Fury - Joshua VS Klitschko. (Comparative Analysis)

Anyone that refers to Fury vs Klitschko as a 'schooling' is a rabid cheerleader. There was no schooling, if that was a school then it was kindergarten because neither guy threw anything meaningful for 12 rounds and instead danced around the ring feinting for 12 of the dullest rounds I've ever seen. Worst title fight in memory.

 

Subjective = a matter of opinion. What you meant to say was that size is a multifaceted concept. Height, reach, weight and frame all play a role but whichever component you want to look at, the opponents Wlad fought were bigger in all respects than the opponents of previous heavyweight champions. Natural frame is the most accurate indicator because it encompasses all aspects of size: no one (I hope) would take seriously the claim that Roy Jones was bigger than David Tua. In some cases it may be ambiguous to the eye but that doesn't make it subjective; it means that people may find it difficult to tell who's bigger if say, one man is slightly taller and the other slightly more bulky. A sub-cruiser like James Toney can lard up to 230 lbs but he's still a much smaller man than a natural heavyweight like a young Foreman.

6'4, 225 lbs is objectively a big heavyweight, at least by the standards of the 90's. Sanders not only blasted Wlad out legitimately in two rounds, he also tested Vitali's chin and rocked him more seriously than any of his opponents before or after, including Lewis. Sanders' number of 1st and 2nd round KO's was also very impressive (Sanders: 26 in 46 fights, Cooney: 13 in 31, the latter against lower quality opposition on average) so it's safe to say that Sanders was a huge puncher. He was also a southpaw which no doubt helped him catch his opponents off guard and do even more damage (southpaws win something like 54%-57% of the time against orthodox opponents). Wlad is not the only heavyweight champion to be blasted out by smaller men: Lewis met the same fate against 6'2, 230 lbs McCall and Rahman. But it would be absurd to claim that Lewis, who was clearly the biggest elite heavyweight of the 90's along with Bowe, did not have a considerable advantage over his shorter, less rangy and lighter opponents due to his size.

What Cooney has to do with it I have no idea. Sanders and Cooney are entirely different fighters, as are Wlad and Holmes. There is usually a puncher's chance in a heavyweight bout and fighters can be caught cold. It's also hard to reconcile Holmes apparently winning "easily" with the fact that Cooney had won more rounds at the time of the 13th round stoppage.

 

Just going by statistics I've seen I don't think that's true. That's also why there are weight categories rather than height/reach categories. To take an extreme example, a 147 lbs Tommy Hearns would have zero chance against a 255 lbs Andy Ruiz. If the weights are similar though then a boxer with a considerable reach advantage is much more likely to win. It's also the only way a much smaller man can beat a much bigger man with some consistancy. Roy Jones needed to be rangy to have any chance against a weak heavyweight champion but the likes of Canelo: short, stubby and slow on his feet, would very likely get destroyed. Weight is more strongly correlated with punch power than reach and it's strongly correlated with punch resistance. A much lighter fighter is also at an enormous disadvantage in the clinch and boxing can be heavy on grappling if the referee permits it. I agree that weight is vastly more important in pure wrestling and grappling than reach, in boxing it's not quite as clear cut.

 

Yeah that means matter of opinion as to what factor matters the most for size, it can go either way. to have an opinion you must understand the concept of size for boxers. some purely go for the physical dimensions of a person wheras some people just use weight. In the first Aj/Ruiz fight Aj was a sculped 247 pounds and was about 6'6 in height and had a far larger frame overall than Ruiz but in the end Ruiz actually weighed more at approximately 268 pounds on the scale and he also won the fight. Would you claim that 6'7, 212 pound Deontay Wilder is larger than 6'4, 240 pound Joseph Parker or not ? Would you claim that 6'0, 230 pound pound Rivas is bigger than 6'2, 224 pound Povetkin or not ? Was the 6'7, 252 pound Vitali Klitschko that fought areolla bigger than the 6'6, 250 pound version of Joshua that fought Wladimir ? Because Joshua was a HELL of a lot more muscular than Vitali and had a bigger frame, but in the end Vitali weighed more and was taller. Would you claim 6'5, 225lb cooney was bigger than 6'2, 245 pound Ike Ibeabuchi ? Or not ? It all comes down to ones personal opinion about what factor of size matters more and how much does each aspect matter. You use natural frame as a means to determine a boxers size and thats definitely a good way but there are different body types.

