Do Old- school Heavyweights GetUnfairly Dismissed Because Of Their Size?

The good question to ask is _ How well did the big guys do in their eras - there were plenty of huge men - only Willard and Carnera 6'6 260 lbs. made it to the title, and both were beaten by the smaller, better fighters. - Louis also dispatched of 6"6 Buddy Baer and the huge Abe Simon. Dempsey destroyed Willard and the big guys were eliminated in the Marciano era. Valdes beaten by 5'10 174 lb. Harold Johnson and 5"10 179 lb. Bob Satterfield and light heavyweight master Archie Moore X 2

 

I doubt I have any worthwhile input on this topic. With that being said;

Tbf, Willard (while tough and packing a killer punch) was not exactly the most technically refined fighter to put it lightly.

This content is protected

EDIT: I'm starting to pick up on a favourite topic of this site.

 

The answer to your question Fergy is definitely yes

 

I don't think there are many of the old guys who would have success today .
Johnson
Dempsey
Louis
Are the only pre 1950's men I give much of a chance to.

 

Sort of, in relation to the INSISTENCE that today's so called Heavyweights are in fact HW's - They Are NOT.

the insistence should be that today's HW's are in fact S-HW's and when seen for the obvious SIZE Differences we get get down to bare facts, "Do the Traditional Size (Height) HW's lose to todays Giant S-HW's???

well, then we could safely say that the best top HW fighters of the past 'could' beat the majority of the Subpar Giants, but the truly good Giants by shear Size (Height), should prove too much of an obstacle coupled with their Power & ability, few though that they are, the giants!

 

With respect, a better question to ask is: were the big guys of that era any good or was their main attribute being big? We know what good boxers look like, and none of these guys were good. Carnera is probably the technical pick of the bunch and even he looks stiff and robotic, like a new dancer counting their steps 1-2-3, 1-2-3. The rest were just plain bad. Nobody with any understanding of boxing thinks Willard, Abe Simon, Buddy etc would get anywhere nowadays.

 

Most of them looked like they either suffered from acromegaly, or were just gangly and unathletic. They weren't exactly AJ or Klitschko...

Jack O'Halloran was another one who was just basically a big punching bag.

 

No, they are fairly discredited for being breadline runts.

 

I think it's more about being realistic.

Obviously there's Heavyweights in the 70s/80s who could definitely compete now.

You have fighters like Ali, Foreman, Holmes, who were all 6'3 who could weigh between 210-220 and they have between 78-80 inch.

Similar dimensions to Usyk who's the best Heavyweight now.

But when you look at someone like Marciano who was 5'10, 185 pounds, 67 inch reach.

Realistically Marciano isn't going to be successful in this era with his size and dimensions.

And more than likely he would be competing as a Light Heavyweight/Cruiserweight.

 

I remember James Toney who was 5"9 and 160 lbs. he moved up well and beat some of the big men and did pretty well - he may have gotten too fat at one point - also Dwight Qwawi Braxton 5'6 gave big George a nice run and landed quite well until Big George landed a hammer yet Qawi was not a big puncher.

 

I think Buddy Baer was a pretty good heavyweight as well as Abe Simon and others, but I believe Joe Louis was an obstacle who beat all sizes but especially the big men of his day.
I think Louis would be able to handle most of the big men today -Joshua- Fury- Duboise -etc. but may have some trouble with Usyk

 

They are often picked to lose in fantasy fights against their larger modern day counterparts. But fantasy fights are only good for fun conversation and pretty meaningless. What’s important to me is what a fighter accomplished in his own era and under the specific circumstances of that era.

 

This content is protected

 

LMAO