Giant Killers

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by GPater11093, Jul 29, 2011.


  1. GPater11093

    GPater11093 Barry Full Member

    38,034
    90
    Nov 10, 2008
    Looking through history we have seen boxers who are exceptional at defeating the larger man. Middleweights have beaten Heavyweight champions, Welterweights have drawn with Heavyweight champions and knocked out top contenders, and Light-Heavyweights have historically done quite well after moving up from the 'stepping stone' division.

    So it begs the question, where are all the 'Giant Killers' now?

    OK, we have had two former-Middleweight-champions win (He did win it but was later stripped) Heavyweight titles in Toney and Jones, but these guys put on weight, either bulk or bulge, to compete with these guys, they weren't 168lbers knocking out top contenders either, they out-pointed some solid contenders. And a former Light-Heavyweight champion is making relative waves at the Heavyweight title gate, but again he has bulked himself up into the 200lb plus type.

    Also it should be interesting to note that one of the better Heavyweight contenders over the last decade or so was a smaller man, relativly speaking, in Chris Byrd. So it wouldnt be unfeasible to think a small man could compete today.

    But in the last 50 years or so we have seen a massive decline in the amount of lower weight boxers having a go at the Heavyweight title. I can think of a few reasons:

    1. The Heavyweights have grown bigger, making the size differential even bigger, but IMO that can be advantageous to the smaller man also.

    2. Money. To tackle a Heavyweight when you are Middleweight champion, you would not be making that much money compared to your risk value.

    3. Peers. No-one else is doing it, so why should I? There is no current climate of Middleweights knocking out Heavyweights, so why would any lower weight guy fancy his chances up at Heavyweight?

    However, I will add if a Super-Middleweight did, say, knock-out Vitali Klitschko, I am sure they would be hailed as perhaps the GOAT.

    So why do you guys think it is? Where have our Bob Fitzsimmons, our Harry Grebs, our Barbados Joe Walcotts, and our Billy Conns gone?

    Also would any of you guys say favour an Andre Ward, Lucien Bute or Bernard Hopkins to do any real damage at Heavyweight?
     
  2. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,523
    27,100
    Feb 15, 2006
    I think that desperation was a key factor in many of the giant killers of the past stepping up to the plate.

    This was a period when even a champion was lucky if they could make enough money to suport them after their boxing career went down the tube.

    It tended to focus minds a bit more!
     
  3. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    I think a lot of it is that people seem to dismiss the idea of giant killing overall. Nobody really gave a **** back in the day about Greb or Walker tackling the big boys, but today people would think it's unsafe, expect the smaller guy to come in a certain weight, and expect the smaller guy to lose almost every time. I think that's part of the reason people's jaws drop at what Pacquiao and PBF have done, or Jones beating Ruiz(which really isn't that great of a win, per se).

    also: the decline of infighting ability and rules letting you infight. People seem to think andre ward is satan.
     
  4. MAG1965

    MAG1965 Loyal Member banned

    34,796
    64
    Dec 1, 2008
    I am not sure there have been many guys moving up and beating bigger guys. We only hear about the guys who succeed.
     
  5. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    Andre Ward would school the **** out of Adamek.
     
  6. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,523
    27,100
    Feb 15, 2006
    That is another side of the coin.

    Back in the day there were many fighters regarded as being great at their own weight, who just got creamed when they stepped up.

    Jack Delaney for example.
     
  7. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    264
    Jul 22, 2004
    The difference in weight between a top HW and a top MW, has grown from about 20lbs to about 70lbs, that's why it's much harder to do it now and you absolutely do need the extra strength that added muscle mass provides. And it's not just about punch power, its being drained in the clinches, not being able to block bigger mans punches, not being able to take their shots

    MW back then were facing men who only had 20-30lbs on them, Fitz was only giving up what 15lbs to a none puncher against Corbett. Greb was giving up around 20lbs against the better HWs he faced. That's the sort of weight Holyfield gave up most the time against the better HWs he faced too

    Jones Jr wanted to face Holyfield in 1999 but Holyfield lost to Lewis so that scuppered that fight and Lewis was just too big for Jones or any ex MW really. Jones-Holyfield would have been very interesting then, if Jones wins he probably faces Tyson ducking Lewis
     
  8. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    Jones wouldn't have won that one IMO. I'd give him an okay chance against that Tyson though.
     
  9. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,649
    Dec 31, 2009
    the best boxers are the ones fighting at their strongest natural weight. The klitchkos have an edge because they are genuine big guys that are not carrying too much extra weight.

    The heavyweight class is distorted to such an extent that regardless of the height most of them are 30lb too heavy. remember bowe himself was once 216lb. george foreman was 209.

    a 6'1'' hevayweight with 76'' reach and size 10 shoe is as likley to be 250lb as a 6'9''heavyweight with 84'' reach and size 15 shoe.

    For about 50 years 6'1'' tall meant 200lb.
     
  10. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,523
    27,100
    Feb 15, 2006
    There is another side of the coin however.

    It is much easier for smaller fighters to add bulk today.

    Tommy Loughran had to fight Primo Carnera as little more than a light heavyweight, while today he could bulk up to 210lbs or more.
     
  11. Kalasinn

    Kalasinn ♧ OG Kally ♤ Full Member

    18,318
    57
    Dec 26, 2009
    I would've loved to have seen Greb-Dempsey.
     
  12. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    Lucian Bute vs David Haye....

    Not unwinnable for Bute IMO.
     
  13. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    264
    Jul 22, 2004
    Bute isn't really proven for my liking, can't see him winning the fight from the outside as he likes to sucker opponents in so Haye would just pick him off from range and well he lands doom and gloom

    Now Andrew Ward being a better technical boxer, he stands a chance, Haye is rendered completely in effect inside and at mid range so if Ward gets inside and backs Haye up he could beat him upm plus Ward is slippery. Ward's stamina would also take Haye out of his comfort zone. I'd still lean towards Haye though
     
  14. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    264
    Jul 22, 2004
    All the bulk added isn't always effective bulk, it needs to be added in the right areas and it usually isn't, thats why most fighters slow down and don't necessary increase power
     
  15. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    I think he'd be able to hurt david with his left. definitely wouldn't be favored, i'd say 30/70 chance of winning. Ward i don't know. Does he have the speed or the size to compete here? He certainly has the skill.

    BTW in that John L thread i wrote a big post about scotch and bourbon, you better have read that mess.