One of the most replaceable HW champs? Sonny Liston?

Tbh J, it's a bloody hard one'.
It's hard because I've got ingrained in my mind, this huge, intimidating guy just smashing through the guy s of the time and ripping the title from Patterson.
I' don't think it's impossible that some lesser known guys could replicate Liston s run but it s unlikely they'd be so successful at it and look so good doing it.
Just my two cents worth.

 

Patterson is shorter, yes, but hear me out.

One of the common heuristic biases is the substitution of a difficult question with an easier one done so without conscious knowledge. Common marketing exploit. For majority of the boxing fanbase the debate of bigger versus smaller fighter will be substituted by who is heavier, bigger, and most notably–who hits harder. We are inescapably wired to seek certain characteristics (large canines, certain body proportions like wide shoulders, sharper jawline) and interpret them within evolutionary defined context. Size and the ability to subdue an opponent through show of physical force is absolutely the most prevailing one when it comes to determining dominance. We are not made for hitting. Not for an elaborate striking at least. We are made for wrestling as a play and typically non-escalating show of prowess (rats that do not practice their own primitive wrestling in their youth are more violent and worse at socializing.) Striking sports are somewhat an affront to nature which seeks to settle the conflicts within the realm of cues, covert and overt threats, and limited shows of violence. Any war theorist focusing on maneuvers, morale, and psychology will tell you how averse we are to close combat unless within that somewhat ritualistic social context. My point being: beware when thinking of size and pounds, because your brain does not think of it through the lenses of the Queensberry rules unless you really pay attention, and even then, it seeks to cut corners. As a James Toney enjoyer I take you as a slickness admirer though, as shoulder roll is the most boxing thing you can find (extremely precise if demanding control of possible target area that would be immensely dangerous against competent grapplers and wrestlers due to its often angled nature with non-existing hand fighting substituted by sharp counters.)

It's a bias fantasy match-ups were diseases with for years. It's absolutely effortless to imagine Wilder landing a right hand, and subconscious fear and one's own inability to be a defensively responsible, slick fighter under the Queensberry rules might further accentuates the 'boxing intuition' or a 'feeling' that the big and sizeable puncher would win. A Dunning-Kruger working his way here. Modern camera work further enhances the effect (Bakole unloading on Ajagba sounded like a thunderstorm, dear Lord) while usually being unflattering to the older fighter (you can't see the explosive, calculated game of feints and inches displayed by the best of older eras, while it becomes apparent in those more up-close shots.) But with defined hitting area, no takedowns, and pushing out or down an opponent not being a scoring criteria, size is far more of a balanced benefit than one would think, which was the leading school of though in the say 30's, when big lads were being refused by trainers because they were looking for sharp, accurate, nimble fighters. Those who could hit, and not get hit. You really ought to look at it from a point of balancing benefits (added punching power, durability, control game and range etc.), drawbacks (greater oxygen demand, far more of a target, limited shot selection up close, typically far worse inside etc.), and the realities of things (added power, yes, but some big lads still hit with padded pillows; some big uns still get rocked by cruisers; some big lads actually outcardio the smaller fighters.) The size itself is often exaggerated in imagination. Googling Lewis-Tua, Ruiz-Joshua (Andy far shorter than advertised) quickly show that the big guy absolutely can get hit, and in fact look vulnerable to a looping right or a sneaky left hand. The logistics behind making a shorter guy the champion are far more demanding because they require the combination of physical attributes and intense training usually coexisting with the shorter prime (Tyson and Frazier needed godlike working ethics to maintain their dominance and performance.) Age is more gentle for bigger men.

Now that I'm done disparaging the giants that would smack me like a fly, time to sing some praise for the short kings—more compact guys can be far more accurate, sneaky, and difficult to score on. They can unload shots that would be noticed and rubber necked or 'deafened' if thrown by a larger or less surgical man. Timing is important (I don't believe Joseph Parker hits any harder than Efe Ajagba, but when he timed an unprepared Martin Bakole he put him down like a misbehaving puppy.)

