Where do you draw the line at Heavyweight vs Super Heavyweight ?

And I agree with you. Don’t you think, in light of them being true descendants of the classic sized 215lb heavyweight on the night, these champions (Usyk and Gassiev) deserve the EXTRA prestige of being heavyweight champion?

On the night they are bigger than heavyweight Amatuers. That makes them heavyweight.

 

If I get into a conversation about boxing with a stranger in a bar, I will just say that I have never heard of East Side Boxing!

 

I would buy you a drink for sure. In fact, I would buy all of you a drink anyway.

 

With Dempsey...there was a big heavyweight in his own generation who was by far the best of the big bunch...and Dempsey never fought him (wills)

So while Dempsey gets credit for dominating old Willard Fulton firpo...there was a chance for jack to prove himself against a true powerful athletic talented big man so we could find out how great he was.

In louis’s Case, he beat the best big men of his era..he didn’t miss out on any of them.

Neither Louis or Dempsey faced anyone with even close to the level of skill athleticism and power of a Lewis Klitschko Bowe Joshua Wilder or Fury

 

Agreed...I mean Marciano has no chance against a Joshua

Dempsey has no chance against a fury

Too much size and talent


What do you think about 220lb Jeffries struggling with 165lb men like Choynski and Fitzsimmons?

Could you imagine any 165lb men going 10-20 rounds with a Tyson Liston foreman or even a Bowe?

 

Whilest i understand your point, i definitely cant agree with it. The heavyweight championship should always be the ultimate prize diluting as we have done over the last 30 to 40 years is what has the sport struggling nowadays.

There are a number of reasons for the weight increase (no one really knows). Some include rule changes, a natural tendency to follow and imitate the last great champion (Ali's jab and Dance evolved to Tysons power game which evolved to Wlads Jab and Grab, less fights with more time between them blowing up all fighters, steroids/nutrition, multiple weight divisions, increased population etc.

I have long had a theory that the bigger fighters, as a general rule exist and rule when the talent pool is lower. When boxing was the only sport around, the good fighters were smaller. as other sports grew and started to take away the best athletes, the fighters got bigger. This started to get particularly bad around the time of the MMA (or whatever it is called) fad came in and stole even more of the potential talent pool.

I also think that the massive number of weight divisions is a major problem and the fact that their are better (and easier) ways to make money than by competing at heavyweight nowadays. Why would a good light heavy ever want to rise in weight to fight as a heavy, their are bigger money fights in his own division. i think the cruiserweights, the heavyweights etc have all taken the prestige away from the heavys, and this will only drop further with name changes etc. And it makes it harder for modern fighters to become great as there always more unknowns.

Joe louis was the greatest fighter ever, maybe, but how great would he have been if his first loss to Schmelling had been an eliminator to the WBO title, and if he then only fought once or twice every year or two or if Max Baer had followed his loss to Braddock with another 7 or 8 WBA title defences against mandatory contenders like say Wright, Foord, Farr, Galento, Commiskey, and a few other guys who managed to go 28 and 0 against limited opposition. Or if Primo Himself had destroyed the big guys like Trammell and others who were around but refused to give Joe Louis a shot because Louis had concentrated on trimming down to the prestigous cruiserweight division which was now called heavyweight division. Wouldnt we now be having discussions of how great Baer, Carnera and Trammel were compared to Joshua, Wilder and Parker? I couldnt imagine anyone backing Joe Louis to beat the great Baer, because we have weight divisions for a reason. I suppose at best he might eventually manufacture himself into a Holyfield style fringe top 10 atg with his late run which culminate an IBF title fight with Abe Simon and win over fellow heavyweight Buddy Baer, but like Roy Jones Jr,i see him being exposed with his return to cruiser in a losing effort against Ezzard Charles and Joe Walcott.

IMO, the only way to fix things up is take away the politics and make some serious changes. The first step is i think is a lineal rankings system. At the very least, this system should be used for the heavyweight division. The first organisation who moves to this will become the number one and possibly the only surviving organisation, imo. If this concept was promoted by all, particularly the media, it would force fighters to make exciting fights and it actually would be exciting to watch fighters climb through the ranks and test themselves in fights with meaning. The best part is that we would still have our 5 big fighters, who could make big money and get popularity like they do now, but we would also know who the real no 1 (and top contenders) are so it would actually make the same fights seem much more deserving and exciting.

I would also ensure that all other title holders are actually included in rankings, so it at least puts pressure on champions to fight and unify all the time. I haven t looked at the rankings but how the number one contender for Anthony Joshuas fight is anyone but Deontay Wilder is beyond me. And how their mandatory fighters are not the same is also hard to believe. Certainly i dont see how anyone could rank above Povetkin and Parker at the moment. I really wonder whether a system like this would see the Cruiserweights dominate the rankings as they could earn their rank with out size or politics affecting it and without being penalised for switching divisions.

I think scoring is another problem. There is too much politics. I think open cards might at least make a bit of a difference. If Fighters knew what they were doing was not impressing the judges, they could at least try to do something different. If a judge was giving stupid bias decisions, at least give the crowd chance to influence him (why not it happens in all sports anyway). I also wonder whether the time has come to deduct a compulsory 3 or even 5 points for a knock down. Maybe even solely score the fights on knockdowns. ie One knock down wins the fight, zero knock downs results in a No Decision fight. Judges decisions dont even mean anything anymore anyway and they only create controversy.

 

I heard Bowe say on more than one occasion that no one hurt him as bad as Hide. I even heard him say Hide basically hit him so hard that he was out on his feet and then the follow up punch woke him back up.

Hide clearly ran out of gas now maybe that was because of the shear size of Bowe or maybe Herbie was just overcome by too much nervous energy in the moment and wore himself out.

Bowe never really even landed many a heavy punch to my memory, all the knock downs were kind of odd as Hide just seemed to be completely exhausted and unable or unwilling to stay upright.

I’ll stick to my guns on this argument, size alone doesn’t win fights. Smaller guys can beat bigger guys and Vice versa. Bowe was impossible to finish, see the 2nd Golota fight he took a horrific beating. So I don’t think his size was the reason he beat Hide. Size can obviously work to your advantage if you know how to use your advantages but I still believe the Holyfield’s and Tyson’s and Joe Louis and many others would be champions if fighting in their prime’s today.

 

No! They are cruiserweights

 

I like the divisions as they are.

But if there HAD to be a cut off line, about 220lb would be it.

 

Yes the current generation of super heavyweights are superior to those that went before.

On the flip side of the coin, the big heavyweights of the past were not exactly losing in competitive efforts due to their size.

If Dempsey and Louis struggled with that kind of fighter stylistically, then wouldn't they have done at least as well as the smaller heavyweights of the era?