Boxings - Bigger not Better. by Professor Chuck Marbry.

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by thistle1, Aug 17, 2011.


  1. thistle1

    thistle1 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,915
    151
    Jul 30, 2006
    Professor Chuck Marbry
    TODAY THE PROFESSOR TEACHES YOU BOXING & SIZE...

    Charlotte, NC- The phrase “The bigger they are the harder they fall” was coined by Joe Walcott, The “Barbados Demon,” (147 lbs) welterweight champion of the world from 1901 till 1904. Bob Fitzsimmons definitely popularized the saying before he fought “Big Jim” Jefferies, but it was the original Walcott (not Jersey Joe Walcott of later heavyweight fame), who despite his short frame was very successful against much taller and bigger opponents. Walcott, a natural welterweight certainly deserves a spot on the all time “pound-for-pound” list in pugilistic history, as he fought men from lightweight to heavyweight with success before his career was over.

    MY STUDENTS KNOW THE GAME AND GET THE GRADES
    Among the Professor’s thousands of fans, whenever I bring up the fact that ‘Old School’ fighters were simply a different breed; a tougher, more skilled breed of boxer, especially among the heavyweights, I will, without fail, get the argument that today’s heavyweights are bigger, stronger and faster, and thus would simply overpower and destroy the Old School heavyweights of Jack Dempsey’s (187) era or Rocky Marciano’s ( 189) era or even Jack Johnson’s (220) era. And without trying to be rude, I would like to point out that while I use the terms ‘boxing’, ‘fighting’ and ‘pugilism’ interchangeably, there is a huge difference in ‘fighting’ and ‘boxing’, and the finer points of this is mostly lost on many of today’s fans. But it is exactly those “lost finer points” that I contend that Old School heavyweights, although smaller, would make short work of most of today’s huge heavyweights.

    TODAY “GIANTS ARE THE NORM” & NOT THE EXCEPTION
    While the appearance of the 6’5″ or taller, 250 pound or heavier heavyweight seems to be a fairly recent development, these behemoths are not new to boxing. In fact, two of them would be considered “Old School era” champions; Jess Willard was 6’61/4″ and 245 pounds when he won the title from Jack Johnson on April 5, 1915 in Havana , Cuba, and Primo Carnera was 6’53/4″ and 285 pounds when he won the title from jack Sharkey on June 29, 1933. Both of these title win’s authenticity is debated by boxing historians to this day. However, the fact that both Willard and Carnera lost their titles to men that they outweighed by 60 pounds is not questioned! Jess Willard lost his title to 187 pound Jack Dempsey and Primo Carnera lost his title to 210 pound Max Baer. So, the “Super-Sized” heavyweight is not a new phenomenon.

    MOST OF THE SPORT’S GREATEST HEAVYS WERE 220 OR LESS!
    However, prior to the 1980′s very few heavyweights over 210-215 pounds made the top ten world rankings. And it wasn’t because there was suddenly a shortage of huge heavyweights. The reason was smaller but more skilled and tough heavyweights kept beating them. If you look back in the record books from 1882 to 1982, of the 28 fighters who won the heavyweight title, 19 of them weighed less than 210 pounds. Only two weighed more than 220 pounds (Willard and Carnera). Now, from 1983 to 2010 there have been 94 boxers recognized as heavyweight champions by the various sanctioning bodies. Of course, some men more than once, losing and regaining a title. Of these 94, only 5 have weighed less than 220 pounds at the time of winning the title.

    IS THE CRUISERWEIGHT DIVISION TO BLAME?
    The Professor would suggest that the void of 190 to 210 pounders in the heavyweight division is more than the addition of the cruiserweight division, there is more money and prestige in the heavyweight division. But that void of skilled and tough smaller heavyweights is why mediocrities such as Nikolaiv Valuev, Sam Peter, Odlander Solis, Eddie Chambers, and Hasim Rahmam being ranked in various top ten heavyweight rankings.

    RING MAGAZINE FROM 1933 QUOTED
    The big vs, bigger debate is not new to boxing. It’s been around as long as fist’s themselves. in fact the November 1933 issue of “The Ring” contained an article titled “Giants Not So Hot.” The ring careers of 20 boxers who weighed between 220 and 300 pounds were studied. among the studies were the knockouts of two 300 boxers by light heavyweight champions Bob Fitsimmons and Kid McKoy in the early 1900′s. The article said,” The three hundred pounds each of the big men carried meant nothing against the speed and accuracy and power of these extraordinary smaller fellows.”

    In their primes the greatest heavyweight champions of all times have weighed between 185 and 215 pounds. Muhammed Ali, Jack Johnson, and Smokin’ Joe Frazier weighed between 200 and 215. Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney, Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano weighed less than 200 pounds. Now, if a 6’6″ boxer weighing 250-260 pounds could somehow learn the skill and craft, and acquire the combination of speed, power, mental and physical toughness of these Old School champions, then no Old School fighter, large or small, could touch him. But “that ain’t happened yet!”
    And even if, IF, you could find one with the physical qualities, who is left to teach them the art and craft of boxing?

