Minimum height for a heavyweight?

i agree with what you're saying, tho on the details he in fairness more than deserved to beat valuev.

 

Marciano went 49-0 and i believe that about 42 of his opponents were bigger than him, same goes for Tyson, Frazier, Tommy Burns

 

Anyone who thinks that a prime Mike Tyson up to an including the Michael Spinks fights would not be a nightmare against the 6 foot 5+ super heavys is out of their minds.

It is more difficult for someone who is 5 10 to be a champion at HW but that doesnt mean they cant be competitive at the highest level.

In general though you need to be around 6 foot 3, to not be at a disadvantage.

 

This isn’t the case. Ali at 6’2” basically had average height for a heavyweight for his time, since even in the 60’s most of his opponents were usually 6’1” to 6’3” with a few exceptions such as opponents being under 6’1” and over 6’3”. This was also the case even in the days of Joe Louis, who at 6’1” had about average height for a heavyweight for his time.

Even today there still aren’t that many guys that are legitimately 6’5” in the heavyweight division at the top. 6’2” to 6’3” is about the average height for most heavyweights today, since most of the guys in the current heavyweight division are over listed by an inch or two. A legitimately 6’4” to 6’5” heavyweight is still a tall heavyweight and a guy legitimately over 6’5” is still a giant in boxing.

The only current top heavyweight that has had very consistent height listings throughout both their amateur and pro career seems to be Joshua, since he was consistently listed as 6’5.5” and now as a pro is listed at 6’6”, which isn’t a big deal.

But, a guy like Ortiz was 6’2” throughout his amateur career, but once he turned pro he was suddenly 6’4”.

 

I can't be bothered going through all of Ali's no-name early opponents, but he was visibly taller than 9 out of his 10 1960s title fight opponents, Liston (x2), Cooper, Patteson, Chuvalo, London, Mildenburger, Williams, Folley. He was smaller than Ernie Terrell. A guy these days who was taller than 9 out of 10 heavyweight title opponents [unless they were very carefully picked for shortness] would IMO be around 6'5", maybe taller, I stand by that.

 

People say that because you are simply wrong in every aspect. Lennox lewis and bowe were 6'5/6'4. Valuev was 7ft or something. Holyfield beat Bowe on one occasion despite having a 30 lb disadvantage and was competitive with him on two occasions. When Holyfield lost to Lennox Lewis he was 36/37, hardly a prime holyfield we are seeing .. He also very arguably beat Valuev.

 

Ah ok so he even has a 1-5 records against 6‘5 opposition.
The thing is holyfield couldn't beat any of those guys the clear way he beat so many opponents that were his size or only slightly bigger then him. How could he have a chance against those big behemoths with ko percentages of 90% or more?

 

Why?

 

That's coz Bowe and Lewis would mop the floor with today's crop.

 

I think the emergence of the CW division has had the knock-on effect of spawning the so-called super heavyweights. Before then, guys who were naturally around 6ft and 200llbs would have no option than a career at HW. Now, many of these guys boil down to be a 'big-at-the-weight' CW, leaving the HW division to the really big men who dominate now.

It's not that these smaller guys couldn't cut it at HW still, it's just they now have an option. Even stepping up to HW later in their careers isn't the same as being a career-long HW as their bodies, training and styles have become conditioned to the requirements of competing at the lighter weight.

It's not that greater height and weight are not advantages - they clearly are - but they're not insurmountable. No way can anyone realistically make the case Tyson would not be competitive in today's era. Maybe not dominant, but without doubt competitive...