Does size count even just a little bit?

I think I've made myself pretty clear.

tl;dr: The Imp was a complete nobody; shame on you for pretending otherwise.

I once thought your problem was just that you see the past through rose-colored glasses that lead you to blindly romanticize the days of yore. Now I'm starting to suspect that you're also a pretty disingenuous poster. Good day, sir. :hi:

 

It counts but so do other factors.

 

Anybody who earned their rating by beating a contender is not a nobody.

And over coming such a size advantage against a solid fighter should count for something. Especially if you emphasize size so much in your argument.

Loughran beat a 6'7" 84" 230 to 250 giant, who was passable enough to slip in the ratings briefly, as well other men of good size. He deserves benefit of the doubt. If you want size considered over talent, it has to go both ways.

 

Of course, but to put things in perspective Povetkin who at this time appears to be the 3rd best heavyweight post Lewis,went life and death with Huck giving up 20 pounds

 

Of course . and a lot.
Still remember 4 idiots trolls insinuating que the best weight of tua was 201 and marciano 190 lol. They were naturally the same weight . what a pathetic trash.

 

Loughran beat a mediocre and inexperienced giant. Ability can overcome size if there's a vast gap in class, experience etc. How would Loughran have fared against a much more formidable super heavy like Bowe, Lewis or Vitali? He did lose to the similar sized Carnera.

 

He wasn't as inexperienced as he looks on boxrec, his record is awknowleedged to be incomplete.

Follow the conversation, please.

I never once said Loughran was beating those men.

The OP was favoring the average and just as inexperienced 81 Berbick over Loughran just because he said Loughran beat nobody of note over 202 pounds.

I am correcting him. Loughran beat Skys****er who was 250ish and a rated fighter of note in the mid 30s. He beat Baer who was light at the time of the fight but was a 6'3" 81" man who filled out as high 220+.

31 Loughran can outbox a man of Berbick's size and likely ability, especially if he has proper prep time and isn't at the end of a 10 fight tour or fighting his second fight in as many weeks.

 

BTW, how do you know that his record isn't really as incomplete as it is on boxrec?

Either way, no comparison whatsoever between Trevor Berbick and the Imp in terms of experience or athletic ability. But back to my original point, I simply do not see Trevor Berbick losing to a man with Loughran's limited size and power.

 

It was discussed on the boxrec forums. He has been listed with more fights, they just couldn't track down and confirm them all. Someone also mentioned he had amateur experience. It is said his record was definitely incomplete. Boxrec only lists confirmed fights, many have been lost to history. The site even lists 5 fights in his biography they are waiting to update/confirm.

No comparison between Berbick and all time great Loughran in experience and fighting ability.

If you don't want to credit Loughran for beating a big man of note, you should change your thread to "size counts....only in the match ups I want it to."

 

:huh

Of course size matters. I guess we'll just have to disagree about whether getting stopped (and then unstopped) in a fight against The Imp suggests that a fighter would fare well against Trevor Berbick.

 

Obviously size counts.
If you were a heavyweight boxer you'd rather be 6'4 or 6'5 plus with a 80+ inch reach, and at least 220 pounds, wouldn't you ?

 

When we compare a fighter like Marciano vs lets say Klitschko, we aren't comparing the actual fighters we're comparing their styles. Strengths, weaknesses, everything. Marciano was an average heavyweight in the time that he fought just shorter. If we put him in proportion to todays era of heavyweights he would beat Klitschko.

 

And there you have your answer.

Loughran was the best technician in the heavyweight division, but he was unable to overcome Carnera's physical advantages.

The fighters who have been successful at overcoming large size disparities, have tended to be wrecking machines.

 

If I got to choose, I'd rather be 6'2 210lb with no fat.

 

Every time someone brings up an example of a small heavyweight beating a giant before 1999, it's always "Yeah but that was a mediocre bum."