    Precious few, I’m afraid. Precious few.
     
  2. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,651
    Dec 31, 2009
    could not agree more. Many heavyweights, the majority in fact are no bigger, just heavier than classic 200lb heavyweights. Classic heavyweigts are out there, they just weigh more and are compeating with genuine supersized heavyweights of 6'5''. If jack dempsey bulked up to 230 to fight willard I dont think it would have improved on the result.
     
  3. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    :thumbsup
     
  4. Pachilles

    Pachilles Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,294
    28
    Nov 15, 2009
    Willard and Carnera were 1 in a million freakshows, in **** eras where most fighters fought like **** and didnt fight blacks.

    Willard was 37 years old, coming out of a 3 year retirement when he fought Jack Dempsey. And if size is such a negative as you say, how come this fight is lauded so greatly? Ironically for the size of Willard. Without the size, its a prime fighter Vs a shot to ****, out of shape, 37 year old(in the 1920's) who looks like **** on flm anyway. But of course the size doesnt matter...so thats exactly what it is. So then why is it so celebrated?

    How come all the cruiserweights are **** then? And how come they havent been moving up and dominating?
     
  5. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Because there are like no tainers to teach them how. And lack of talent. Haye could be quite successful with the right trainer and even beat Wlad but well, we know he hasn´t. Similar fo Adamek. Chambers should lose a few more pounds, get the right trainer and he would be successful too. Byrd was successful and more sized like old-school hws. Size is overrated. It only means much nowadays because of the lack of skill of the smaller fighters. Of course skilled big men like Lewis or Wlad would always be amongst the best ever.
     
  6. thistle1

    thistle1 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,915
    151
    Jul 30, 2006
    don't get too analytic here about all this and other such matters, when the answer IS ALWAYS simple!

    the decline of boxing period,
    fighters fight far, far too little,
    champions and contenders DON'T meet each other and earn their way to the top,
    and HWs ARE NOT HWs - they are S-HWs...

    Boxing is **** and not just dying but already dead and just waiting to be buried!!!
     
  7. Mendoza

    Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

    55,255
    10,352
    Jun 29, 2007
    This content is protected
     
  8. Boilermaker

    Boilermaker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,372
    473
    Oct 6, 2004
    Maybe not, but they were probably quite a bit better than Briggs, Golota, Valuev, Bruno and plenty of others werent they?
     
  9. Boxed Ears

    Boxed Ears this my daddy's account (RIP daddy) Full Member

    55,961
    10,380
    Jul 28, 2009
    Whoooooa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa...

    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VldGL5Un7Ds[/ame]
     
  10. DonBoxer

    DonBoxer The Lion! Full Member

    8,063
    34
    Apr 28, 2010
  11. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    267
    Jul 22, 2004
    A good big man beats a good little man, THE END
     
  12. burt bienstock

    burt bienstock Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,285
    400
    Jan 22, 2010
    True. But a great "little man", beats a "good big man ", hold's true...
    Joe Walcott WW
    Jack Dillon
    Harry Greb
    Mickey Walker
    Henry Armstrong
     
  13. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,298
    45,669
    Feb 11, 2005
    Sentimental hogwash. Comparing those rare, bumbling oafs of yesteryear to the fine-tuned behemoths of the past 20 years in inexcusable.

    If size means so little, why even have weight divisions, then?
     
  14. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,651
    Dec 31, 2009

    with 6oz old gloves 200lb heavyweights could compete with punching power against giants. They could cut up a big guy with their higher work rate.

    It used to be that the 200lb guy could set a pace the giant couldn’t live with, cut him up with small gloves and stop him but with 10oz gloves they have to hit the giant that many more times to cut him and today that 200pounder weighs 235lb so the pace he can set is negligible to that of the giant.

    Putting a modern 200lb cruiser in with a modern super heavy is not the answer because the modern heavy is not a classic 200lb heavyweight. The classic heavyweight was just as heavy but bigger and could fight 15 fast rounds.

    Most fighters are fighting at the wrong weight now. ground has been lost while fighters experiment with their B.M.I and protein shakes. Therefore today’s cruiserweights simply would not be 200lb 30 years ago. They would be 169-175lb.

    In an age where a super middleweight is really a cruiserweight who can cheat the scales you would have to say the sport suffers.

    All the fighters out there wont be outdone. They will find the diet and training programme that will put them in the division they want to fight in rather than simply train to a best fighting weight and adapt the boxing style and game plan to suit the engine they have been born with. A fighter used to work with what he had, if he had long arms he was a long range fighter, if he was short he was a pressure fighter, if he was fighting 15 rounds he did more roadwork. That’s all gone.

    The good trainers are still there but the diet guys are more important now. There are some potentially great fighters out there today as there always will be. A great fight will always be a great fight what ever year it takes place in. I just think they are hindered by the equipment and diet programmes.
     
  15. thistle1

    thistle1 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,915
    151
    Jul 30, 2006
    GOOD POST choklab.