Shannon Briggs has a lot more FIRST round KOs than Sanders and Briggs also fought Foreman but Cooney is the one who rocked Foreman more. Foreman himself said Lyle, Williams and Cooney hit him harder than anyone else including Shannon Briggs. Sanders could crack most definitely but Morrison has more stoppages in rounds 1-3 than Sanders and so does Rahman. The fact that Sanders can punch proves you dont need to by a 240 pound behemoth to have awesome power. Funnily enough Rahman said Sanders was the hardest puncher he's ever faced yet he beat Sanders and it was Maskaev and Tua who knocked him out before he fought sanders..... It happens.

A 6'4, 225lb heavyweight was not a big heavyweight in the 90s you're smoking crack. There were a ton of 6'4, 230lb+ Heavyweights in the 90s. A 6'5, 240lb one ? Yes but even then multiple heavyweights around that size or largsr existed in the 90s. Lewis has an advantage against smaller opponents but that didn't mean the fights weren't competitive. He also knew how to fight on the inside. And Lennox Lewis was better than Wladimir Klitschko anyway, even Klitschkos trainer Emanuel Steward said so. Lewis was the best big man he's ever worked with. Lewis has also beaten all the other taller opponents he fought like Michael Grant, Vitali Klitschko, Tyrell Biggs and Henry Akinwande and has beaten multiple other SHWs.

Laat but certainly not least, Cooney was not winning that fight before the stoppage. He may have been on the official score cards but back then america wanted Cooney to be the great white hope so yeah.... corruption lmao. if you actually score the fight yourself you'll realize Holmes was the one who should have been ahead. And if you're too lazy to score the fight yourself I'll give you a link to the multiple fans who scored it

https://eyeonthering.com/boxing/pride-glory-larry-holmes-vs-gerry-cooney

 

Just because there are different opinions doesn't give multiple opinions validity. If someone claims that RJJ is bigger than Tua because he is taller and longer they are smoking crack, likewise if they say that James Toney at 230 is bigger than young Foreman or a very fat BJS is bigger than Breidis. The examples you list are not clear cut but that doesn't make size a matter of opinion. You don't bother comparing Rivas and Vitali because you know that Vitali is bigger. One fighter is always naturally bigger but sometimes it is not obvious. As for what is the most important, being naturally big is critical and the divisions are split into weight classes rather than height classes for good reason. But if weight and size are roughly equal, reach is more important than height. I was reading earlier than in mma, a fighter with a 6.5 inch reach advantage has a 75% chance of winning if the fight stays on the feet.

Briggs had a lot more fights than Sanders and fought more and worse bums, Rahman and Morrison also had more fights than Sanders and had a lower % of 1st and 2nd round KO's. I have never denied that Cooney was a big puncher; he's a big man with a lot of early KO's. I take the words of fighters and "experts" with a pinch of salt though. They very often have ulterior motives for the things they say and always want to paint themselves in a good light. Pretty much everyone of these old fighters claimed that Earnie Shavers was the biggest puncher of all time but the stats don't remotely bear that out and they all beat him. Foreman was a bigger puncher but Shavers got more credit because Shavers best opponents generally beat him but lost to Foreman. Fighters have always bigged up their own era and disparaged those that came after, as if boxing is in a permanent state of decline when the opposite is true as far as absolute ability goes. Jack Johnson claimed that he and his contemporaries would have wiped the floor with Joe Louis, similar to Shavers saying that he would have KO'd the Klitschko's when in reality he got knocked out in 3 rounds by cruiserweight Jerry Quarry. I would have to go back and watch the Holmes-Cooney fight to get an impression of the score but if Holmes was finding it "easy", it wouldn't have taken him 13 rounds to win. If the scorecards are anywhere within the realm of reality, Cooney was winning rounds in a competitive fight. And if corruption and racial bias played as big a role as you are claiming, Cooney wouldn't have been docked 3 points for fouls. Holmes was ahead on the cards by two points on two of the judges cards due to the points deductions and had scored a knockdown, which implies that either Cooney was giving Holmes a lot of problems or the judging was Hopkins-Smith/GGG-Canelo levels of corruption.

