By Modern Standards, George Foreman was a Caveman

i know

 

name one heavyweight moorer beat that was over 6'2 and any good?

spinks was 30 years ago ffs, heavyweights have evolved

Haye was a huge cruiserweight cut to make 200 came into the ring at around 215, so he was naturally 20 pounds heavier than walcott so he doesn't support your arguement. and besides he had barely any fights at heavyweight

Ademek is a terrible heavyweight who was always way to highly ranked. he robbed Chambers(a crusierweight),robbed Cunningham(a cruiserweight) and got a the beating of a lifetime against the only half decent one he faced

so have you got any good examples

 

evolved means they best fit the rules of today, not got better.

Rules of today have changed from 15 rounders to 12 rounders. Back n the days of 15 rounders, huge athletes had a large disadvantage in carrying big bodyweights into the ring, not being fit enough nor mobile enough to match their trimmer counterparts. They would gass well before double figure rounds. they gass because there are physical limits to how large the human heart can adapt to successfully supply blood flow to a body - the more mass the more difficult it gets, the quicker they gass. As the human heart grows to try and accommodate a bigger body, it actually LOSES ability to keep up, meaning the bigger athlete is LESS fit.

fatter, heavier, bigger athletes no longer have such aa disadvantage of carrying extra weight/load on their hearts and fitness in contests of reduced lengths (12 rounds down from 15). This is why they are thriving, especially when they can pad their records in reduced length fights. In reduced length fights they can capitalise on their weight and strength to win fights before they begin to gass out.

 

You threw out the measurements so im asking you if smaller guys moving up cannot be successful and thus far you've avoided that.

Herea something for you to suck on, Valuev was not only the largest athlete in boxing history, he was also the longest reigning champ of this era outside the Klitsckos,

according to your logic he would never lose right?

well he lost to a CW in Haye and another CW in Holyfield.

Heavyweights have progessed, what a load of ****e.

Didn't a former mw Chris Byrd make Vitali look stupid, throwing punches all over the place like an uncoordinated buffoon?

You really think Moorer would struggle with the likes of Arreola and Stiverne?

I respect Wladmir because he is genuinely a great fighter, the rest are garbage.

As for Adamek, hate him all you want, it will go down in history that he, a former lHw, was one of the dominant heavyweights of this era. He was routinely ranked in the top 5 not so long ago.

So think.before giving me.that **** about how past heavyweights wouldn't be able to compete in this ****ty era, when smaller fighters from their own era have moved up and handled themselves well.

 

Blown up feather fisted cruiser Steve cunningham almost stopped Tyson Fury.

 

his anywhere between 6 foot to 6'2 and a half depending where you look at it, i'd bet his not over 6'2

 

evolution has never meant 'getting better'. no way you can argue that whales are better than the hippo like landlubbers they derive from, but they evolved from them.

evolutuion just means athletes as a body (not indviduals) adapt to fit the rule changes and conditions of today.

 

where is your evidence that chess hasn't been different previous to the 70s,, 60s, 50s, 19th century, 18th century etc?

Just because those players aren't around today, it doesn't mean you can arrogantly decide how good they were for them.

 

chess is all about the strategy over time players learn and develop new strategies while still retaining and knowing knowledge of old ones thats how it evolves and gets better

 

But boxing is not chess is it and anyway, your previous post mentioned nothing about style or technique, you mentioned SIZE.