There is no doubt that heavys are bigger than ever before. Is the reason for this not so much evolution, but the increased weight divisions. Look at Evander Holyfield for example. When he fought as a cruiserweight, he could have very easily been the best fighter in the world. He eventually beat Mike tyson, who was the undisputed champion. By the time he made his way to heavyweight, and certainly by the time he had his Bowe fights (by the third), he had begun to age. And naturally put on weight. The mere fact that a cruiserweight division existed meant he did not even fight at heavyweight for many years. If there was not cruiserweight, like in the old days, he would have been campaining at cruiser but he would have got his title shot earlier. If we assume he wins, it is interesting to not that Holy was given just as good a challenge by cruisers (see for example the Qawi fight) as he was in the early heavy days. So, it is reasonable to expect that at least a few of those cruisers would have also fought and beat some superheavys. and probably got title shots, rather than the behemoths that Tyson ended up being foced to fight. The point is, if a good smaller fighter comes along now a days, he will first need to win a alphabet title, then he will need to wait 2 or 3 years usually longer to unify this title (if that is even possible with fighters dropping belts and changing weight classes). With so many extra weight divisions he will then have to fight and beat the other fighters in very close weight divisions, just to prove that he is the best Middleweight, Welterweight or Light heavyweight. Once he does this, and only then can he realistically think about moving up a weight class and fighting a heavier fighter. But it is more complicated, because fighters hardly ever fight more than every 6-12 months, he cannot afford to fight anybody but the very best in that division (and if he does he loses his currentl meal ticket championship anyway). Anyway the point is that by the time ge goes to the higher division he will be getting older and will not be the same fighter he was. Amazingly, we have still seen guys like Holyfield go up and compete when he was past his prime and forge a good heavyweight resume. Just imagine how much longer and better his resume would be if there was no cruiserweight title. In most cases for example see Jirov, the fighters are simply not good enough, but is it because they are smaller or would they have performed much better if they went up when they were younger and did not have to worry about first winning and dominating the cruiserweight division. People look at a Non pareil Jack Dempsey, or bob fitzsimmons etc and say that these feats could never be repeated because of evolution, but look at a Roberto Duran, or the current example James Toney. Roberto beat decent cruiserweights when he was so overweight and far from his best that the prime version of himself would have almost certainly blasted him out of the ring in a round or two. Likewise the version of Toney who has been competing with current super heavys. If these guys can do it at an old age, doesnt it stand to reason that some of the good young middles and light heavys (who are actually in shape) would at least beat some of the super heavys some of the time. The problem is that by the time guys are going up in weight they are usually getting to old to even compete at their own weight. Bernard Hopkins couldnt beat Jermain taylor the middleweight champ (twice) and someone who was later beaten himself, so he went up and fought for and won a light heavyweight belt. Surely the Hopkins from years earlier would have done the same. The problem is that in the old days, you could dominate your weight division with a win against the champion. Now, it takes three years to find who the champion is and even then you will have other claims for the champion. And no one is willing to take risks any more on the way up. Ducking may have still happened in older times, but while they ducked they fought others, if you couldnt fight the champ you tried to do so by beating the no 1 contender or the number 4 contenders etc. I cant remember the last time we saw a number 6 heavyweight contender fight a number 5 contender and when he wins fight a number2 or 3 contender. And there arent such positions anyway. a champion now is a top 4 contender while there are about 30 top 10 contenders and about 50 contenders if you allow those closely related weight divisions. It is impossible for fighters to clean their own division and then dominate and go up through the ranks. Also, with the current dearth of talent hanging around the heavys for some time, financially, a fighter stands to make much more dominating like a Leonard, Hagler, Jones Jr etc than he does by taking higher risk heavyweight fights. All in all, i think it is these facts that mean we are seeing heavier and bigger superheavys, as much as anything else, and certainly more so than the Evolution factor.
You make alot of valid points about how politics has hindered true dominance in the modern era. However, I fail to see the connection between someone like James Toney and Bob Fitzsimmons. Toney, when campaigning at heavyweight, weighed in at 215+. On the other hand, I don't think Fitzsimmons ever broke 170. The day that a modern fighter who weighs in under 170 pounds starts KOing ranked superheavyweights is the day that I'll change my opinion on this issue. However, if these "former middles" like Toney and RJJ are weighing in at 190ish (for RJJ, whose skirmish style at heavyweight is nothing like Fitz' style) and 215+ (for Toney, who had zero punching power or mobility at this weight), then it's no longer a question of "good small men can beat good big men". It becomes "a good big man who used to be a good small man can beat a good big man". Roberto Duran is a great example of a p4p great, but let's not fool ourselves in thinking that he was some kind of superman that fought opponents that outweighed him like Fitz did. He weighed in at 156.5 for the Hagler fight, when Hagler weighed in at 157.5. He may have been the "smaller man", but he was still a full-fledged middleweight for the fight. I won't dispute a claim that some fighters can pack on weight, move up through weight classes, and still dominate. Not at all. RJJ, Toney, Duran, Hearns, et. al. did it. What bothers me is when people try to use these men's successes at higher weights as a justification for a heavyweight that weighs at 168 or a lightheavy that weighs in at 150 or whatever. They aren't the same.