Now, Floyd is in the height range when you really need to display extraordinary characteristics (Byrd's and Toney's slickness and ability not to die of PED overdose; Tua's, Tyson's and to an extend Frazier's durability, power, and/or cardio) to compete in dense eras in which talent pool was sufficient to find a good batch of accurate, talented large gladiators (especially the Ali/Foreman sized combination of all-around attributes that we see in Usyk, Parker, Dubois who is shorter than advertised, and Kabayel). Patterson I believe had just enough to be a threat to many, but not enough for his career to be somewhat safely profitable for the fighting game standards, or relatively sustainable with the need to slog through some damaging bouts. Still..

Patterson had an all-time great handspeed, combinations, power in both hands, and extremely drilled counterpinching mind. He was the youngest heavyweight champion until Mike Tyson, with the notorious D'Amato drilling, ring intelligence which allowed him to reinvent himself and remain competitive in subsequent era, one in which he was considered an old man. Ali claimed he was the most skilled fighter he's ever faced, didn't he? And the grandmaster Archie, whilst old, was a betting favorite in their bout. Handspeed and power is often the worst enemy of an old master who cannot smother, spoil, school, and eventually drown him like he would to a more limited puncher. It's also the worst enemy of an overthinking, hands low boxer-puncher that Luis Ortiz can be. Jimmy Ellis, who is far less of a target, less plodding, and noticeably more slick than Ortiz, was repeatedly caught off-guard by an older Patterson, who busted his nose and flabbergasted him with his handspeed.

Patterson could get dropped, but so could Ortiz. Floyd could still be surprisingly hard to land clean on, and the fighters who got to him were often great counterpunchers, very accurate and sneaky, or a just destroyers like Sonny Liston (Jesus, that jab.) Conversely Patterson could box circles and unload as well, and he's had enough to impress '72 Ali who despite being faded compared to their previous bouts, was far more explosive, creative, quick-handed and fast-footed compared to Ortiz who is often plodding, pawing, and pondering, looking for a good counterpunch which is understandable given his Cuban background. On another negative note, Ortiz is also chinny and has fought a very limited amount of fighters (late starter and perhaps avoided, sure) and I doubt would replicate the success Floyd enjoyed through his career if he's taken on as many challenges as Patterson did after parting ways with Constantine D'Amato.

Bottom line, I think Patterson sneaks in a right hand followed by a combination, and shakes Ortiz. He frustrates, lulls, and explodes and him when he is setting-up counters, and lands flush, following up. Luis is a live dog, but one I would bet my money on. Floyd found and troubled far more proven fighters and Ortiz is nowhere near the granite chin of say Chuvalo, Quarry, or Ali, for him to endure and eventually dish back at Patterson with his own formidable power.

 

Don't worry, if we all do our jobs right, the police will step in before it comes to that.

 

I think you might mean "wouldn't"?

Cracking post btw.

 

A little blue these days and I don't like typing about George without being extremely through. If I make a mistake, ramble in good-spirit, or make a logical fallacy making a case for Floyd, it's not a biggie, but Foreman was like Santa to me because of how many stories my father used to tell me about him and the 70's company (meaning monologue incessantly even after I've left the room) and I always want to leave a good debate on the board when he is concerned.

RIP George.

 

Yes, I did. Hopefully it's not a Freudian slip, lol.

 

So first off, excellent post. I'm going to just focus on my initial thoughts on the size cognitive bias issue.

I take you to be saying that people have a natural bias to over-estimate big guys' chances in boxing, because of a combination of more impressive film, the commenter's subconscious fear of getting hit by them, and evolutionary wiring that makes people over-emphasize the value of size (an instinct better adapted for measuring your chances at wrestling, where size means more than boxing.)

I think this would all be a devastating point if we had no good reasons to believe size is a major advantage in boxing. If people went around saying, "I just feel deep in my gut that bigger heavyweights have an advantage over smaller ones," then replying by mentioning cognitive biases would be a great way to shoot that down.

But as far as I know, most people don't just look at big men and adopt a simple, "He looks scary to my chimp brain" approach as their main reason. It doesn't come out in every post, or every thread -- mostly, it's tacitly assumed unless it comes up for challenge, just like most people don't spell out the legitimacy of Ring rankings every time they cite them -- but there are good reasons to think the modern superheavyweights really do have a big advantage compared to cruiserweight and LHW sized fighters.