I've never claimed that you have to be 6'5+, 240 lbs+ to punch very hard and more goes into getting a KO than raw power. Darnell Boone was a murderous puncher in his weight class but he couldn't land his best shots most of the time. Sanders southpaw advantage meant that he could connect with the element of surprise or in an uncomfortable position more often than his orthodox counterparts. And Sanders was also very aggressive against Wlad early on, which is another key element. But generally speaking, taller, heavier and rangier heavyweights punch harder than their smaller counterparts, as well as being able to take a punch better, being able to wrestle more effectively, hit while out of range and carry more of a fear factor, among other advantages. An exceptional light heavyweight may beat an elite cruiser or punch harder but in the same division the cruisers would obviously tend to dominate. It's just the natural progression: bigger heavyweights tend to beat the smaller ones and over time the average size of the division increases commensurately. Usually when dealing with heavyweights though there is a punchers chance. A 15 stone pro boxer is very likely to put his opponent down and probably out if he lands his absolute best punch. In his prime, Lewis was 240-50 lbs, virtually 6'5 with an 84 inch reach, so he rarely fought anyone taller than him and only one of them was elite (who also had a much shorter reach and was lighter).

Steward claimed that Wlad was more talented than Lewis but lamented his greater conservatism. He claimed that Lewis was currently "greater" than Wlad back in 2011 (premature as Wlad's reign at the top continued for another 4 years, racking up some of his best wins in his mid-late 30's and breaking a slew of heavyweight records) but he claimed that Louis and Ali were "greater" than all of the others, while also saying that this doesn't mean that they would necessarily be able to beat a prime Holmes or Foreman and by extension Wlad, who he claimed would cause the smaller historical heavyweights huge problems with his size, jab and punching power. So the jury is out whether Steward would have put Wlad above Lewis if he had lived a few years longer. Obviously you have a dog in the fight (although it's hard to see why: you being American and Lewis being Jamaican/Canadian/British) but Steward's assessment of the two was far more balanced.

 

Joshua did well to carry Klitschko to the only entertaining fight of his career. Fury was certainly not up to the task.

 

Exactly. Claiming hearns is bigger than Rivas because he's taller and longer is a dumb statement but regardless it's up to how people think of the different physical dimensions that are aspects of size (opinion) in their own head. That's why we're debating. I never said any sigular opinion would be valid but just as you've proved, your opinion on size is different from mine. I dont look at a fighters frame to determine their size relative to another fighter. Because as I've stated, different bodytypes exist. Joshua has a larger, more muscular frame than Vitali Klitschko but during most of his fights he weighed no more than Vitali and he was actually shorter. I never compared Vitali to Rivas because that isn't a matter of opinion. Vitali posseses more units of measurement in every physical dimension that determins size compared to Rivas. Vitali weighed more, he is SIGNIFICANTLY taller and he has an larger overall frame(volume) so if one were to claim Rivas is larger they are objectively wrong. Hearns is obviously not bigger than Tua and I'll clown somebody who says so but at the VERY least Hearns is taller. Size matters of course but only to an extent.

