Is the size argument for new timers really just a myth?

An excellent post and thread. Yes, size is overrated. It is a factor, but not the only factor. In fact, lots of old-time fighters believed that being big could be a detriment in terms of speed, condition, elusiveness, and punch volume, particularly in lengthy fights to the finish or the 20-round bout. For this reason, believe it or not, many fighters intentionally trained down, not up, and sometimes even claimed to weigh less than what they actually did.

Try catching up to a prime Corbett or Jack O'Brien, as fleet footed as they were. If those guys only had to fight 12 rounds, they would be even faster and throw even more, and would gain weight, knowing they wouldn't have to fight as long.

In terms of pure punching power, if you are a puncher, then you are a puncher, and you can hurt a big man even weighing 180. Guys like Dempsey and Langford proved it. Ali got decked by guys weighing 190 or less. Archie Moore beat some big dudes. There were big men around in the old days, but you don't hear too much about them because usually they got KO'd or decisioned by the smaller, faster, better conditioned and skilled smaller men. Hence, their names have fallen by the wayside.

Even a 70s guy like Shavers was probably a harder puncher in the low 200s than a lot of huge guys today. If you can punch, you can punch. Joe Louis at 200 probably could drop anyone fighting today.

In fact, if a lot of massive guys today were more svelte, they would be faster of hand and foot, keep a better pace, and would wear down some of these huge guys. But a lot of guys today just plod around. Fast footwork and/or nonstop ferocious pressure is practically dead art in the heavyweight division.

 

if only we could look up statistics on the weights of heavyweight fighters throughout the years

 

I already compiled the statistics. :good

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I used Ring Magazine Top 10 Annual Heavyweight Rankings:
http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings

*Ring Mag Champs not included, just the top 10 challengers, because the Ring belt was vacant throughout the '90s & most of the '00s.

*If a fighter had several fights in a year, their heaviest weight is used, for instance in '96 Bowe was 252lbs in Golota I & 235lbs in Golota II, so i would use 252lbs.

1956:

This content is protected

This content is protected

1966:

This content is protected

This content is protected

1976:

This content is protected

This content is protected

1986:

This content is protected

This content is protected

1956-1986: All top 10 below 240lbs, except Bonecrusher & Tubbs.

1996:

This content is protected

This content is protected

1956-1996: All top 10 below 250lbs, except Bowe*.
*Lewis was 251lbs in 1997 McCall rematch.

2006:

This content is protected

(Fighters over 250lbs: Peter 257lbs, Briggs 273lbs, Valuev 328lbs)

This content is protected

2010:

This content is protected

(Fighters over 250lbs: Vitali 251lbs, Valuev 316lbs, Dimitrenko 260lbs, Arreola 256lbs)

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

It's a pros and cons thing. Smaller fighters generally have certain advantages, even if those advantages are less important than the bigger man's advantages (Size). Obviously, size matters most when there's a style thing occurring. Lennox Lewis would always have beaten Roy Jones Jr, but Jack Dempsey still has a pray. At least more of one...

 

Interesting work here. :good

 

Just like many have stated before... a 70's sized HW would be big enough in todays game. As pointed out above the average top 10 HW in 1976 was 6'2 1/2" and 218 Lbs.

This is about the size of several great HWs who are still considered among the best in H2H discussions. I'm talking about-

Ali 6'3"
Holmes 6'3"
Holyfield 6'2 1/2"
Foreman 6'3"
Louis 6'2" (a little bit lighter than the other guys)

If you have good skills, durability, stamina, and some power... you also have to have the right mind set (this is boxing not a tickling contest)... you can compete at 6'2 1/2" and 218Lbs... if it's a solid 218Lbs. There are too many fat asses at HW.

6' and 190Lbs though? The 6'2 1/2" 218Lb guy looks like a monster in comparison. Compare Bernard Hopkins and David Haye. I'm not saying Hopkins definately loses but i don't like his chances. Now, put the 190 Lber in with Bowe, Lewis, or a Klitschko. It doesn't look good IMO.

 

Not the best comparison as Hopkins isn't a puncher. Use Jirov who was naturally 186-192 for most of his CW days. He could hurt Mesi he could sure as hell hurt a 215lb Haye. I'd pick 190 CW versions of Jirov and Juan Carlos Gomez over HW Haye, i realize they're 6'2 and 6'4 so they don't fit your height limit but even Lebedev who is 5'10. His chin would hold up imo, his punch would carry up to HW too i think, and his boxing skills far exceed most HW's.

 

It would not make them taller or have longer arms.

 

Do you have similar statistics for reach? The reason I ask is because one of the biggest advantages that a big man can have is a long jab with some power behind it. I'm thinking of the way that the K brothers tend to pin their opponents back with their jab and just grind them down before looking to put them away.

 

You can have a go, as long as you swallow.:good

 

Reach is generally connected with height, but there are a few exceptions, Sonny Liston being a good example.

 

good point

 

tangential question: what are some notable examples of significantly better fighters losing to lesser, but bigger, fighters?

it's been discussed before but perhaps fulton-langford?

i wouldn't say significantly better by any stretch (perhaps better by a shade) but maybe duran-hagler?

oscar-hopkins is an interesting one for me because while hopkins was justifiably rated higher across the board, it really was his size and imposing his will that gave him the knockout

what are examples of great fighters moving up and losing to lesser fighters because of size?