At What Point Did Heavyweight Size Become A Genuinely Decisive Advantage?

OK but two things-Usyk as a successful HW is much bigger than HWs before late last century.
And he had to bulk up to get there.
With a much larger & international talent pool, those who are the size of a typical & great mid century or before HW do not even TRY to bulk up to HW-& those that are just over the minimum do not go far.

It does not make sense that while a rehydrated LHW is at lest as big as historic HWs, they all choose to fight at lower weights.
Even the CWs who are larger especially with rehydration rarely test the HW waters unless like Usyk they bulk up even more.

I would rather it not be true that being around 200 lbs. is not a major disadvantage at HW, but it is.
Let alone in the 180's like Dempsey, Marciano & many others usually were.

 

McVey thinks he's slick by responding inside my quote so his quote won't appear on my post. Funny how your ability to quote people on here and very selective. Either way, here you go.

Yes you did say Jack struggled with Battling Jim. Last time I proved it to you, you had a meltdown.

Here you go...

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...olor-line-himself.457434/page-2#post-14680598

You are splitting hairs trying to argue resumes between Wilder and Toney at HW. Wilder's HW resume was trash. Toney may not have a great HW resume, but again, the topic was about size advantages at HW over the decades. You immediately pounced on my post to try and prove me wrong. I added context to my post, that is, Toney was a naturally smaller HW who excelled in the division. He outboxed Ruiz, Rahman, Holyfield, Oquendo and fought two very close battles with Peter, arguably got robbed in their first fight. Holyfield continued fighting competitively after the Toney loss. Was robbed versus Valuev in a close fight.

I would choose both Rahman and possibly Peter to put Wilder on his back.

 

That was a mistake so I've posted it again
"Toney did very well,personally I think he is a more talented fighter than Jones Jnr.but without the natural physical gifts Jones possessed.
Point 1.Toney's two fights with Ruiz and Rahman have been discounted because of PED's
Point 2 Holyfield was a washed up 41 when Toney beat him.
Point 3 Toney does not have better heavyweight wins on his resume than Wilder who by the way I am not a fan of and I#m not defending him Apart from a big punch and big balls Wilder has very little else.
Johnson did not struggle with Battling Jim ,I have the round by round summary of this fight,you are confusing me with somebody else,like a little dog with a smelly bone you return to it every so often, and your original point is fallacious because I never said Jack struggled with him! I'm happy for you to find that post you say I made and post it here , if you do and you are correct I will admit it and eat crow how's that? If you find I didn't say it I know you are not man enough to come here and say so, just like you cannot admit Guinn wins are inferior to those I named! All this silly projection about my emotional and mental state from you is just wishful thinking on your part.I feel great, I've two weeks in the DominicanRepublic coming up on the 3rd of next month,home for about a week ,then a week in the South of France,an apartment in
Les Issambres opposite St Tropez.
I would have replied to whoever made your inaccurate post,it just happened to be you.
I've only ever put one poster on ignore,that was years ago and he is no longer with us.
You couldn't embarrass me sunshine,you have neither the wit,the knowledge,or the vocabulary to do so.
Just confine yourself to making remarks about farts,that's your level! lol[/QUOTE]

 

You've found the post! I have no recollection of making it,but you found it and I did make it!
FAIR DUES TO YOU I DID SAY IT.YOU WERE RIGHT AND I WAS TOTALLY WRONG! KUDOS TO YOU FOR CORRECTING ME!
I will now eat crow,and wash it down with a zero alcohol Clausthaller beer.

 

My sole issues were you saying Toney has a better heavyweight resume than Wilder, and Guinn was better than those I named.
You've now brought Jack Johnson into the picture ,[not for the first time,] and I have completely accepted that I made those remarks,unlike you I have no problem,admitting when I am .WRONG WHICH IN THIS CASE I WAS. AND YOU WERE RIGHT.
Enjoy your win ,bless you,you don't get many!lol

 

I only brought up Johnson as an example of when I proved you wrong on something and you had a meltdown. I didn't bring him into the discussion to discuss him specifically....see the difference?

I think we've exhausted this topic. Cheerio and pip pip.

 

I've never had a melt down in my life.
Feel free to find any other mistakes I've made, I'm not trying to hide anything,I'm just a fan ,I'm neither a historian ,or infallible.

 

The size never reached that point the sport structurally changed in a way that made it so that large numbers of smaller HW's weren't going to be in that situation.

Two main ways.

A)"Success" changed to winning almost every fight. The best smaller HW's might be able to beat superheavy's and they might be able to have a winning record against super heavy's but they couldn't do that. And that is now what is required of a boxer to be a success. So they went to a weight class where they could that. Usually the lowest one they could cut to.

So your small HW's became big something else's.


B)The addition of cruiser made it so that LHW's and MW's were just structurally further away from HW. A LHW who wanted a fight above 175 pounds was now a Cruiserweight and was looking to fight a whole different group of people then they would otherwise be fighting. Take Benavidez. If CW doesn't exist people are talking about him going to HW instead of CW.

Back in the day if an aging LHW contender was too heavy to make the limit they were a HW now they are a Cruiser. Some fighters break through regardless like Moorer, RJJ and Toney these guys are special. But if there was no Cruiser they would be accompanied by a much larger troupe.