Does size count even just a little bit?

I'm not sure that's true.

I haven't checked so this is just a hunch, but I wouldn't be surprised if the champion is usually the biggest man in the division.

 

I haven't checked either but I am sure bigger rated specimens existed whilst Dempsey, Tunney, schmeling, Louis, sharkey, Baer, Marciano, Patterson, Ellis, Frazier, Holyfield and Tyson were champions.

Certainly Ali was among the biggest but there was Terrell, Wepner and Bugner that were bigger and many as big like Lyle, Foreman and Norton. Same with Holmes, nearly everyone was the same size as him. Cooney cobb Bonecrusher, jones and Williams were all bigger.

 

Well Jeffries certainly was, as was Johnson I think. Willard certainly was and so was Carnera. Liston was I think. Ali and Foreman were. Bowe, Lewis, Klitschko and Fury as well.

Today the best HW imo is Joshua and he's not the biggest, there are those in the division bigger than he.

All they need to do is clamp down on clinching imo.

 

but that is a shorter list than..
Fitz,
Burns,
Dempsey,
Tunney,
schmeling,
Sharkey
, Baer,
Braddock,
Louis,
Charles,
Walcott
, Marciano,
Patterson,
Ellis,
Leon spinks
Frazier,
Holmes,
Michael spinks,
Tyson,
Holyfield
who were not the biggest of their own era.

Ali and Foreman were not the biggest in the division either because Wepner, Bugner were bigger than both.

That leaves only Carnera, Willard and Johnson as the biggest of their times before the steroid explosion.

 

Yes it always mattered. It mattered a lot less at Heavyweight before the Michael Spinks experiment though.

 

1. You said he had no special taren't
2. I told you're wrong
3. Now you're saying something else.

Donald also had very fast hands btw.

 

It is shorter I agree.

However size has always played a part in the shape of the division.

Fitz lost to a heavier man Jeffries, Burns lost to a heavier man Johnson, Johnson lost to a heavier man Willard, Schmelling lost to a heavier man Sharkey, Sharkey lost to a heavier man Carnera, Braddock lost to a heavier man Louis, Charles lost to a heavier man Walcott, Patterson lost to a heavier man Ingo, Patterson lost to a heavier man Liston, Frazier lost to a heavier man Foreman, Spinks lost to a heavier man Ali, Tyson lost to a heavier man Douglas, Holyfield lost to a heavier man Bowe, Moorer lost to a heavier man Foreman, Briggs lost to a heavier man Lewis, Rahman lost to a heavier man Lewis, Klitschko lost to a heavier man Fury.

That's a quite long list going back to the start of boxing. Every so often an anomaly comes along with more skill than size but looking at that you'd say that's the minority right?

Corbett was lighter than Sullivan, Fitz was lighter Corbett, Burns was lighter than Hart, Dempsey was lighter than Willard, Tunney was lighter than Dempsey, Baer was lighter than Braddock, Marciano was lighter than Walcott, Patterson was lighter than Ingo, Ali was lighter than Liston, Ali was lighter than Foreman, Spinks was lighter than Ali, Holyfield was lighter than Douglas, Holyfield was lighter than Bowe, Briggs was lighter than Foreman, Rahman was lighter than Lewis.

Actually it's 17-15 in terms of the split.

What does that tell us? Nothing new. Size is important but so is skill. In HW if you can use your size you're at an advantage.

Are we ever gonna see a 190 pound champ again? Never because we have a 200 limit on the CW division. Are we ever gonna a see a 220 champ again? Wilder was 219 when he won his belt and he has a realistic chance of being the next true champion.

The division has got bigger but you over react to things, Wlad dominated a decade with his jab and grab routine, no other SHW in history has done that. Fury beat him by outboxing him from range, Brewster beat him by absorbing a hellacious beating before landing his money maker. I am thinking more and more it's Wlad that's the anomaly in this.

Hell, the most recent HW champion was sat on his arse by a former CW contender.

 

This is a very good post and I like it a lot.

