Is the size argument for new timers really just a myth?

Its a half myth, which happens to suit its proponents agenda.

 

They're getting bigger but their hearts are getting smaller.

 

@McGrain: Since nobody is "flat-out better" than a Peak Lennox Lewis ('97 McCall II to '00 Tua), does that mean you have him as a clear #1 H2H? :think

 

well put mcgrain and there's no simple equation for going up smaller fighters beating bigger ones.

hagler was contemplating moving up to light heavy but didn't...he may have been better than most of the division and p4p, probably better than spinks but he just wasn't equipped to move up in weight.

some fighters are and some fighters aren't and there's a lot of factors involved.

 

Size is an asset as long as it does not take away from speed, stamina, or flexibility. Modern super heavies like Lewis and Klitschko are just too big, and too good for guys giving up say 40+ pounds to defeat on a regular basis.

This is not to say a 200 pound heavyweight could not beat them, Sure he could, but he's going to need to be able to hit very hard, take a shot, and have good defense to overcome being jabbed and bombed at a distance to win, outside of the puncher's chance.

 

In any myth fight scenario, I always also assume that old time fighters at heavyweight that were smaller would most likely be able to bulk up better with the nutritional information we have today and the focus on weight training.

In short, I think smaller fighters like Jack Dempsey would compete find against larger guys like Lennox Lewis, etc.

 

With regard to the old timers who overcame huge weight disparities, I often wonder to what extent necesity became the mother of invention.

If modern light heavies and super middles could only make chump change fighting in their natural weight class, then many more would have done as Chris Byrd did and gone hunting big game.

 

Nicely put.

 

Sure, they would all have some success at HW... even against the giants of today. Most of the really big HWs are just overweight anyway, except the Klitschko bros.

Dempsey vs. V. Klitschko? Wow, that would be interesting. Dempsey was a pressure fighter with decent speed. He was durable with a good workrate. He had good power.

V.K. is 7" taller, with a 7" longer reach, and about 55 solid Lbs. heavier. Vitali has never been down and has good stamina despite his size. He could take what Dempsey had to offer but could Dempsey take his punches? The more active Dempsey is the quicker he tires. Dempsey didn't like to go past 10. Size isn't everything but when you know how to use it it is a lot to deal with.

I don't see Dempsey winning, sorry.

Dempsey training like a prime Holyfield? He'd be about 200-210 solid Lbs. He'd still be 6'1" with a 77" reach unless he takes HGH lol. I still see V.K. beating him more times than not.

 

The weight thing is a myth IMO, the old fighters would have the biggest trouble trying to fathom out the new rules we have.

But look if you are a fan of the modern game who is say 20ish or under, you deserve kudos.

All us old timers, were brought up in brilliance that we could watch on our TV very often for nothing. And going to a local fight did not cost the earth.

There are exceptional fighters in this era, but the new young fan has to pay a big price just to watch him on TV, let alone go to the fight.

So fair dues if you are under 20, you probably never seen your heroes fight, or you have had to pay top dollar/pound to get what we old timers had for next to nothing.

So you can rightly have little digs at the old fighters, bitterness will serve you well in this sport, even when your wrong.

 

nice post

 

Just because you do not want sloppy seconds!