Classic Forum Chat: Size isn't the only factor.

And let's not forget there were two men in the ring.
Has AJ ever shown that he could handle a fighter like Usyk?
It wasn't that long ago that he was up and down in the ring against chubby Andy.
He won the rematch but didn't really do it the way most thought he would.
But winning a decision over a Ruiz type guy is a world away from beating a sound fighter like Usyk.

I've never been a massive fan of AJ, reminded me of a better version of Bruno.
So the decision didn't blow me out of the water, but credit to the winner. He did excellent.

 

Well said.

Let's face it - There's a case to be made for Chisora having done better against Usyk than did Joshua, which should help put things into perspective.

 

This is the problem with how the heavyweight weight class is being mislabelled in modern times.

We are now at the ludicrous point where people can say “Larry Holmes, Mike Tyson and Muhammad Ali would be cruiserweight today”.

you either decide a man deliberately weighed what the weight class demanded in his time or he was just being his natural self.

Physically, Usyk today, has more in common with Larry Holmes. Perhaps.

But perhaps too Usyk has even more in common with Evander Holyfield?

By nature there is not so much difference between Walcott and Evander Holyfield is there?

so we have to say a lot has to do with the decade a fighter takes part in. It’s more complex than just saying Usyk is 30lb bigger than Walcott. It’s only partially the story.

The big guys, as we have known them since the days of Vitali and Wladimir, are a new phenomenon. A modern issue that is new. A different weight class.

I don’t think Usyk is so far away from James J Braddock. And he fit right in to his time.

. Well it happened. We saw it didn’t we? At the elite level.

Technically, on paper, this statement looks true. Factually true. But nobody said Michael Spinks was as big as Ron Lyle. Nobody said Micheal Moorer was as big as Sonny Liston. They are remembered as smaller men who “blew up” to suit the circumstance.

 

Big guys have always existed, modern big men are just more athletic.

No we didn't. Usyk was 6'3, 221lb. He didn't show up below 200 and he's naturally above 200 anyway. Chris Byrd was also over 200 pounds and he won because Vitali's shoulder tore.

Because Moorer and Spinks did bulk up to get to that size so Ron Lyle and Liston are naturally larger but they still ended up being that size at heavyweight so it doesn't really matter

 

l thought to myself "wtf" as I read it.

 

I think we are in danger of dismissing size disparity as an irrelevance.There is a reason Moorer,M Spinks Holyfield,Haye,Byrd,Toney,Ellis,and now Usyk bulked up ,they and their trainers obviously believed it gave them a better chance of beating the naturally bigger guys. 200lbs plus 6 feet 3 is big enough if the talent is there.

 

I think the trouble with professional boxing is the promoters decide what type of fighters get to the top of their part of the “closed shop” world they operate in. And matching one guy to win rather than matching two men to make the best fight doesn’t always develop enough of the advanced type of champions in the higher weight classes as we used to see.

And why are they more athletic? Is it because they had to wait for improved nutrition, science and training, more readily available information to come in? Are we to measure fighters without what is available now to improve them with the ones that are currently finding this all so beneficial?

This is correct. Usyk did not show up below 200 and he might naturally be above 200 anyway. But look at older heavyweights like Joe Louis. Wasn’t he naturally above 200? Wouldn’t he be thrown into the “would have been a cruiserweight today” club?

is there really that much difference between Spinks moving up to beat Larry and Usyk moving up to beat big Josh?

 

Didn't Loma have 300 plus? Usyk too obviously.

 

Maybe but Louis wouldn't be a small cruiser which is what is what i originally said. I don't see 190 pound guys (small cruisers) beating modern SHWs

Spinks was a light heavyweight that moved up and Spinks didn't beat a super heavyweight. Usyk was a large Cruiser (over 200lb+ on fight night) and beat a super heavyweight. As a matter of fact Holmes against Spinks actually weighed around as much as Usyk did against Joshua.

This puts the size gap in to perspective does it not ?

 

I don't care about your feelings on Braddock's technical abilities in the grander scale of things. There is a huge struggle for you guys to stay on topic here and it's obvious because you have no counter for my point and desperately want one.

My point was the comment I quoted from that thread which has been a prevailing myth on this forum, and what I believe to be an overestimation of the technical ability and speed required to overcome even ponderous modern giants. It does not take Chris Byrd level defensive mindedness and zero margin of error as the aged Uysk demonstrated against Joshua. That is all.

 

Box rec gives him 89.

 

I don't have any feelings about your post one way or the other friend ,I just disagreed with your description of Braddock as a technician imo he wasn't. I haven't agreed or disagreed on your other points .Your feathers are getting ruffled for no reason I can see

 

Whoa buddy...calm down. I see you are very sensitive and read too much into things. You might want to take an internet break, get some fresh air. This isn't worth killing yourself over.

 

They are hundreds off. Their amateur records are often miles wrong.

 

That's basically what I just said to you, lol I'm as chilled as a bag of frozen peas and certainly not sensitive .I've only recently started posting here again, I think I'll stick around for a while.You opened with ,"I dont care about your feelings," maybe not the most diplomatic way of putting things, howsome ever lets start afresh!