Very fair points are put across here, I had not realised the passing of one champion to another as evidence as the bigger man eventually coming out on top but you were right to mention that many champions who were not the biggest in the rankings eventually wound up losing the title to heavier men. The degree was somewhat negligible between Walcott and Charles, Louis and Braddock, schmeling to sharkey, Frazier to Foreman and Lewis to Briggs but let's not quibble about that.

Size is important. It is a factor. And there are many many other factors. Holding, glove size, duration of championship fights, interval training and the newer achievable capability of developing functional weight to neutralise size and age.

 

Yes you are correct. I should have said resume wise Haye does not stand out any greater than Valuev. Both were bit part players and second fiddle to the Klit boys in the over all scheme of things.

I don't think Satterfeild was anymore significant than the larger Nino valdes yet he beat him.

I don't think S.T Gordon was significantly better equipped to beat 20lb heavier Trevor Berbick yet he still beat him.

Leon Spinks, was he really a level above the heavier Bernardo Mercado? I don't think so yet Spinks beat him.

And I still don't think Haye will go down as having a better HW career than Valuev did when all is said and done.

 

In the literal sense 35lb in 1917 is still 35lb today. It matters. It has to be overcome.

Do you think if we put 35lb on Tommy Burns in the way they put extra 35lb of weight on a fighter in those days (raw eggs, beer, less roadwork etc etc) he would be as good of a fighter as the man he could be using today's bulking up methods? Because I don't. In that sense would 35lb of extra weight even be an advantage to Tommy Burns? So does weight matter in this instance? Yes it does. But not in the way we know it can now.

Tommy Burns being out reached by a Jack Johnson also counted. I get that. Size counted in that instance. It was a factor. Ali using his reach counted a whole lot too. I get that.

But did size count for Willard versus Dempsey or For Carnera versus Joe Louis? Did it count for or against them? Did size advantage mean only the biggest heavyweight guys always dominated the top of the ratings during all of the decades?

Now we can say Dempsey and Louis were incredible athletes, once in a generation phenomenal talents and that is how come they beat Giants..so let's look at guys like S.T Gordon who beat Berbick. Or Bob Satterfeild beating Nino Valdez. Or all the smaller guys who beat giants like Pettifer, Hoff, Buddy Baer, Fulton, Godfrey without becoming house hold names. Those guys all lost to lighter men who were not phenomenally talented.

So yes size mattered then and it matters now. Over all it matters. But it used to matter less on occasions to a greater extent than it does now.

 

Sports science improving helps but only to a degree imo. A sprinter can improve the time it takes him to sprint with focused training, but boxing is made up of too many different factors for the same level of improvement. The main benefit has come in the way of cutting weight and regaining it, to mean a 190 pound fighter can healthily weigh 175 pounds 24 hours before his fight. That is a big change in boxing and a negative effect of the 24 hour weigh in. I'd imagine with a same day weigh that 190 pound fighter would be fighting at CW instead.

Duration of fights is another big change due to the health risks involved. It means that a fighter doesn't have to be as fit in terms of stamina but can be more for in terms of strength and explosiveness. In some ways it's totally impossible to imagine the change it would have because during the transition people didn't understand what they could get away with, now they have a much better understanding of what works for 36 minutes as opposed to 45.

Holding is beneficial to the bigger man but it isn't limited to HW fighting. I hate it because it's the most negative move in boxing and it reduces the skill level involved. But so far only Wlad has perfected it so maybe it isn't as big an issue as I fear.

Glove size makes no difference imo, I've never bought into that theory.

Comparing fighters of yesterday with fighters of today requires outside of the box thinking because of the 24 hour window. Would Louis have campaigned at CW before taking on the HW division given the option? Would Rocky ever have bulked to take on the HW division? Especially considering guys like Chambers and Byrd who could have made CW but followed the money as opposed to guys like Haye and Adamek who found fame in the lighter division first.

I don't think any of this is a bad thing really, if a man is not big enough to compete at HW and can't handle the extra weight required, he shouldn't be fighting there.

When matching fighters I always consider them today, I never consider them in the older fighters era. That's a flaw of mine, amongst many others.