Heavyweights at 6ft and under today. Dead meat?

Any HW nowdays under 6ft seems to be a fatty.

We will NEVER see another Tyson IMO. Its all these 6ft 8 guys nowdays...

 

The topic should be about Heavyweights who are 210-220+ pounds............

David Haye is a throw back in terms of physicality, to the big-guns of the 1970's and 1980's, 1990's.

The Topic should be about Heavyweights vs Superheavyweights.

Because if you really think about it Jazzo, there have only really been a handfull of really great Heavyweights under the height of 6ft.

 

We can count them on one hand although Dempsey was slightly taller, Dempsey, Marciano, Frazer and Tyson in one hundred years or so, so they are pretty rare I do think Tua if he had better management and Trainer could have been added to this list.

If we say a fighter of this style rises every twenty five years then we are due for one and I hope he gets here soon.

 

a fainting fairy who's afraid to fight anyone in the division who isn't a mummy?

does this guy ever plan on defending his vaunted title?

 

matters with the weight. Problem is most champs now are 240 and up, so if a guy is 5-11 weighting 240 and up is a pretty stocky fighter.

 

from boxrec (took me about 2 mins to find) all these guys are 6'0" or shorter how many of these guys would collect one or more of the four major belts at some point in their careers:

rocky marciano, ezzard charles, jersey joe walcott, sam langford, floyd patterson, joe frazier, Ingemar Johansson, Sam McVea, mike tyson, tommy burns and a whole lot more that would probably fill this page.

Im no boxing historian like some of the posters here, but you think the current champs would run through these guys. no they wouldnt.

size is not the most important factor, you must come to terms with that.

 

as long as there mobile enough and use there speed i dont see any problems if byrd could do well against tht klits i dont see why others couldnt.

 

In the general concept, "styles makes fights" the 6ft (or under) guy is already put in a position of disadvantage (THIS ONLY WORKS IF HIS OPPONENT CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS). This is what we see from looking at the tape, a taller guy and a shorter guy and an assumed advantage/disadvantage. A good tall fighter is hard to crack especially when his specialty is distance (or he's capable of utilizing it).

Now, knowing this, imagine the 6ft'er puts in the correct amount of training and study to understand his taller foe. Yes, it is an uphill battle but also a chip in the psychological game in the ring. You get that chip (being the shorter fighter) the taller fighter will work in a series of phases depending on their knowledge/experience/talent. If the taller man's crux of his offense rests on the distance game and the shorter guy knows what he's doing, this is a short phase (short guy should win eventually). A better opponent might try to do a "breakdown" and find their way to establishing an advantage so if you "break" is distance, he might shift to establishing quicker footwork to make the short guy work harder (among other things and/or continue shifting to another angle of control). Either way, get this chip and you control a facet of the generalship in the ring.

Today, we're assuming the larger guys are always the better guys. Despite the average favoring the taller guys these days, none of that adds up to what proper training can do.

I think this concept exists because it rests on a few factors. Currently the Klitschko Bros are very tall around 6'7" and use their height and distance to a chess-like advantage. You see that and would easily assume taller guys are better, especially when they dominate using their physical advantages. Keep in mind, their training is very tight in terms of seriousness, and this leads to successful results (there's so many other factors too, but I promise there's a thread here). Another factor being that most of the guys in the HW are quite large. Recently the HW seems like a dumping ground for any fighter that couldn't keep their weight in check. Be that as it may it's still completely possible to get a fighter in the HW division with the drive to take the title, it also just so happens a lot of factors push against this possibility. It would take a fighter of high caliber talent plus experience and know-how, and a dedication towards applying the science to all its advantages when the correct opportunity arrives. It's totally possible, but I understand the curtain call by saying, "Dead Meat". I see what you mean, however I think it's not really 'dead meat', just a higher mountain to climb (rarer in possibility).

We've had Tyson who is probably the best example of proper application in the ring and during training in his earlier days. Holyfield is at a shorter height and took care of a freshly declining (but game) Riddick Bowe and out boxed the horrible Valuev. Jack Dempsey had pure ferociousness and ring intellect wrapped up in a neat package that would knock you flat on your backside. Rocky Marciano the pure picture of determination and proper application, he wasn't pretty but his intangibles could leave you wonderin' how you outboxed him only to get dropped with his thudding style. Joe Frazier was pure determination with a Futch-crafted style to boot! It's rare, but possible. We'll see someone coming down the track and on its way into the history books. Give it time.

To be honest, I'd give anything to see a fighter do a "Middleweight to Heavyweight championship domination". The Übermensch of boxing! Ok, I'm digressing so I'm out of here (for now).



Hopefully that post isn't too scattershot. I kept getting interrupted.

 

Uh, Boytsov is drawing plenty of comparisions to Tyson. We'll have to see how he does when he steps up though.

Sultan Imbragov was as physically gifted as Tyson, as Iron Mike said so himself, but Jeff Mayweather developed him into a spoiler and the rest was history.

 

To answer original post question: No.

 

Hold the phone Francis, Max Baer was only 6'-2 1/2"

 

Height plays a big role in modern boxing. Infact the average top gun at super middle these days is close to 6’.

You just do not see too many 5’7” – 5’8” top middles, or 5’9 top light heavies these days. Can anyone find one for me? Can anyone find a top 50 box rec fighter under 6’?

The short fighter best classified as a boxer has pretty much vanished from the heavyweight scene. I highly doubt you will see a sub 205 pound guy without a lot of power a Ring Magazine Champ. Don’ get me wrong, I think a sub 6’ boxer can be champ at heavy…but he is going to need rare power, a forward moving type of style, fast hands, and a very good chin to overcome his other shortcomings, pun intended. A Mike Tyson comes along maybe once every 30 years. While Tyson was short, in a boxing sense he was rather compact with the right build to carry 215-220.

 

your right max baer was 6'2 1/2", its his brother buddy baer 6'6 1/2". I thought they both were relatively the same height, I was wrong.

my name is not Francis mr cobra, I am confused as to why you thought it was.:roll:

buddy baer as you know, challenged for the title, dropped joe louis early and then was destroyed by the much smaller man in joe louis. Buddy bear challenged louis again early the following year and was koed in the first round. I think that proves it is better to be skilled than to be large.

I find this thread difficult to understand completely. Is it the Ts assessment that the particular group of smaller hws of today are dead meat, or that in this point in time in the heavyweight division you have to be very big to stand a chance against these boxing Goliaths.

I dont think (and from my other posts on this thead it is obvious) that the next hw has to be a behemoth himself to stand a chance in this mostly weak era of heavyweight competition.

I would agree that the klitschko bro probably wont be beaten by the current crop of 6'0" or below heavyweights. but then they probably wont be beaten by any other heavies either. they are simply better fighters.

goddammit this thread is confusing. what do you want from us ts?