The biggest thing which stops fighters from moving up in weight, is not so much lack of punching power, but lack of chin (imo) since a unbreakable lightweight chin is usually less than china at heavyweight. If old and fat versions of Toney can have a solid chin, then the lighter middleweight version can too. Did prime Toney hit as hard as heavyweight version of Toney? I cant believe that he does. And if he does, it wont be by much. If Toney draws with Rahman now, how much does he dominate Rahman, if he were in the prime of his life (and much closer to Fitzsimmons weight). If Rahman struggles with Toney landing 20 or so slow punches in a fight fought at a snails pace, how would he go against Toney who land 60 or 70 much quicker punches and who doesnt breath hard after 1 round. Fitz was only 167 because he was always in shape. Would you guy think differently of him, if had access to modern nutrition like krispy cremes and McDonalds and therefore ended turning up to his heavyweight fights at 250 lbs? If he were around today, he would have fought at middleweight or super middleweight or light heavyweight until he was in his mid 30s. When he finally signed his superheavy fight, he would be expected to bulk on weight until at least 190-200 and would not be allowed to fight if he only weighed 170, even if he was more effective at this weight. by the time he got a title shot, he would have had to beat 4 different champions just to be considered the best in the world. And while he does fight these 4 guys, while he is probably a better fighter than the 4, he willnot be able to make a single mistake, because as the superheavys proved against their very best (lennox Lewis) one off day or lucky punch can finish anyone. And it is unlikely at this weight that anyone would ever give him a rematch. Now why would fitzsimmons do this, when he can make just as much money fighting half bit contenders and pretend world champions at the lower weights for an easier fight. Politically, it is just not possible that Fitz could do what he did, because it would not be in his own benefit. One thing which i have always thought interesting in modern fight is the weights of fighter. If a big heavyweight shows up in his lightest weight ever, he nearly always performs a lot better and is said to be looking good. Often they will drop say 30 lbs to be at their optimum fighting weight. Why is it so rare for the same to happen in the lighter weights? Surely, like the heavyweights, there are some fighters who might fight at say light heavy but be overweight at that weight yet still good enough to win. Why do they not train down to their optimum weight for a light heavy fight and come in at say middleweight, because they have decided to train hard and get serious. Would (like modern heavys) some lighter fighters also benefit from being well trained and in condition and coming in at a lighter weight? Also, and i am getting a little off topic here, but it is quite interesting, why is a fighter like Roy Jones Jr weight drained when he drops down from 190, but someone like David Tua, is told that he needs to cut down 20 to 30 pounds to be competive nowadays. Would that not also make Tua Weight Drained? It all is a very complicated situation and i really dont think that modern science has us any closer to solving the question of weight and its effects on a boxer, too any great degree.
Evolution has nothing to do with bigger heavyweights or better athletes. All advances in any sport come from two places: nutrition and training. Anyone with a fundamental understanding of evolution will understand this.
In ye good old days, good fighters usually weren't over 180 pounds, i.e. hardly bigger than the lightheavyweight limit. That certainly made the distinction smaller and it should be no surprise that heavyweight contenders often came from the lower weight division, as there were too few big skilled guys. And if you were black you didn't have to wait 3 years, but about 60 years until you could get a titleshot. They were completely cut out of competition. As for your last question: David Tua is wide as a house, but post-2000 he was a bit overweight and could certainly have lost 20 or so pounds, because he had enough strength and bulk as it was. It would only make him fat-drained, and unless you're talking about Auswitz, that's a good thing. Jones is a natural lightheavyweight ... skinny by comparson in fact. When he cut in weight it wasn't fat that he lost. Oh and if Toney fought Rahman at 160 pounds.... look for the first time he doesn't hear the final bell. Same with Peter. What do you think, the only change between Toney at 220 and Toney at 160 is that the middleweight version threw more punches and was faster, with no loss in durability? Hey, imagine what the lightheavyweight Ali would've done to Foreman? He was faster and threw more punches back then, and the rest stays the same right? Have you seen Holmes vs Bobick in the amateurs?
You surely arent suggesting that the preexile Ali wouldnt have had a much easier time than the Rumble in the Jungle Ali? I have never met one person who is stronger, faster or more durabile in their 30s thant they were 20s. Increasing weight has nothing or very little to do with increasing durability, that is silly. On this topic, i think it would answer an awful lot of questions, if Chris Byrd were to rematch his last opponent and come in at over or above the heavyweight limit. It really is a shame that some of the fights which could be made (but are slightly off beat) are not made. There are so many potential matchups that make things a little more interesting.
