What weight do you need to be to beat a top super heavyweight with skills?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Mendoza, Jun 22, 2017.



  1. Vanboxingfan

    Vanboxingfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,591
    196
    Feb 5, 2005
    For some reason l find this thread hilarious. I haven't laughed this much on a boxing thread in ages.
     
    mcvey likes this.
  2. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,581
    Mar 17, 2010
    :lol:
     
  3. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

    12,191
    8,027
    Sep 21, 2017
    I agree
     
  4. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

    12,191
    8,027
    Sep 21, 2017
    Yeah those are the cream of the crop super heavies of today.
     
    reznick likes this.
  5. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta I have defeated the great Seamus Full Member

    12,191
    8,027
    Sep 21, 2017
    I'd wager that if Holyfield was a heavier pumcher, he'd have stopped them all
     
  6. Butch Coolidge

    Butch Coolidge Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,303
    2,605
    Jul 20, 2004
    I guess the old saying a "good big man beats a good little man" holds true. What interests me does a great little man beat a good big man ~probably . What if Usyk fights the heavyweight champion(s) while he weighs 200lbs and thoroughly outboxes his heavier opponents?
     
  7. BCS8

    BCS8 VIP Member Full Member

    51,542
    63,462
    Aug 21, 2012
    I was just thinking of Usyk!
     
  8. Sting like a bean

    Sting like a bean Well-Known Member banned Full Member

    2,047
    1,581
    Apr 9, 2017
    Like many many sayings, the case for its veracity is tissue thin when you start seeking out the individual examples that comprise the supposed pattern.
     
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    108,009
    38,435
    Mar 21, 2007
    That's because it's not informed by a pattern. Boxing people, as a general rule, don't draw graphs and explore with logic. They make observations and repeat them to each other. I'd observe (i don't mean via statistical analysis) that the ones which are true are probably the ones that stick.

    What the saying means is that size is generally of benefit and where all other things are equal can therefore be a deciding factor.
     
    mrkoolkevin likes this.
  10. Sting like a bean

    Sting like a bean Well-Known Member banned Full Member

    2,047
    1,581
    Apr 9, 2017
    Actually I'm not talking about any kind of statistical analysis. I mean just citing a handful of representative examples one by one. That's both a much easier and much less tedious condition to meet, and yet I still doubt many will take me up on it.
     
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    108,009
    38,435
    Mar 21, 2007
    You are misunderstanding.

    No examples are required. It has almost certainly never occurred in history - that two completely equal opponents have met where the only difference between them was size.

    What it means is that size is a factor which can make a difference in a fight. This is believed by most fight people (Trainers, pundits, boxers and such).
     
  12. Sting like a bean

    Sting like a bean Well-Known Member banned Full Member

    2,047
    1,581
    Apr 9, 2017
    You could say exactly the same about literally every other physical attribute that contributes to boxing ability. Your point is only inteligible to me if I interpret you as holding the position that there are no trade-offs, or that size is unique in conferring only benefits and no drawbacks.
     
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    108,009
    38,435
    Mar 21, 2007
    That is absolutely correct.

    That is all that is being said.

    It is just a perceived truism that has survived in boxing down the ages.
     
    Sting like a bean likes this.
  14. Sting like a bean

    Sting like a bean Well-Known Member banned Full Member

    2,047
    1,581
    Apr 9, 2017
    Fair enough.
     
  15. Butch Coolidge

    Butch Coolidge Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,303
    2,605
    Jul 20, 2004
    :Saeufer:

    Joe Louis - Billy Conn

    Bob Foster - Joe Frazier

    Riddick Bowe - Evander Holyfield

    Lennox Lewis - Evander Holyfield

    Lennox Lewis - Mike Tyson

    Lennox Lewis - Zjelko Mavrovic

    George Foreman - Michael Moorer

    Lennox Lewis - Tommy Morrison

    Vladimir Klitschko- Chris Byrd

    Vladimir Klitschko - Sultan Ibragimov

    Vladimir Klitschko - Eddie Chambers

    Buster Douglas- Mike Tyson

    :stirrpot

    Ruslan Chagaev- Nicolai Valuev

    Roy Jones Jr. - John Hug-a-Thug Ruiz

    Michael Spinks - Gerry Cooney

    In this case somebody who supports the "good big man beats a good little man " argument would probably say the big man in those cases were not "good".

    Michael Spinks- Larry Holmes

    Mike Tyson - Larry Holmes

    The Easton Assassin was over-the-hill at those times


    Of course, a smaller man can beat a larger man if the smaller man has a huge skill and athletic advantage over the larger man e.g. Louis-Baer. But if their relative skills and athleticism are close to equal things start tipping towards the larger man.

    BTW I won't be surprised if one of the current cruiserweight stars takes over the heavyweight division. That seems to go against the argument of "the good big man beats the good small man." However, IMO there are some really big talents in the cruiserweights at the moment and the heavyweights are kind of lacking. So that's the good little man beats the average or not-so-good big man.:campeon: