained from an early enough of a age to get the requisite skills, of the type of that's lacking in today's era. Another big reason why I think this is the case is that the knowledge and gameplans for a taller fighter to beat a smaller fighter is much more robust and easier to execute than vice versa. Just look at the insane stamina and energy it took to do what Mike Tyson and Holyfield did against bigger fighters. On top of the skill that's difficult to learn, having that level of stamina and energy is as hard to replicate. Needing to have heavyweight power is also a must. I mean there's so many reasons why I kind of agree with the OP but for different reasons. I do believe a lot of all time greats would struggle even with the skill gap, not all of them, but some of them would.

 

This content is protected

 

Size is a advantage. However i am sure on their best nights even these so called small HW could trouble the modern day giants. Bert Cooper , Ray Mercer, Michael Moorer and even Tommy Morrison.

 

This. The big problem with small heavyweights is that too many of them are lazy today. A 6'6" heavyweight can get away with being fat and lazy on fight night, but a 5'10" or 6'0" heavyweight needs to always be in top condition to be effective.

Mike Tyson around 218-220 was a hard man to beat, but when he started showing up around 230-240 he was an easy target for guys much taller guys and started getting knocked out.

 

I'm not sure which is more disturbing:

This monstrosity of a post, or the posters who have liked it.

 

In the 6 years that I've been a member, this surely has to be one of the worst threads I've ever seen.

This guy is either trolling or he's an absolute nut.

He doesn't deserve the time of day.

 

This content is protected

I just thought this video was really well done and appropriate for this thread. I love Joe but he was 6'2 just a shade under 200, basically a cruiserweight. AJ, Fury, Wilder are all absoule monsters in comparison. Sure Louis could have a chance but I'd put my money on the giants.