You don't have to take fighters words seriously but if multiple people who fought 1 fighter said the same thing about that 1 fight it is very likely to be true. You also take statistics too seriously, you don't have to knock everyone out if you're a big puncher. There could be journeyman who punch harder than Anthony Joshua and Deontay Wilder but they don't have the efficient enough delivery system to become a world level fighter. Take David Price. There are sparring partners that claim he is a absolutely monster puncher and his knockouts are brutal but he has such a glass chin, and doesn't have the blinding speed that Wilder has is the skill that Joshua or Povetkin does that it does not matter in the long run. Bert Cooper is another, he was a very small heavyweight yet Oliver Mccall claimed Cooper hit harder than anyone he's ever fought and that includes Lennox Lewis, Mike Tyson and Frank Bruno. You dont take fighters words seriously? Ok well I'll give you a feat. Bert Cooper dropped Holyfield in the 3rd round and had him terribly hurt. the same Holyfield that took punishment from Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe and ate punches from Mike Tyson and Foreman but because Cooper wasn't as skilled as the world level fighters of his day or did he have any athletic advantages, he didn't make it to world level. One of Mike Tysons pad trainers said bum Lucus Browne hit harder than Tyson, but it doesn't matter because he's nowhere near as Tyson was and thats why Lucus Brown got obliterated by a bum not too long ago. Earnie Shavers was a murderous puncher based on NUMEROUS accounts and video footage but he wasn't fast nor was he that technically skilled and he had a weak chin so he never really became like a Klitschko or a Foreman. Thats what you dont comprehend. Power isn't everything. There could be people in my local walmart that punch harder than Wladimir Klitschko but they're skilless so they'd get obliterated in the gloves. You discredit fighters words and make up your own scenario that they're lying about Shavers punching power ? Cool theory except theres one little problem with it. Ali beat Shavers AND Foreman and he claimed Shavers hit harder. Statistics isn't 100% accurate if used in boxing

I added three points to Cooneys scorecard and Holmes was still ahead. The fight was competitive but Holmes was ahead in the late rounds and knocked his ass out.

Lewis fought 4 people taller than him. Tyrell Biggs, Henry Akinwande, Michael Grant and Vitali Klitschko, 3 of which are taller than Joshua and 2 of which are arguably larger. And he beat all of them. A fact about the Vitali fight was that he was 37 and overweight and took Vitali on 2 weeks notice wheras Vitali had claimed to have been studying Lewis for years and Lewis still busted his face open in multiple spots and started winning the later rounds. He also beat other 235lb+ heavyweights. There were a multitude of other SHWs in the 90s besides those. Steward claimed Wlad was more talented yes but never did he say Wlad was more skilled or Wlad was the best big man he's ever worked with. He did with Lewis though and Lewis has the better resume. Name me 7 of Wladimirs best wins and I'll name you 7 of Lewis's.

 

Fury obviously did better because he didn't almost lose and was in control the whole fight.
Plus the circumstances and everything he was up against in comparison.
People ignore the fact the fight opened up in the last rounds too.
Both fighters are hard to hit clean, that's also why so few punches landed.
As usual, people look at the fight in hindsight and pretend it was boring, but only because they know the result. People were expecting massive underdog Fury to get KO'd at any moment, despite his lead, so it was dramatic in its own way.

 

And Klitschko still came out of the ring with a very marked up face and sagging knees.
Fury's feints must have hurt him bad.

 

Fosho. Cooney had quick hands. It's a trait a lot of people seem to dismiss

 

I should've clarified that obviously I take weight classes into account. A 200 cm guy weighing 70 kg isn't beating a 180 cm guy weighing 110 kg of solid muscle in a boxing match if the skill disparity is not insane. The beanpole is just too frail. But like a 100 kg and 200 cm heavyweight has a massive advantage over a 180 cm and 130 kg heavyweight. Basically Ruiz vs Wilder. Obviously Wilder has the physical advantage.

 

That's fair enough, it depends a lot on the exact frames we are talking about. For example, would a 6'3, 91kg heavyweight have the advantage against a 6', 120kg heavyweight? The size of the ring also has a lot to do with it: in a small ring Ruiz would have a clear advantage, in a big one Wilder. A lot of that is due to the scoring system of boxing where you don't have to damage your opponent much in order to accumulate a huge points advantage while staying out of harms way.