Which Heavyweight Is Possibly Overrated Because Of Nostalgia?

Dempsey signed to fight Wills three times in 1922, 1925 and 1926. The 1926 contract was to pay him one million dollars.

To quote Wills mid 1930’s:

“It was those who controlled the sport that did not want a mixed race bout. I know if it were up to Jack we would have fought”.

 

If one is a fan of Usyk and appreciative of the advantages of his skill set and his superior “smaller man”’ speed and stamina, I can’t see how they can flatly subscribe to the theory that bigger and stronger is better.

Usyk himself belies the theory in relation and relative to the much larger fighters he has overcome.

Digressions into suggesting that Usyk is comparable in size to some of the larger fighters of the 70s doesn’t alter the logic of the preceding paragraph which duly focuses on the bigger, stronger = better line of thinking.

Au naturale, so to speak, Usyk equates to a 215 lb, 6’2 to 6’2 1/2” fighter. In his most recent fight Olek weighed some 18 1/2 lbs north of the aforementioned weight and it clearly did him no favours.

70s Foreman was a good 1” to 1 1/2” taller, of larger frame/bones and easily carried a natural 220 to 230 lbs some years before he even hit the age of 30.

If one then wants to digress into the claim of Usyk being that much more skilled than the likes of Foreman - then they are clearly moving away from their core premise that heavily pivots on bigger and stronger = better and returning to the question of actual skills.

Save for height, Liston held all the attributes of a somewhat taller man - and Liston also possessed appreciable boxing skills in tandem with those physical assets.

 

All @catchwtboxing said was that size was an advantage, which it is. He didn't say that the bigger fighter always wins or should always be favored to win. I'd rather be the 6'3 225 lbs guy than the 6'1 187 lbs guy if everything else was equal. I don't understand why this point is so hard for some people in classic to understand. The idea that size matters is not the same as believing that the bigger guy will always win yet it constantly gets strawman'd into that.

 

I wish I could like your post a hundred times!

 

Rubber Glove Sandwich hit it right on the head.

 

The point has been perfectly understood exactly as it has been presented and weighted. No strawmans whatsoever.

Like it or not, Usyk has belied the theory that bigger and stronger is the “real” complentary advantage it’s being played off as - especially since Usyk sharpened the otherwise omitted focus on the very real cons for the SHW sized fighters.

Cons upon which Usyk has very much relied upon to his own, significant advantage.

Skills notwithstanding, many times I’ve read 70s fighters - even though comparable to and larger than Usyk’s size being culled out purely based on them being too small.

Before Usyk came along to test the theory in practical terms, most disposed to bigger and stronger = better would’ve culled him out on “paper” also.

 

I explained how you attacked a strawman and then you just attacked the strawman again.

"Usyk has belied the theory that bigger and stronger is the “real” complentary advantage"

Again, the claim is not 'that bigger and stronger is the “real” complentary advantage' the claim is 'that bigger and stronger is *an* advantage"

Usyk beating AJ proved that a more skilled 6'3 222 lbs boxer can beat a less skilled 6'6 240 boxer, btw a conclusion many on the forum predicted including people who lean towards the modern side in conversations like this even though you attempted to suggest otherwise.

Here is what it did not prove; that any older timer smaller than Usyk and less skilled than Usyk would have their way with all time great modern heavyweights. The more skilled 6'3 222 lbs guy beating the less skilled 6'6 240s lbs guy does not by default mean that the 5'10 185 lbs guy beats the more skilled 6'5 250 guy.

Usyk is more skilled than most pre-1960s heavyweights and he is bigger than most pre-1960s heavyweights. His success gives us very little reason to automatically assume that the old timers (aka pre-1960s boxer) would do well. Maybe they would do well, maybe Marciano really would knockout Lewis* (I doubt it) but Usyk beating Joshua is not evidence for that claim.

Again the claim is NOT "size is the only thing that matters" if that were the case then fights would be judged at the weigh in. The claim is "Size is something that does matter but other factors matter as well."

