Heavyweight size - An objective look on the modern "super-heavyweights"

They were always getting bigger, because people are getting bigger.

Remember when 6' 5+" guys like Carnera were exceptions, called "giants" and were pretty clumsy in the ring?
Nowadays most of the top 20 guys are 6' 5" or bigger, and Cruiserweights who would have been full size HW's in the "golden" era, are mostly seen as too small to compete.

 

Yeah, the top four or five cruiserweights would be top ten heavyweights if they couldn't fight at 200 lbs. While you are looking at history you might want to look at the 1930s when there were a lot of super heavyweights and the average size was about 6'3" like it was in the 80s and 90s.

 

Cruisers who became top heavyweights in the modern era: Holyfield, Moorer, Byrd, Adamek, Toney, Chambers, Cunningham, Haye.

 

If it was that simple, and your theory was true, cruiserweights, the actual 220 lbs cruiserweights, should be able to EASILY move up and shatter some "behemots" chin and become champion.

while in reality, very few cruisers even try to move up, and even the best ones have had mixed results and failed to dominate the division.

Which completely dismantles your theory.

Because it's not the cruiserweight division that is draining talents from the division above. It's that the division above is simply better, as is with all boxing weight divisions.

 

Adamek, Byrd, Chambers, Cunningham and Haye are frequently dismissed as semi-bums. Nobody considers them top heavyweights.

Additionally, not one of the fighters you listed became a dominant champion. At most they managed to grab an alphabet belt before quickly losing it.

And finally, every single loss any of thse guys suffered has been attributed to size. Every. Single. One.

Holyfield vs Bowe? Too small. Haye vs Klitschko? Too small. Adamek vs Klitschko? Too ****ing small. Cunningham vs Fury? Too freaking small.

Which is the point, isn't it?

 

Exactly!

Ali vs Fury? Too small!

 

Sanders were 6''4' for god sake.

He would have been bigger than the likes of Tony Tucker and so on - opponents that looked huge compared to Tyson...

 

You always give the most rational arguments for your position PS. You've got some point to some of it, but generally, I would mostly will just agree with what the other posters on my side on this page said in disagreeing, except I'd add a couple questions and or arguments. First, I only tracked the ring top 10 through approximately the early 1950's. I did it by randomly taking years about 6-8 years apart and comparing sizes. I found a steady progression of about .5-.75 inches per decade. That was well before the cruiserweight division was formed. Sounds like you got a different result? I know the most scientific way of doing it would be to track each year, but I just didn't have the patience or time.

I didn't track before then because I figured the great wars would skew the talent pool and warp the results.

Anyway, as you say, will just agree to disagree:good

 

Or taking his training more serious...

 

Have to go with Andrew on this one, no offense.

 

Miserable attempt to divert the attention from the fact i debunked your point.

1 The guys you mentioned were never dominant heavys

2 All their shortcomings have been blamed on their size disadvantage, and this is unquestionable.

On a side note, if you are going to try to use singular losses as examples,

Was Douglas too big against Tyson? Was Lewis? Was Lewis too big against Tua and Holyfield? Was Wladimir too big against Chambers? What about light heavyweight Henry Cooper than knocked Ali unconscious, was he a drained talent from the lightheavyweight division?