I would also point out that there are other heuristic biases against big guys, which someone could equally throw out at the supporters of the "short kings." There's nostalgia, which this forum is self-selected for. Relatedly, fan identification. You don't have to look far here to see motivated reasoning at work when it comes to people's favorite fighters, and most of those are older, smaller guys. Some of whom were the heavyweights of their youth. And then there's people's desire to rationalize how David could beat Goliath, which is absolutely shot through human culture. It implicates everything from the love of the underdog to the less noble -- but understandable -- phenomenon of short people trying to convince themselves that size doesn't matter. I might also point out, as far as film and cognitive distortions go, that people sometimes get a skewed view of just how much of a difference there actually is. The way people sometimes talk about Foreman -- a man who's on the 70s film towering over much smaller guys -- you'd think he was Joe Joyce sized, rather than Usyk sized. Though this last one has started to change recently just due to repetition of the fact of the matter. I'm sure there are still some people who believe that Liston would out-reach Wladimir Klitschko or Deontay Wilder.

Now, will I accuse you of any of those things? No! Because I don't think that motives or biases are all that relevant to the arguments being made either way. I mentioned them just to point out that laying out cognitive biases can be done on all sides.

It seems to me that the reason people believe that big guys have an advantage over smaller ones in boxing is that the evidence strongly suggests that this is true. Grappling sports aren't the only combat sports with weight classes. Boxing has them, too. Kickboxing has them. And smaller guys, including elite cruiserweights, are hesitant to go up, and often do badly when they try. Not always, since there are outliers, including incredible guys like Usyk. But we're talking general trends here. Biased cognitive heuristics aren't responsible for the fact that heavyweights' sizes have been climbing over the past decades. When these arguments were first being made, Lewis and Bowe were the outliers. The live experiment kept running, though, and most of their best successors -- Vitali, Wlad, and Fury -- were really big guys as well. Usyk wasn't, but shortly before he arrived, Wilder and AJ were the top two guys, and both of them were very large (Wilder in a Tommy Hearns kind of way.) There's no iron law that says 6'3", 220 guys can't compete. There are trends that say they have a big disadvantage, though, and they'd better be REALLY special. Not in the facile way that all heavyweight champions labeled ATGs were special, but only-cruiserweight-in-over-2-decades-to-win-lineal/Ring-heavyweight-title special.

This is also overlooking the effects of PEDs, which guys like Ortiz are taking, and fighters from Floyd's era didn't have. Again, PEDs aren't an advantage because of cognitive biases. They aren't placebos. They are enough of a real advantage in every sport -- including boxing -- that they are almost universally banned. And they're part of the reason for the aforementioned growth in size, although not the only one. In fact, Holyfield, the guy preceding Usyk as cruiserweight-who-won-the-title had to use them, despite being an exceptionally skilled, fast operator himself. Cleveland Williams, Zora Folley, Eddie Machen, and Floyd Patterson are going up against (for example) @NoNeck's pick of a time-machined Ortiz at an unfair disadvantage, in an era that didn't test for any PEDs as far as I know.

So anyway, it's more stream of consciousness than anything, but those are my initial reactions. I hope I didn't give the impression that I wasn't impressed by your post, or didn't like it; I was, and did. Just to give you something to engage with while @Journeyman92 recovers from his hangover. Cheers.

 

Well written. For the record, I usually spew that whole psychology schtick in an attempt to rile the general forum. My more intellectually honest opinion would be: when discussing exceptional individuals through the history of boxing, you ought to remember they were exceptional (meaning don't boil it down solely to lbs and inches.) On average and as a rule to divide the sport by—size is absolutely a reason to divide it by to avoid injuries, destroyed careers or even death. There are only so many Durans, Pacquiaos, Toneys, Tysons, Fraziers etc.

 

We toss out the jawlines and wrestling, keep the rats.

 

Buster Douglas caught "Lighting In A Bottle"...for one night...in Feb.1990...Then his his first defense...he's a fat stiff who gets his ass kicked against Holyfield!!! Lots of you "fans" have no idea when it comes to boxing history! Stunning!