how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

If Vitali Klitschko were 6'2", 215 lbs, theres no way he'd be around still kicking ass at age 41.

 

Let me ask a hypothetical. Let's say Julian Jackson had James Toneys skills. His defense, his ability to counterpunch, add his chin. Let's say he doesn't bulk up. How far does 160lb Jackson go? Is he more or less successful than Bob Fitzsimmons?

 

Oh. I think that depends. Are steroids allowed?

 

This.

Its natural to over estimate size and muscle, its either instinctual or part of societal/media nurture or both combined.

Only the educated and or experienced know this.

Any kid or adult thats never seen a bodybuilder before would assume he is much stronger than a much smaller less defined less muscualr athlete, but its the athlete that is much stronger.

Most people would assume with "common sence" that a bigger man would hit harder than a smaller man, but they dont realise some people are very explosive and this is not visible till they move quickly or KO someone.

Since this is a speed and power endurance based sport and not so much a strength based sport, and since bigger men are extremely likely to be slower and less explosive with less cardio, the size difference dosnt make a huge difference.

I would go as far as saying its a disadvantage to be huge due to a lack of speed and endurance. Hence why huge guys only rise to the top when the competition pool is very low (as do middleweights like roy jones and james toney) point is they wouldnt make it into the lime light if there was the same level of competition as the 80's 90's etc

Throughout Tysons career they were saying this next guys just too big for tyson, and theve been saying the same thing throught history with other fighters like Dempsey, Rocky etc and I bet they will continue to say the same things in the future. In answer to your question the old greats would do exceptionally well especially within their division but also still in the HW weight division.

 

:good

Being a giant never was an advantage untill the heavyweight division started to be about how big you can get. Thats when it gave the big old has beens a chance.

Heavyweights started to have a different training regime. People talk about skilled athletic giants - its not true. There are exceptions but mostly its a case of a slower pace suiting body builders and old men.

you can make a young man as slow as an older man if you put enough weight on him. It is harder to expose an older fighter now because the youngsters are carrying artficial weight. Experience counts if you control the pace ....and the pace is slow now.

I think If the best classic sized heavyweights trained before 1960s would still be good enough as they were.

 

I hate to envision what a 5 foot 11 guy with stubby 67" arms, an extremely long torso and already thick legs, would look like with an additional 40 pounds on him. He would be an immobile fire plug, with less explosion, no stamina... a sitting duck for longer, speedier fighters to tee off upon...

Flawed concept.

 

I agree.

I also think that Eddie Chambers would be a better heavyweight if he was an in-shape 190-195.

Blubber means nothing.

To bulk up a guy like Marciano? Wouldn't work. Seamus is spot on.

 

Yeah I know I was just getting that it there.

Meh, they'd be stronger but would lose a bit of what makes them all special IMO.

They'd be quality 210lb guys cutting to cruiser