Classic Forum Chat: Size isn't the only factor.

So you mean you'll be ignoring size and focusing exclusively on the other, non-size-related attributes in all heavyweight matchups instead, because a 6'3, 221lb fighter beat Anthony Joshua?

Whatever works for you, but I'm going to continue considering all of the above.

 

I'm just responding to your posts. It's been a fairly logical sequence of exchanges. I've been clear in that I don't think Spinks is a good example, for use in the 'Size isn't the only factor' debate and in the rationale behind that. Simply put, I do not think Spinks, as a heavyweight, can be taken too seriously.

You seem to disagree with this view.


You consider Spinks an ATG Talent.
That's fine. Most would agree, as would I, with this stemming from his LHW career.

You think Tyson's win against Spinks was a great victory.
On balance, I'd agree. But this is based on Tyson's manner of victory and obviously not because I think Spinks was a formidable Heavyweight opponent.


You also write:
"I've never passed off Spinks as a HW talent"

So, just to be clear - are you saying you don't think Spinks was a Heavyweight talent?
And, if Spinks was not a Heavyweight talent, what do you think made it a great victory for Tyson?


And:
"I'm just saying a loss to Tyson really isn't a big deal."

So, just to clarify - you think Tyson's victory over Spinks was great but, at the same time, the manner of Spinks' loss against Tyson isn't noteworthy?

 

Too an extent. You have to remember that Joshua is no Lennox Lewis, or a Vitali, or a prime Wlad and Usyk was 6'3, 221, that would be a big guy compared to Joe Louis or Walcott or Tunney or Dempsey or Marciano, which means just because Usyk succeeded does not mean sub 200 pounders would.

So size being a significant factor is not a void argument considering SHWs better than Joshua dominated the division for a while. In addition to that we have not seen one sub 200 pounder beat an athletic skilled SHW in recent years although elite 200-220 guys like Ali, Holyfield, and Tyson can overcome the size disadvantage.

 

That's fine - But, please stop with the 'I don't/didn't know what you're going on about' line. All conversations start somewhere and evolve through participation and it's not unusual for tangents to be explored along the way. You had been replying to several of my posts, over several pages, with direct counterpoints, examples and analogies, before becoming 'confused'.

And, given the thread's topic, I'd have thought Spinks entering the discussion was quite opportune - A highly-skilled operator, who moved up from 175, but who might well have been compromised due to his size, amongst the top HW players, in his time.

My mistake, but never mind.

 

What would you nominate as his 10 best wins? I'll help start you off -

1. Holyfield
2. Holyfield

 

Thomas, Cooper, Biggs, Tubbs, Seldon, Coetzer, Dokes, Hide - all good/decent HWs.

 

Thomas had lost 3 of his last 4 including a virtual shutout to a guy 14-2-2. Well past his best. Thomas was not even close to rated.

Cooper ha lost 4 fights in the previous 2 years or so and was soundly outpointed by Mercer right before he fought Bowe. Not even close to rated.

Biggs had lost 3 in a row over the previous 4 years and beaten nobody of note since. Unrated.

Tubbs is probably the best at the time they fought so far but still unrated.

Seldon was stopped by the unrated McCall previous fight. Unrated.

Coetzer never beat a single top 10 contender that i know of. Unrated.

Dokes was a decade past his peak. Unrated.

Hide.....finally a top 10 rated opponent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Never amounted to much of anything however.

So far he have three top 10 rated guys with two of them being Holyfield.

You can't make this stuff up.

 

It doesn't matter how they were ratted. A boxer ranked 20 in his era might be better than someone ranked top 10 in another era.
But since you don't even see Bowe as top 20 (btw for me he's top 10 easy), please do tell me your top 20 HWs, that rank before him.
Don't bother with the order, in order to spare time, since the order is not that important right now. I'm just curious who you can possibly have in front of him.

 

Having Bowe outside of top 20 is... very reasonable. His resume is extremely thin to say the least. Outside of his Holyfield fights, it's almost non-existant.

 

Ok, so we're not talking greatness, but head to head?

Even head to head, beating ranked contenders is a pretty good indicator of where a fighter stands compared to others of his own era. (There's no more accurate ranking mechanism than actually letting two fighters go at it and see what happens.)

So when a fighter avoids fighting the best of his era, we can't comfortably rate him higher head-to-head than his contemporaries and/or fighters of adjacent eras of similar quality.

So I guess the first question is, which eras do you consider comparable to Bowe's in contender quality?

 

Not an expression I used,I think he went for the easiest option of the two which isn't quite the same thing.Cherry picking is what Wilder has done for the greater part of his "reign".