Does anyone here remember when Gatti came in at like 160 fight-night for a junior welterweight fight and almost killed his opponent? Remember the flak he caught for that? Granted, his opponent wasn't a world-class ATG, but neither was Gatti. If 200+lb fighters started fighting middleweights, there would be mismatches of epic proportions. Let's also not forget that today's middleweights and supermiddles were yesterday's lightheavies. Day-before weighins have made it pretty much standard to come in at at least 165 for a middleweight fight, but alot of guys drain down from as high as the lightheavy limit. Fighters tend to fight 5-10lbs below their walking weight nowadays, when old-timers were much more likely to fight at that walking around weight.
Bogus argument. Ali weighed in at 210.5 and 206 for Liston I and II, and ~212 for Williams and Terrell, which many consider his finest performances. He weighed 215 for Frazier I and 212 for Bonavena. He didn't get that much bigger post-exile, except when he came in fat. Regardless, whose to say that the younger Ali wouldn't have had a harder time against 1974 Foreman? I think there's an argument to be made that he was more durable and punched harder in the 1970s, and his ring generalship certainly didn't diminish, even if he stopped dancing. Alright. According to this logic, an iron-chinned flyweight could take bombs as well as a heavyweight. Do you think Manny Pacquiao, weighing in at 122, could stand and fight with George Foreman, or even a "smaller" HW like Dempsey or Marciano, for that matter?
Irrelevant, as Ali was only a few pounds heavier against Foreman than he was pre-exile. On the other hand, yes i'm pretty certain that Holmes wouldn't be knocked down by the first right hand that Bobick lands if we're talking about the 210lbs version of Holmes, instead of the 180lbs Holmes that Bobick stopped. Where did i say someone became faster in their 30's? And you've never met someone who is stronger in his 30's than in his 20's? Are you kidding? Outside of a complete fatass, everyone is stronger in his 30's than in his 20's. You naturally gain some bulk as you mature. Who do you think was stronger, the Lewis who beat Ruddock or the Lewis who pushed Tyson around the ring and went even (strength-wise) with 6'7 250lbs Vitali Klitschko? Vitali would've shoved the 225lbs-in-his-20's Lewis around the ring. As for durability, there are plenty. Foreman in his first career was knocked down by feather fisted young and almost knocked out by Lyle. In his comeback, he gains some muscle but mostly fat. Yet he takes flush bombs from Holyfield, Morrison, Moorer and basically everyone he faced, without once going down. Do you think the 220lbs Toney would've been knocked down by 160lbs Johnson's or 168lbs Roy Jones' punches? Yeah, i guess they made those weight classes just they both fit in the TV picture at the same time.
As far as Holyfield goes he and us the fans have to be thankful for the creation of the division. Remember when Evander debuted he tried to fight at 175lbs. If the 190 division were not around, I suspect Duva would of made Evander stick at 175, and I suspect the constant battle to stay at 175 may of ruined Holyfields' career before it had even begun. Imagine him having his first Qawi fight being replaced with LKO4 Bobby Czyz or Marvin Johnson....
Come on now. Virtualy any world class version of Toney would have done better than the 230lb blob that fought Ramhan. I would honestly be interested to see the cruiserweight Evander Holyfield take on the heavyweights of his era. He would have done better in some fights and worse in others but he would have had a prety clean run up to the title and the first fight with Bowe. Do you think that Billy Conn would have done better against Joe Louis if he had added 20 lbs of muscle incidentaly?
Probably not, but it sure as hell would've enhanced his durability. This point is fairly irrelevant too, because the way Conn fought Louis fits the logic that Chris and I are trying to promote here. Hit-and-run is the only way that he stood a chance against Louis, he didn't need punching power and, to a lesser extent, durability because he had to be moving backwards at a fast pace the whole time. I won't deny that lighter fighters can potshot their way to success over much larger men (see Jones-Ruiz, Conn-Louis even though he lost, and so on), but when was the last time a guy who weighed less than 180lbs slugged it out with a superheavy and won?
Well isnt that the argument? You dont think the Toney against Rahman was fat? and light heavyweight Toney in shape? Suggesting that the fat Ali was more durable than the Ali vs liston is crazy. There is an argument, it just isnt realistic and certainly is rarely made by anybody who has actually reached an older age or been forced to comeback from an enforced lay off. Only if his chin is actually iron! It might look iron at flyweight, but will it have been tested with the punishment taken by a heavyweight? Some iron chins at lighter weights might not up to the world class heavys (see for example Michael Spinks) but then others have passed all their tests with flying colours (see for example Evander Holyfield). The naturally bigger guys will generally be more durable, but that doesnt mean that a vlad Klitchsko or Nicolai Valuev will necessarilly be the most durable fighter going around. Likewise, if Jameel Mcline or Andrew Golota fought every world champion in every weight division one month after each other, they would win most fights, but they would not win every fight with a one punch or one round or even a knockout victor. I would also expect that they would lose their share of fights also. No. But i think he would put up a much better effort and be far more durable than in another 5 or more years time when he baloons up to 200 with the help of weights, steroids and fast food.
How could adding 30lbs of muscel possibly enhance Conns durability when he would have tired out much easier due to having to lug that weight around the ring and therefore, Louis would have hit him harder and more cleanly than he did previously.