Old Time Heavyweights Being More Skilled - Convince Me

Not sure many are training down to Cruser, the Cruser division hasnt produced much talent Holyfield, Toney and Haye aside and they have all moved up

 

Ok. I see your point.

 

Haye and his peers train or have trained down to cruiserweight. It's more of a modern trend as I believe Holyfield and his contemporaries were all around 190 pounds when the cruiserweight division was started. This divergence is a relatively new development.

I agree with you that cruiserweights are equally dismal talent-wise as the heavyweights if not more so. I don't expect a big impact if ever we did abolish the weight class, but it would bring about 210-pound fighters again which is my point. Personally, I can live without 210-pound fighters. The division has moved on, it's time we did too. It just irks me when people keep saying 240-pound fighters are dominating because they're beating all the 210-pound guys.

 

Well said. Too bad Burt Sugar and his ilk can't figure this out.

 

Had the CW division never existed, men from 176 and up would be fighting 240-260 pounds men.

 

The point of the thread is being lost. It wasn't about 205lbs v 245lbs, there were light guys and big guys in every era. Steroids and weight training are the main change. It was about whether old time heavyweights were more skilled. Take out Klitschkos and name me one HW champion active today who you would bet on winning against a fighter as far back as Jack Johnson, Marciano, Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Liston.
And I am 100% convinced that there is zero evidence available anywhere that can claim that HW today can hit harder than their predecessors.
Today's generation are brainwashed into thinking like sheep. 16 stone with speed and skill is more than plenty to KO any human no matter how big.

 

IMO, the older guys had an overall better game plan than the guys of today who head hunt. Only modern men I can think of off handedly who have a complete game of defense, offense, body punching, etc is James Toney...the old school guys were more body punchers than today...hence why its called a lost art. People say the guys today know what they old guys did plus some, but imo, they never apply it if they actually do.

 

Yes it is. Although I don't see fighters getting smaller, only larger. That seems to be the so-called answer to a lot of problems today.

In a way I can understand heavyweights bulking up, because the subtle skills don't seem to count as much as raw size and power today.

If a guy can jab the hell out of you on the outside and be strong enough to tie you up without much trouble on the inside, then subtle things like feinting and minor adjustments to positioning aren't going to count for a lot.
If a smaller man (I mean substantially smaller) is to compete, then he's going to have to have remarkable athletic skills AND be very well-versed in boxing science. One or the other won't be enough.

 

Haye trained down to Cruser at the end because it was the weight class he was due to get a title shot at. He made 190 easily early in his career but bulked up allot as he progressed

BTW Many fighters would be 210lbs or less today if they were actually in shape, many carry 20-40lbs of excess body fat

 

The main point is that for the most part fighters fighting under the 210 range are going to have problems fighting those who are above 230 but not out of shape and fat. Ruddock, Golota etc would likely be tough for those under the 210 limit.

Very skilled fighters like Lewis, and the K brothers, and Bowe would be even a more difficult challenge as they are naturally huge, bring a lot of power to the table and aren't tubs of lard. So for the most part, these type of fighters are going to be very difficult to outbox and thus the options of the smaller fighter are limited, for the most part to trying to get inside. The problem with that is that all these skilled huge heavyweights are good at using their size and have very good ring generalship, so getting inside isn't going to be easy. And in the case of Lewis you may end up getting inside only to get hit with a vicious uppercut for your troubles, or you may encounter Bowe's infighting skills.

In terms of old verses new, I see two sides to this. I think for the most part the older guys were in better shape and hit to the body more and had better defense, but I also thing those 230lbers who are in shape can for the most part really crack, and hit significantly harder than most fighters of yesteryear. And the really skilled superheavies of today would cause problems for most of the previous generation of fighters.

 

I agree 100% with this post. This is not to say heavyweights weren't skilled 50, 75, or 100 years ago.

 

As in my previous post, I disagree massively. You talk of old fighters being the "small" guy. If they weighed 12 stone when they fought 230lb heavies then I may agree, (even though I believe they'd still win cause they're harder men). But these "small" heavies as you call them were at least 6" tall and still weighed 14-15 stone. Thats a few pounds off a prime Tyson or Holyfield. If it were at any point about simple size equalling power punching then the majority or 280lb monsters walking today should be the ATG!:bbb

 

I think between the 60's and late 80's more emphasis was put on being a complete fighter. The earlier years (overall), saw lacks in defense, movement, and overall "boxing style", with more squared up hands held lower fighting styles. I think boxing went through a transition period where unique styles were defined, and then fighters were taught to learn all these styles.
I think that changed in the mid 90's and has gone back to a more one dimensional style. The guys who are taught from some of the old schoolers of the 70's and 80's are the most successful fighters right now, and a big reason why guys like Hopkins and Holyfield can stay competitive well past their best years.

 

I dont even think it's a matter of eras. It depends on the individual boxers.

For people to claim old-time heavyweights of, say, the 1920s or 30s, were more skillful, is way too much of a generalization. You cant really compare them "as a group", we're talking about thousands of differents fighters of different styles and capabilities.
And the view (as expressed by Seamus) that the current boxers are the best ever, backed up by a simple "march of history" argument is nonsense.
It's a hollow argument, no substance whatsoever.

 

Do you believe you saw as many stylistic differences in the 20's and 30's as the 70's and 80's?