*I use this example twice because it was common after Usyk-Joshua 1. Other old timers given the "Usyk boost" were John L. Sullivan and Jack Dempsey, both of which are smaller and do not particularly fight like Usyk.

 

Usyk is remarkable, but one fighter being talented enough to win against larger fighters-& like Tyson use size to his benefit, although his muscle per height ratio means he was big in a major way too...does not mean size is still not a significant advantage.

Anymore than us finding an individual from a historically shorter group does not effect the overall statistical tendency.
Usyk got bigger just to compete at HW, fighting in the 220's.
What if he or any CW did not bulk up to move up a division?

In fact, Usyk was athletically better & more dominant as a CW, in his physical prime...But even that Usyk, clearly faster, would likely do worse allowed to fight at HW then.
Just like Holyfield was better before fighting Tyson, but him getting stronger (training & PEDs) allowed him to tie up & (legally) bully Mike, where prime Holyfield would likely lose.
Certainly CW (& when only up to 190, especially absent rehydration), would certainly lose.

Especially for a guy relying on power, Dempsey at most 6'1", 187 lbs., some say lighter, would be very unlikely to beat a so much stronger Tyson.
In an interview Tyson defended Dempsey, the interviewer said he looked like a MW.
And compensating for rehydration/in ring weight, & an average 5' 10" MW & looking at the film, Jack looks small for modern MWs.

Basketball analogy: height is a major advantage, so much so that infamously a significant chunk of the over 7' population has payed in the NBA.
WIngspan also.
That say, Chris Paul, "The Point God", may well be a top 10 player EVER & certainly close, & at #5 all time in "WIn Shares:, just ahead of Jordan, does not mean a bunch of other under 6' players could have been nearly as good.
It took otherworldly compensatory skills to be the exception to the rule, in a league where a 7' wingspan is average!
I would LOVE for the much smaller man to win.
But just like no MW today is likely to beat even an elite HW, & if the way a fighter wins is relentless aggression, punch power, punch resistence...
It is not gonna happen with such a large size disparity.

In a way Usyk's success is more impressive than Ali's, who usually had the size advantage.
Although fighting so infrequently helped the Ukranian.
Still, to be so good, Usyk seemed to think he needed to add muscle & weight.
Such a smart & great boxer...was right.

 

These are very good arguments! See what you think of my post just after yours here...

Yes besides having very different styles, just the size difference between most all the pre-'60's HWs would make it prohbitively difficult for them to beat most of the best SHWs, let alone the champs.

Maybe the smallest where there would be a decent chance of beating them, in part due to his great skills?
Joe Louis at his 206-ish lbs. peak.
Which is a loooong way from 187 lb. fighters, one much shorter with about a 17" wingspan, lol!

Yet even then, unless Louis added muscle mass it would be very challenging indeed.
Usyk was somewhat bulkier as a HW, despite not being prime-& he needed the mass.
As was Evander's situation when fighting Tyson-just to get the better of him in the clinch-& in a fight where no clinching was allowed, I still do not think Tyson would have lost, even so far pat in prime.

 

I appreciate your thoughts. On Liston 1, Sonny's shoulder tear was medically eval'd as legit at the time but later alternate medical opinion from eval of the film in the 6th round asserted he was using the arm normally. IMO the doc at the time went along with the ride (a wad of cash under the table from the mob beats the hell out of an insurance payment or state commission fee). Fact is, Sonny was getting a whupping and quit. As to #2 in Lewiston, Sonny trained like hell and was peaking for November but then as we know the bout was postponed in the 11th hour and delayed a full 6+ months. In the interim Sonny guzzled J&B, smoked cigarettes and his workouts were limited to standing up from the gambling table. And, his mental focus and motivation went down the toilet. See Norman Mailer on being with Liston the night before e.g., "Recognizing the fighter's deeper psychology, Mailer concluded it was not confidence at all, but total resignation—the sign of a man whose competitive fire and belief had already quietly broken down during the long, frustrating delay." Dempsey, Louis and Marciano all saw the punch as bogus prima facie but later subdued their tune for the sake of the sport. But, let's put their and everyone else's opinion aside, because Geraldine Liston thought Sonny took a dive.

