Ike Ibeabuchi v.s Rocky Marciano

Carnera beat Loughran by stamping all over his feet and using his size to maul a light hitting ex lightheavyweight who was past prime.Anyone who watches their fight and states Carnera won it on skill should be banned from ever watching another boxing match.

 

Just watch a few rounds of the fight on YouTube and listened to the commentary. Certainly size played a big role on Carnera winning this fight hard to watch that fight and conclude that Carnera had much skill at all.

 

Those little guys beat Bob Baker, Elmer Ray, Nino Valdes, Tandberg, Hoff, Shkor, John Holman, Coley Wallis and Joe Baksi all of whom were world rated and the size of guys your getting excited about. I think you need more research.

 

Ray has two good wins on his record and they were split decs.He won and lost to Walcott who was an in and outer anyway. And beat the smaller Charles .Baksi was nearly 36 when Charles beat him and he was 6'1". Ten Hoff was Euro level.Shkor was a journeyman who had lost 2 of his last 3 fights when he faced Rocky and won just 8 of his last 21 bouts.Holman was briefly ranked and faded fairly quickly. Wallace was a hype job without substance the fact that he was ranked shows how poor the division was in the 50's

 

No I am not saying modern fighters are on PED's and would be **** without them? Lewis, Bowe, the Clits, would be great in any era. I just dont think they would look the same under old training and would have to adapt to the fighters of that time. They were best suited to the time they fought in where larger taller men thrived under modern systems in a way they never did before.

 

Those guys in modern times could take advantage of the training advances that get so much more out of the taller limbed fighters.

I dont think some of you could contain the excitement of the thought of all theses tall guys like Tandburg, elmer Ray, Bob Baker, The Hoff, Valdes, John Holman running around today with even bigger muscles and bad ass expressions.

 

It isn't a beauty contest ,big muscles do not and never have impressed me.You are making yet another unfounded and illogical assumption,it seems to have become a habit.:think

 

Thank goodness for that. How about size advantage? Has a size advantage impressed you before?

My assumption is that since about 1985 training advances appear to have benefited taller, heavier heavyweights like never before. There is a lot of logical evidence to support this at World championship level.

The only illogical thing is your not picking Primo Carnera over more champions since he had size advantages galore that stand up well today.

 

It's an assumption nothing more

Carnera was a hyped pituitary gland case with poor power , a weak chin,and a padded record even his title win is dubious, why would I pick him over good heavyweight fighters?
Leroy Haynes destroyed him twice!

 

It seems to me that you're really having a hard time separating skills from size.

Nobody on this thread has said size is the b all end all of things, what has been said, is that if two fighters who's skills are relatively similar the bigger fighter usually has the advantage. Especially if we're talking about upwards of 30lbs and 5 or more inches in height and reach.

 

If your entire argument is backed up by your understanding of evolution and physics then you have a very very loose grasp on the subject. Btw evolution doesn't happen over the course of 40 years. More like millions.

 

Why since 1985? Might be true but the trend toward larger athletes in sports that reward size has been occurring across the board in many sports for decades now.

 

In most cases you're right, but developments in medicine, nutrition etc allowing people to live longer, treat illnesses and speed the process, much like global warming.

This too was supposed to be over several million years, we greatly accelerated it in less than 100.

Like I said google a bit. There was a study that said the average British male in 1914 was 5'6" tall and now the average is 5' 10". Since these are essentially facts, there has to be an answer to this rapid increase in height in such a short time, so if evolution in conjunction with those other factors I pointed out don't work for you, then I'm all ears as to what the correct answer is.

 

Average size of man is one thing but a giant heavyweight was always a giant heavyweight. Big men always existed.

Population has increased.

So Is it that the population spews up more of everything and all the primo Carnera types became more numerous? Or is it that training that had previously not got the best out of giants had advanced to the point that it really started to benefit one group more than it previously had? Instead of producing more Carneras what we have now is taller Joe Louis types?

Is that what we have now, 270lb 6'7" Joe Louis and Ray Robinson types?

There is this belief that the tallest guys suddenly began to naturally appear with all the coordination and proportions of smaller guys just around the same time PED's began to feature in sport. No coincidence at all.

 

No hwts today approach Ali, Louis or Dempsey in terms of boxing, fighting ability.