Who was the biggest fighter of these three?

I find it very hard to believe Tyson had 18 inch calves that were 2 inch bigger than his biceps.

 

WTF does "breh" mean? Yes I do say you are doing this for Marciano and several others believe it too!

Want to know why I included that bit on Dempsey?
Happy to oblige,you've had a crusade going here for some time now,[it actually seems like years] defending old time greats against non-existant attacks. I mentioned Dempsey because I wanted to show I don't downplay Marciano's chances against modern heavies because of size alone.
Unlike you "Rockista's ,"who when asked how Rocky would beat modern super heavies say ,"he would find away,his short stature would work in his favour,his tiny reach would be an asset" and other sheer bollocks like that,I actually itemized where I thought Dempsey was superior to Marciano and therefore why he would have more success today!
You have committed no crime ,just the sin of underestimating the intelligence of the rest of the Forum!

 

Joe Louis did too. Find that hard to believe as well?

 

Yep I do, Tyson had chicken legs for calves.

 

First off, that wasn't Louis best weight, nor his prime weight. Second, if anybody isn't saying Wilder is the biggest, they need to do a little soul searching on why they're being obtuse about such a simple question. There is no doubt what so ever that Wilder is the biggest of the group, and by a good margin. Just ask yourself, if you met all of them face to face, who would you come away with thinking the bigger man is. Sometimes it's not that simple, but in this case, it couldn't be more clear.

 

In the new Joe Grim thread Grim stated he had 12.5"biceps and 14" calves and he was only 150lbs!

 

The biceps and calves are normally in proportion, Tyson looked like he had over developed biceps relative to his calves.

 

I'm not sufficiently interested enough to research further ,so I'll leave it there.

 

You problem is when called on it, you were unable to prove evidence of that argument,which you used as a smokescreen to boost your guy Rocky.No argument ,no justification for yet another interminable ,meandering thread
patently slanted towards your obsessive crusade
Naah, I'm not arguing , its just amusing really.Your agenda is," in plain sight",and God knows you post little about anything else! Rockista Rez.lol
McGrain said it best,"it's not important,it doesn't matter."

 

I don't really get where this thread is going with the utmost respect to Rez.

Size is a significant advantage but superior skills will supersede it every day of the week. Superior size aligned with great skills means you're in for a tough night if you're the smaller fellow. Not necessarily insurmountable but difficult never the less.

It's why I'm waiting for Oleksandr Usyk's move to heavyweight with great anticipation. He'll only be a moderate sized heavyweight but his talent is massive and I look forward to seeing him pitting his skills against the giants. I think he'll shock a few big guys too. We won't have seen his like since Holyfield stepped up to heavy (not saying he's as good as Evander but by gee he hasn't done much wrong either) and his entry to an already stacked division will be just another boost for the sport.

 

I feel Usyk would give most of the division a hell of a fight .
He may well beat the likes of Parker,and Pulev,without adding any significant weight.

 

I've argued that many of the best 170--210lb heavyweights of the past likely would've had much harder times fighting during the past forty years than during their own eras (because of the difference in size and fighting styles). But I don't recall ever arguing that there would never be another elite heavyweight under 220lbs again. I don't think I've ever even picked any of the super-heavies over Tyson or Ali...