Leon Spinks, Jim Braddock & Tyson Fury - rank the worst lineal HW champs in order.

I wasn't impressed with Tyson Fury when I saw his bout with Steve Cunningham, so it astounded me when I learned that he beat Wladimir Klitschko to win at least one version of the world heavyweight title. Will Fury's brain trust try to steer him away from the likes of Deontay Wilder? It may be the smart thing to do unless a massive purse is on the table.

- Chuck Johnston

 

This.

 

Well, my oh my !

A man who jus' knows what he's lookin' at.

We's real lucky on here, to have you to 'xplain stuff to us.

Where you been all theez years ?

You coulda put a lot o' arguin' n' bickerin' to rest, see'in's how you KNOW so much, compared to the rest ov us.

Sheeit ! You even know more'n Manny Stewart.


You should jus' ignore them riffraff pickin' on you...

Any man that knows more'n Manny Stewart, tha's good enough for me !

God Bless You !


and Keep on postin'

 

It is too early to either denigrate or overestimate Fury.

He is a guy with plenty of talent who just dethroned one of the most dominant champions in the division's history. Was it a case of being at the right place at the right time or is he , as Manny Steward predicted, the next dominant heavyweight?

Only time will tell.

 

I feel pretty confident in saying that his level is somewhere above Valuev and somewhere below Lewis.

 

"Chins don't get better just because a fighter is heavier."

I agree with this, and I think history backs it up.

"At heavyweight weight is a non issue."

I wonder if Jeffries' or Willard's or Carnera's opponents would agree with you there. Or Liston's? Would a 180 pound Liston have been the same force at heavyweight?

"Skill trumps size."

Well, then, why has Wlad been champion for ten years, and why is Fury champion now? Are you saying that there is no one in the traditional heavyweight range--175 to 210--who has skill?

Why isn't someone at that weight beating these unskilled big men, as size supposedly doesn't matter and skill trumps size?

"at lower weights, 5 to 10 pounds is a lot"

Why? Why is 5 or 10 pounds important to smaller men, while 50 to 60 pounds means nothing at heavyweight?

Historically, there was something to this as there were so few men in the general population who went above 230 in condition. Now there are many more, so the giants of the 6' 5" and more than 230 pound size are no longer so rare. The more there are the more likely it is that some of them will have talent as well as mere size.

 

Very bad thread, clearly motivated by irrational animus against Fury. Fury is undefeated, and its impossible to say where he'll go from here with any certainty. His resume to the point of his title defense is no worse than slightly below average.

It's certainly very comparable to Muhammad Ali's to the point of his title shot. Ali's only decent opponents to that point were completely shot Archie Moore, Henry Cooper (who already had lost 8 times by that point, many more losses than his only good wins against Harris, London, and Folley), and Doug Jones (whose three wins and one draw to that point offset his only good wins against Folley, Foster, and Rademacher). Ali won a very controversial decision against Jones and was kd'd by Cooper. He was also knocked down once by Banks, comparable to (though with a lesser resume than) Pajkic's kd of Fury. Chisora and Cunningham arguably have as good a resume and any of Ali's opponents to that date (especially since Cunningham was a long time champ in the cruiserweight division, i.e. the modern version of the early 60's heavyweight division). Johnson and Hammer were better than anyone besides Cooper, Jones, and arguably Moore (in reality they were much more legit challenges than shot Moore, but Moore was clearly a bigger name). Fury's wins over Chisora were more decisive than Ali's over Jones, his win over Cunningham more decisive than Ali's over Cooper, and his wins over Hammer and Johnson as decisive as Ali's over Moore and Powell.

Fury's got a long way to go before he can be considered in Ali's league, but its just silly to say he's one of the worst lineal title champs, at least at this point.

 

Great post.

 

"Same gap of 18 years."

Well, any comparison to statutory **** laws is off-the-wall in my judgment and doesn't back up your case. Let's stick to weights of boxers, as I think you do have a point.

"a 200 pound fighter is going to be more advantaged against a 147 pound fighter than a 253 pound fighter is against the same 200 pound fighter."

I think so. But the key to me would be percentage of body weight (and percentage of height and reach) rather than just pound differences.

A 150 pound man is 33% heavier than a 120 pound man.

But a 210 pound man is only about 17% heavier than a 180 pound man.

For the size differential to be the same, the 120 pound man should be fighting about a 140 pound man.

But, few men of that size defeated 140 pound men, while many 180 pounders defeated men in the 210 to 220 class. Why?

I think it is because of the size balance in the general population of males. I can't think of a proper physical ****ogy, but I think there would be relatively fewer flyweights and heavyweights in the general population, with a bulge in the middle divisions. So a man moving up from 120 to 150 is likely to actually meet stiffer competition. A Willie Pep would have to beat a Sugar Ray Robinson. A tough chore. But an Archie Moore moving up to the 210 and above class only had to beat Bob Baker and Nino Valdes.

There just weren't that many guys that size in condition in the general population and it was reflected in relatively few good boxers of that size.

But the population is getting bigger, and as there are more big men there is likely to be more talented big men.

Hence the modern super-heavyweight.

 

Another great post. Size advantages don't magically cap. As you indicate, they are mitigated, but because of concrete reasons. First, at the higher weight classes, pounds mean less because it's a lower proportion of body weight. They still matter, but the proportion goes down. Second, as you indicate, there has historically been a smaller talent pool. Ie, to oversimplify, more chances for smaller "middleweights" to have enough raw talent to overcome the size advantage of the less numerous "hw's". That is why school sports programs are put into different divisions, because its an unfair advantage to have many more students to draw on, there are too many opportunities for their to be superior athletes. The hw talent pool is increasing, though, for various reasons. That is why the size of the dominant hw champs have been getting bigger and bigger. Fury showed more reflexes, speed and movement than any of the much smaller hw's "golden age" defenders like to point out were superheavyweights that were defeated back in the old days (i.e. Carnera, Baer, etc).

 

As much as I appreciate the classic boxers I can't really make an argument that the current crop of heavyweights is not better than any before the 70s. I guess it varies from person to person but I really don't see it.

The current talent pool is very underrated.

 

Being the best can just mean hard to beat.

You can knock the Super heavyweights (Lord knows I do) but even I admit they are effective.

World class is usually word class. It just looks different from era to era.

Big guys are restricted technically the faster they are rushed. It takes them longer to do stuff so when you rush them you get the Primo Carnera flapping and swiping. It does not mean they are not world class or any less effective.

 

Yeah, it's far too soon to be determining Fury's relative worth as a champion. If he rattles off a couple of defences against legitimate contenders, he'll have removed himself from the bottom tier of lineal claimants in the division's history. And, given his skill-set, that's not at all out of the question.

Ali did have some decent scalps on his resume beyond those listed. Alonzo Johnson was a dangerous journeyman who had pulled off a few upsets prior to that point (older Valdes and Slade). Charlie Powell was also considered to be dangerous. Billy Daniels was undefeated and pretty highly regarded at the time. He had some unimpressive performances and some very impressive performances, too. Ali progressed pretty quickly from facing journeymen to fringe contenders to actual contenders to fighting for the championship. Three years and twenty fights.

Fury took a bit longer (though he didn't have an Olympic pedigree, in fairness), and he had some unimpressive results, too. But, on the whole, I think your overall argument is pretty sound. It's way too early to dismiss Fury as being among the worst of champions just yet.