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

So what? What's that supposed to prove? 3 losses out of 69 bouts against such opponents. What's the percentage there?

 

Those ancient, pre-1980 'heavyweightts', who by modern standards would really be blown up light heavyweights / cruiser weights, have never faced anything like modern super heavyweights, analogous to Anthony Joshua, Tyson Fury and the Klitschkos. They hold 0 wins over such guys.

In fact, I'd favor most cruiser weights of today to wipe the floor with those overrated 'ancient', 'nostalgic', blown up cruiser weights / light heavyweights before 1980 who pretended to be heavyweights in past eras. Just like how I would favor some of the cruiser weights of today, to totally annihilate, school, embarrass and humiliate the fake heavyweight in Alexander Povetkin who is pretty much pretending to be a heavyweight as a heavyweight pretender, when his real weight division is probably 2 weight divisions below at light heavyweight.

 

No, skills become irrelevant when the smaller guy is out sized by a significant functional size. Equal skills only apply when two guys are the same size. Povetkin is arguably more skilled than Joshua, but that won't matter because the size, strength and power advantages belong to Anthony Joshua by such an astronomical margin, that he could arguably just walk through Povetkin without feeling anything but a scratch whilst Povetkin may arguably feel like he is getting hit by a bat from every punch. When power, size and strength between two boxers are even, only then does that bout turn into a bout of who is more skilled.

 

Didn't take one of the sub-6'4" ATG's to do it.

 

I didn't mention anything about ATG's.

 

you mean proportionate advantage helps, not simply an sum weight extra. Thats why the weight divisions increase in range as size rises...they arent based on size, but proportions.

 

The weight percentage difference between Povetkin and Joshua is greater than between Lomachenko and Rigondeaux. But a lot of people had no problems classifying that fight as a mismatch (mostly after the fight was over). And those same people were not willing to give Lomachenko credit for his victory over Rigondeaux for that reason.

So why should Joshua deserve any credit either for beating Povetkin? Why should Povetkin vs Joshua be any different?

 

if you mean rigo at his best weight then no....its 4.5 % between josh n pov, but betwen rigos best weight class and loma it is more than double that %.

If you mean there was less of a difference % when LOma and Rig were both in the SAME division - well, genius they were in the same division, of course their weights are closer there! They have to be within narrow bounds to BE IN THAT DIVISION. You cannot be stupid enough to be making that claim, so I guess you cant mean that.

Which brings me to ask, why did you write that lie?

 

Your looking for the basketball thread

 

I just did.

 

So Foreman (220), Frazier ( 215), Ali (217) and a few others could all have made 175 for same day weigh-in if they'd only put in a bit of effort ?

And Frazier, Ali, Holmes, Foreman et al would get blown out by the likes of Lebedev, Usyk Briedis and Tabiti.

I see.

Carry on...

 

So how did anything you typed, address my points?

 

http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Shaquille+O+Neal+Deontay+Wilder+Fanatics+Super+br5dJVD_vByl.jpg

 

On fight night, Lomachenko weighed 137 pounds whilst Rigondeaux weighed 130 pounds. That's merely a 7 pound weight difference. That's also only a 5.38% weight difference in terms of percentage. Not to mention, both Lomachenko and Rigondeaux have roughly the same amount of functional weight (both have relatively a similar amount of body fat percentage).

Meanwhile, Povetkin's average weight is 227 pounds (also consisting of non-functional weight such as greater fat percentage than Joshua) whilst Joshua's average weight is 249 pounds. That's a 22 pound weight difference. That's also a 9.69% weight difference in terms of percentage.

So the size difference between Joshua and Povetkin is significantly / astronomically greater than the size difference between Lomachenko and Rigondeaux.

Also, Joshua is about 5 inches taller than Povetkin whilst Lomachenko was only 2 or 3 inches taller than Rigondeaux. And Joshua has a 7 inch reach advantage over Povetkin (82 > 75) whilst Lomachenko had the shorter reach than Rigondeaux.

So in every which way in terms of size. Whether it's based on weight difference in terms of pounds, weight difference in terms of percentage, height difference and reach difference. The size difference between Joshua and Povetkin is astronomically / significantly greater than the size difference that was between Lomachenko and Rigondeaux. In other words, Joshua has a SIGNIFICANTLY / ASTRONOMICALLY greater size advantage over Povetkin than Lomachenko had over Rigondeaux. Lomachenko and Rigondeaux are closer in size than Joshua and Povetkin are.

 

This. Foreman actually had to cut down even back in the 70's to be around 218-220. Foreman could've easily fought at 235 to 240, but his coaches knew he was fighting a lot of guys that were quick on their feet.

Also, Ali even in the late 60's had to train very diligently to stay between 210-220. Even in the early 70's Ali would sometimes fight around 230lbs and was still very mobile, but was at his best around 215-220.

Frazier had to do miles and miles of roadwork and train like a complete maniac to come in between 205-210, which he wasn't able to do consistently after the FOC and regularly came in at 215+ after 1971.

Foreman, Ali, and Frazier would've never been cruiserweights.

Marvis Frazier, who regularly weighed in around 198-200 chimed in on smaller guys fighting at heavyweight.

FNU: The reason that there are weight classes in sports like boxing and high school/ college wrestling is because size matters. It takes an exceptional athlete to compete against the very best athletes who have a distinct size advantage. Do you think that in professional boxing, it would make sense to have a super heavyweight division?

Marvis: There is the cruiserweight division for guys under 200 pounds. But if you are 201 pounds, you have to compete against guys who might weigh 250 pounds. There were guys that big in the past – there’s just more of them today. But they don’t have the speed and mobility that a 210 pound fighter has. You have to take advantage of that.

FNU: If you, today, were able to advise the young prospect Marvis Frazier of the 1980s, would you suggest that he consider competing in the cruiserweight division?

Marvis: No! Oh, no! Stay heavyweight! Because every last guy I beat was a heavyweight. From my days as an amateur at 56 and 2, and as a professional at 19 and 2, I was beating heavyweights. I don’t think that’s any reason to fight at cruiserweight.

Marvis had wins over James Smith, Joe Bugner, and James Broad, who were all big heavyweights.

Chris Byrd in his prime was avoided like a plague.

Byrd 213lbs vs. Puritty 247 lbs

This content is protected

Byrd toyed with Puritty, who would go on to completely crush a prime Wlad.

Byrd 210 lbs vs. Vitali 244 lbs

This content is protected

Byrd used his speed and mobility to make Vitali look stiff and robotic and had Vitali punching down at him, which gassed Vitali out. Vitali couldn't handle the adversity and submitted. Most giant heavyweights if pushed to the limit will crumble, but many of the smaller heavyweights today rarely come good condition.

A prime Jimmy Young would give any top modern heavyweight a run for their money or even beat them.