Boxings - Bigger not Better. by Professor Chuck Marbry.

Good post, choklab! I agree.

 

What has changed the most in boxing with regaurds to the "big guys" is how they fight. Primo Carnera who I think gets underatted being the possible excipition. Most of the big guys atempted to overwhelm their oppoents. The more modern big guy tends to stay back and pick their shots. Wald Klitchko may not be a master boxer or the most exciting boxer in the world. It seams that people (espicialy in the classic forum) tend to confuse exciting with really really good. The same goes for tough. Sorry I got On a tangant there. However Wald along with His brother Vitili and Lenox Lewis for example. Have learned that by staying back and not letting the smaller guy get to them. Boxing is just as much a straditgy game as it is a physcial sport.
Let me ask you this question. How much better would Paul Williams be if he used his size to his advantage and stayed back used his jab more and control the distance.
I think the answer is obivious. He would be a lot better. I am hard pressed to think of anyone in the 147-160 who I'd pick to beat him.

 

Forrest Gump with more backwards logic.

 

Thank you. Yesterday's small heavies would get destroyed by most of the modern era's world class heavies. And if the diet and training regimens didn't work, no one would use them.

Willard was an oaf who fought *because* he was big. That's all he had. These days, there are plenty of 6-6 kids who play World of Warcraft and no one bats and eye. People are a lot bigger now than they were in the first half of the 20th Century.

______

The report, [url]Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index (BMI) 1960-2002: United States[/url], shows that the average height of a man aged 20-74 years increased from just over 5'8" in 1960 to 5'9½" in 2002, while the average height of a woman the same age increased from slightly over 5'3" 1960 to 5'4" in 2002.


_____


If you compared 2011 against 1911, you'd see an even more dramatic difference.

 

Good article.

It's true that the vast majority of the great heavyweights weighed under 220 at their best. That's beyond debate.

Most of the modern super-sized heavyweights (6'5 +, 250 pound types) look cumbersome, unpolished and ponderous and slow as hell to me, most of the time.
So those sorts of criticisms levelled at monster-sized HWs of the past don't have any impact. What's changed ? We just have more big cumbersome lumps nowadays, or less sub-220 pound excellent fighters, or both.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyjXi5_mmYg"][/ame]

 

So darn true ,your statement. If Dempsey and others under 200 pound fighters would have been improved, by lugging around surperfluous weight ,
their great astute trainers and managers,as Teddy Hayes,Jack Kearns, and Joe Louis's great trainers as Jack Blackburn and Mannie Seamon, superior to today's trainers,would have certainly fattened them up. If ypu look at films of the oldtime heavyweights ,they were so much leaner looking than toiday's dreadnaughts and definitely superior in stamina. If yesterday' great smaller fighters as Walcott, Langford, Dillon, Greb, Walker, Armstrong,could repeatedly whip much bigger men from heavier divisions, why not the under 200 pound great heavyweights as Langford, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis,etc, not DO THE SAME,against the 230 and up heavyweights
today ? If the smaller oldtimers could do it, so could the Langfords,Dempseys and the Louis's, for sure. Common sense dictates that...

 

Sad but true.

 

Bigger and just as good does make a difference. Guys like Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis could beat comparable skilled fighters using their size. Same goes for Mike Tyson vs a guy like Jack Dempsey for example. I do believe that.
The guys today are big but not even good or close to being as good.

 

all good points:good

 

Good post...

 

Surely nobody has ever said theyd be better by adding superflous weight though have they?

but being bigger and heavier and still being in excellent shape would be an improvement, thats common sense.

 

You mean like Evander Holyfield moved up and dominated?

Or Michael Spinks Moved up and became lineal Champion. Or Michael Moorer.

Or how David Haye and/or Adamek moved up became the third best fighters in the world.

The Training is the difference. Chris Byrd was a 200lber with todays weight lifting emphasised training. When he started running like the older fighters, he became a light heavyweight. If everybody trained like they in the old days, the weights and heights would not be all that much different. If there was no cruiserweight division, some smaller fighters would sneak into the top 10 because they would beat many of the actuall larger fighters, particularly the ones that are no good. (this is of course assuming that fighters would actually fight which the dont nowadadays, which is another reason why the big strong power hitters can reach the top 10 and appear to dominate)

Which training method is better? Who knows, and probably it depends on the rules and distances. Personally i dont believe in the weight lifting theory, but obviously many modern fighters do believe in it, particularly those who actually seem to fight. Although it is interesting that the very best fighters even today seem to put more emphasis on conditioning than weights. In fact, the best conditioned fighters, particularly in the heavy division usually seem to dominate. See: Klitchskos, Lennox, Evander, Prime Tyson etc.