"But superheavyweights back then were BAD!"

Yeah, part of the argument is that a lot of big men probably back could have made better use of their size advantages with modern tactics and technique.

 

I think I read that the Great Depression combined with WW2 and its aftermath caused nutrition to fall by the wayside for several years.

 

Primo Carnera was trained by Abe Attell.

If you think that Abe Attell did not teach him some decent boxing fundamentals, then I submit that he was probably incapable of being taught.

 

No. I think that when big men don't use their size advantages properly, their much smaller opponents' advantages in speed, agility, aggression, skill, etc. become far more impactful. Fighting small nullifies some of your biggest advantages while magnifying those of your opponents.

 

I do say that both big men and small men had poor technique compared to modern boxers.

 

What do you mean by "sucked at fighting small"?

And just to be clear, I never claimed that it was a "skill-free environment."

 

I would also think after the 40s the rise of other sports started taking away some of these other giants. This is just a guess though as I don't have any data to back this up

 

No, he was only 15 lbs lighter than the Lewis who at the same age iced Ruddock.

15 lbs isn't insignificant, but it's certainly something a 6'5 man can put on with the help of weights and PEDs without much problems.

 

Leaner. I'd say. He was as lean as you can get. A 1992 Lewis that lean would perhaps not be more than 222 lbs.

Not saying Terrell would be as powerful as Lewis just because he put on 10 more lbs, mind you. But a Terrell with a couple of years with Shilton... He'd probably give a good many modern HWs a lot to think about.