Who was the biggest fighter of these three?

Louis had a funcional prime weight of 197 - 205. Tyson was 15 pounds heavier, weighting a trimmed 219lb at age 18/19, 221 vs. Berbick/Tucker.

Wilder was skin and bone at 212 1/2 and is arguably bigger than Tyson, fought at trimmed 229. Depends on the endpoint.

Both are significantly bigger than Louis.

 

Louis was the bigger fighter, how can he not be?

 

Bigger and better

 

They're all much smaller men than the heavyweight version of James Toney. These guys would’ve been facing significant size disadvantages against Toney.

 

Height Wilder
Weight Louis
Bulk Tyson

 

Clearly Wilder.

If Chocolatito sprouts a 95lb mole on his ass (Ginny Sac style) is he then bigger than Wilder?

 

Lmao that joke caused so much trouble.

 

None of them are as big as Larry Holmes when he fought Ray Mercer.

 

Trying to stretch the term "significant", or just playn?

 

Big:
adjective, big·ger, big·gest.
large, as in size, height, width, or amount:a big house; a big quantity.

Size:
the spatial dimensions, proportions,magnitude, or bulk of anything:the size of a farm; the size of the fish you caught.

By these definitions it's wilder. He obviously overtrained for the fury fight and his lack of stamina and weight are proof.

Proportionally, he is the tallest with the longest arms if all 3. His average weight is significantly higher than Louis and slightly on par or above a prime Tyson. He has very wide broad shoulders and lean wirey muscles like a giant tommy hearns, he isnt a toothpick.

Louis was pretty flabby in his fights with. Charles and Marciano and that was the most he ever weighed last i checked in his last fight as an old has been fighter so using that as proof of his actual "size" is silly.

Tyson was very bulky with a thick 18' neck, big shoulders and calf muscles for generating power. But his arms were very short, he was shorter in height than all 3 of them, and his average prime weights were somewhere in between Louis and Wilder's by a very small margin. At best he was the 2nd largest of the 3 if we focus more on bulk and girth than height and reach. I recently made a thread explaining how Ken Norton (and other 70's fighters) was a natural 225-230 pound man who trained his ass off to get below 210 for what they thought was the "ideal weight" for peak conditioning for 15 rounds. This is why Norton looked so bulky and shredded compared to "larger" boxers of today like Derek Chisora or flabby Chris Arreola. It's hard to make a case for tyson being the "bigger" man compared to wilder when we know that wilder is not only taller and longer but he overtrains and rarely eats to the point where he is very underweight for a 6'7 fighter and his average weight is still on par with Tyson's. In other words, his natural frame and muscle mass is higher. Tyson also did some weight training and may have done PEDs as well.

If you want to have an honest conversation about size going by the actual definition of the word and not your feelings/bias, you cant only focus on weight or only focus on physical dimensions. Both approaches are idiotic.

 

Like 29 years old Ali at 227 against Mathis was not significantly smaller than LL. I have no time for this kind of braincrap, read expl. here :

"Louis was pretty flabby in his fights with. Charles and Marciano and that was the most he ever weighed last i checked in his last fight as an old has been fighter so using that as proof of his actual "size" is silly."

 

In his prime he was 15-20 lbs lighter than them. I'd say that's significant.

 

I'm a bit puzzled by Wilder tbh. He's been 229 without the slightest hint of fat, which leads one to believe he'd be severly weakened at 212 lbs as he was against Fury, but he looked fine in terms of stamina and power.