As to the Foreman fight a la the Cooper glove abuse we can't forget that Dundee went in the night before and loosened the ropes so Ali could do the dope. I don't think even Angelo would have had the stones to pull that caper in MSG because chances of getting caught, fined and media blitzed very high. But, in a 3rd world country and long before cell phones and video cams to capture his act, a few bucks of baksheesh to the security guards and game over (and the natives were all pro Ali after dumbo George showed up with the Belgian colonial symbol of a big German Shepherd).

 

Most of these classical heavyweights including Liston and Foreman don't possess Usyks skillset

Also Usyk small as he is, is still bigger than Liston

 

You pulled up revealingly short of quoting me properly in order to falsely claim a straw man argument for the second time.

Here’s what I actually wrote in my last post in full: -

“Like it or not, Usyk has belied the theory that bigger and stronger is the “real” complentary advantage it’s being played off as”

I’ve also addressed the very obvious cons to greater size as it pertains to SHWs but you haven’t addressed those cons at all.

In your initial reply to me you referenced a fighter 6’1” in height weighing 187 lbs - I assume you’re talking Dempsey.

At any rate, I didn’t reference any fighters of said height and weight. That is in fact an example of a straw man argument.

I clearly referenced 1970s fighters comparable in size (and some larger as compared) to Usyk. You’ve tangentially jumped to pre 1960s fighters

So many here favoured Usyk against AJ you say? - did they represent the majority? I’m not questioning the veracity but is there perhaps a supporting poll as at the time to point to?

AJ was a clear betting favourite and the outcome was deemed an upset.

After that practical demonstration and even after he almost got done by a boxing debutant, Fury was installed only as a slight favourite when he faced Usyk - but still a favourite all the same - with many believing he was primarily too big and too strong for Usyk

Here’s one quote of the poster to whom I was actually replying to wrote: -

“I mean, after all that, Liston is still probably too small to be a dominant heavyweight champ today,”

That statement clearly frames Liston “size” as the most defining and precluding factor without due factoring/weighting of his excellent skillset and weight transcendent power and strength.

 

I should think most would agree size alone won't cut it,you need a modicum of ability.
I would expect Carnera and Valuev to beat Tommy Burns,Too Tall Smith and Potgeiter may very well not.

 

Usyk is bioger than 95% of the heavyweights that won the crown before him,if size was not a factor;
Holyfield
Moorer
Adamek
Haye
Byrd
M Spinks
Gassiev
Usyk
Would not have added weight to compete at Heavyweight.the point is it is not the definingfactor, but a contributing one.
Mike Tyson proved what can be accomplished at 5'11" 220lbs

 

Dundee did not loosen the ropes ,on the contrary,the afternoon of the fight ,[ 4 am start] he went to the arena and was appalled to see how slack they were because of the humidity.Worried that Ali might actually fall out of the ring avoiding George's huge swings, he and Bob Goodman tightened them as much as they could.

" For more than a quarter of a century,I've been constantly accused of loosening the ropes
Nothing could be further from the truth.In fact I tightened them,not loosened them.
Seeing the sagging ropes,I knew I had to fix them,to make them tight so Ali wouldn't be driven over them,into our laps by one of Georges "anywhere punches."
But how?" Nobody had a knife,the government probably forbidding anyone to carry one.
Finally I found someone who had a razor,and used their double -edged Gillette Blue Blade ,to work on the ropes ,cutting and refitting them ,so that they were taut and could bear the brunt of two fighters weight.
The next order of business was making the ring level so that Ali could dance his dance.
Not up hill thank you!
Bobby and I managed to corral a couple of workmen,who had been standing around watching us in amazement as we worked on the ropes,and asked them to go find some strong wooden blocks so we could straighten the tilted ring.
And although they didn't seem to be too happy about it,they brought back something that passed for blocks,and were were able to right the ring".
Angelo Dundee."My View From The Corner."


Dundee had no idea Ali was going to use"rope a dope",as a strategy and neither did Ali until after the 1 st round, when he found how adept Foreman was at cutting off the ring, it was improvised on the spot.