Is the high standing of big heavyweights in fantasy fights, history repeating itself?

Yes.

 

I happily invite the next Tyson or Frazier. However, the advent of Bowe, Lewis, and the K's, fairly nimble, coordinated giants, suggests the era when such smaller fighters can dominate may have passed. We may certainly have a one-off of such dimensions but probably not one with any longevity.

 

Exactly.

the HW... the S-HW?
Two completely different animals, to Rate them and Compare them and Fantasy match them is, in my mind, not being Fair or Honest!

Yes, Louis & a Prime Tyson (among others), could beat them, but generally speaking these Giants would beat most "natural" HWs for the reasons highlighted here. The point being Height, Weight, Reach & Strength IS the point.

You wouldn't allow such differences in any other weights, they are different animals, PERIOD!!!

 

Spot on.

I think the premise of bigger is better has gone so far that it even dismisses some of the glaring deficiencies that some of these super heavyweights possess even giving them carte blanche when it comes to H2H fantasy match ups.

Historically we have seen great fighters from lower divisions travel successfully north to the heavyweight in search of fame fortune and legacy.

After all:

Tunney came up and beat Dempsey (20's)
Charles came up and beat Louis (40s)
Spinks came up and beat Holmes (80s)
Moorer came up and beat Holyfield (90s)
Jones came up and beat Ruiz (00s)
Adamek came up and beat Arreola (10s)

Yet the notion that some of the old timers would have no chance against the big guys still persist. I've seen posters with top 10 H2H lists exclude Joe Louis despite the fact that Louis ranks is one of the most historically accurate fighters in all of boxing according to CompuBox. The only person ahead of him is Floyd Mayweather jr. As a Heavyweight he is unequivocally #1.

Evander Holyfield showed that as a former Cruiserweight who was maligned the majority of his career for being a small fighter he proved that his size didn't matter and his success against the first modern SuperHeavyweight (Riddick Bowe) is a testament to that.

Not sure what gives Janitor.

After all, it didn't take a spectacular Heavyweight to defeat Lewis or Wlad.

 

I don't subscribe to the belief that "Bigger is better" either. However, when a big man is skilled and coordinated, the smaller good man has a problem. I've read some threads suggesting that Fitzsimmons and Corbett would beat some of the modern day HW's such as Bowe, Klitschko, Lewis etc...This is stretching things a bit I feel. There does come a point where size and strength does matter. That's why there are weight limits in Boxing. There was atime when the difference between a LHW and a HW might've been 10 or 12 pounds. Let's face it, those days are long gone. Seamus said it best when he wrote that the time of the smaller fighter dominating has passed and I agree. Resurrect a prime Louis and Dempsey and they would wreak havoc but they're the exception...not the rule anymore. Athletes are just alot bigger nowadays (though not necessarily better) and we'll probably never see a good LHW taking on a HW champ again. Just my opinion of course.

 

Good big man beats good small man most of the time.

 

Small stumpy-sluggers like Tinkerbell Tyson, and stumpy-swarmers like Smokey Joe Frazier NEVER have any longevity. They have to EAT punches on their Chin as they charge/leap fowards And get hugged/leaned on by Giants (and G-Giants like Lion Lenny :rasta) who are way taller And heavier. it takes a toll on a little man, a heavy ****ing toll. :!:

Foreman Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook!:smoke

 

Not at heavyweight.

 

No, because MOST of the time, a good small man beats a good big man.

And that is why it so great to have a division with fighters 75 pounds apart.

 

So all else being equal, a smaller fighter has no physical disadvantages whatsoever?

 

That's more likely because it wouldn't be sanctioned nowadays, or just utterly condemned as being a physical mismatch and shut down from happening. If Wlad were to propse to fight Dawson or Ward could you imagine the outcry? People already complain about big cruiserweights like Adamek and Haye competing against heavies, and these guys would be considered fairly normal sized heavyweights a few decades ago, and very large men in Louis's time.

 

In most cases of smaller men coming up to beat bigger men, either the bigger man was not very good, or was a relatively small fighter himself. Dempsey can, for instance, by no stretch of the imagination be considered a big heavyweight let alone a superheavyweight in the manner of Bowe, Lennox, or the Klits. And Bowe is something of an anomaly as regards bigger men since he so often fought like a smaller man himself, which to a large degree allowed Evander to be competitive with him.

I think the "big man" argument presupposes a couple of things that often get ignored, firstly that the big man is comparable athletically and skill-wise to the smaller man, and secondly that he fights like a big man and doesn't give up his physical advantages. It's certainly not just a simplistic "big is better" credo, at least not as I understand it.

Big fighters do have a couple of disadvantages, mainly in stamina and workrate, but they're things which can be worked around.