Let's put this to rest once and for all

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by InMemoryofJakeLamotta, Aug 12, 2019.



  1. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Not here for the fairy tales Full Member

    14,588
    4,584
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 30, 2014
    That’s the thing about the internet: You can probably find someone saying anything... Doubt many, if any, of the people who post in this forum would be saying it though.
     
  2. 70sFan865

    70sFan865 Active Member Full Member

    1,089
    947
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    May 30, 2019
    For me there is nothing that suggests either one is clearly harder puncher than Satterfield. They are all in the same tier in that aspect and picking one over the other is more of a preference than real facts.
    Tua, no disagreement.
    Tough to say to be honest. I've never seen any other fighter who destroyed so many very durable opponents so easily. Maybe it's a matter of deivery, but Louis right hand is hard enough to be compared with any other punch, even Wladimir's straight right.
    Again I agree.
    This is strange because Wilder isn't really bigger than Baer (weight-wise) and I don't see any meaningfull difference in their power punches.

    I get your point but some of your examples are far from the best you could use.
     
  3. George Crowcroft

    George Crowcroft Youngest Ezzard Charles Fan Ever Full Member

    5,324
    4,781
    Sportsbook:
    1,022
    Mar 3, 2019
    Size doesn't make power in itself. 250lbs Micheal Grant doesn't hit harder than 205lbs Joe Louis. But that's because your comparing an ATG puncher to someone who's just a bigger guy.

    When you compare an ATG puncher to a bigger ATG puncher, the bigger one will hit harder, especially as the weight difference gets bigger (and even more at HW)
    For example Wladimir Klitschko clearly hits harder than Jack Dempsey.
    Both ATG Punchers, 1 who's 65lbs bigger. Clear power difference.

    But natural power without size will always have a fighter hitting harder than size without power would be.
    Natural power without size will not hit harder than the same natural power with size.
     
  4. christpuncher

    christpuncher New Member Full Member

    93
    62
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jul 31, 2019
  5. RulesMakeItInteresting

    RulesMakeItInteresting Active Member Full Member

    1,075
    737
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Mar 23, 2019
    I personally think the rule where the big man typically beats a smaller man (all other things, including skills, being equal). Bowe was a great example of this, and even he got beat once (on paper) to Holyfield.
     
    InMemoryofJakeLamotta likes this.
  6. Jel

    Jel Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,344
    2,614
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Oct 20, 2017
    I almost admire the level of misplaced optimism in your thread title.
     
  7. GOAT Primo Carnera

    GOAT Primo Carnera Active Member Full Member

    1,187
    839
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 28, 2018
    Where does that theory come from, whats the base of it beside inductive reasoning cherry picking? Source: Great Sensei HOUDINI?
    Why should it stop at certain weight? To make hereos of the past like Rocky, Dempsey, Tunney and Charles fit into HW fantasy bouts, satisfying their fans? No stress, just keep it simple, hm ?

    As I know your posts LaMotta, I´m pretty sure you´re aware of this and just want to stoke the discussion, which is fine.

    Lets put this into perspestive of rational, in some sort scientific reasoning:

    115lb/130lb = 0.8856
    130lb/145lb = 0.8965
    145lb/160lb = 0.9063
    160lb/175lb = 0.9143
    175lb/190lb = 0.9211
    190lb/205lb = 0.9268
    205lb/220lb = 0.9318
    220lb/235lb = 0.9362
    235lb/250lb = 0.94

    As we can see, an increase of 15lb at the lowest weight matters 100% - 88,56% = 11,44%, as a change between 205 and 220lb means 100% - 93,18% = 6,82 %. At SHW, 15lb difference leads to 6 % difference in weightclass. You could calc. the discrepancy as meaningful difference of 15lb at the lowest weight and SHW as 11,44%/6% = 1,9066 --> 15lb matter 90,66% more for a Flyweight than it does for a SHW.


    Lets make this a 30lb weight difference, as for Dempsey going up to HW: 190lb/220lb = 0.8636 (13,64% diff.), and for Duran going up to LHW via 145lb/175lb = 0.8286 (17.14% diff.)

    What matters for Duran going up to LHW by 17,14%, matters for Dempsey or Rocky 13,65% going up to HW. The difference bewteen these scenarios is again 17,14%/13,65% = 1,2557 (25,57%).

    Conclusion: Going up to LHW is 25,57 % more "task", than going up to HW from Dempsey or Rocky weight. So the "matters less" reasoning is only true for about 1/4 from a rational standpoint, while 75% of it remains the same.
     
  8. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    48,895
    7,213
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Nov 24, 2005
    Yes. And because they were more willing to fight bigger men in the old days, (and indeed were "forced to" due to wider weight classes and narrower financial alternatives), they not only developed the mind-set but also the physical style they needed to do so.

    That's what a lot of people don't get.
    Even the best modern middleweights wouldn't stand much chance against a good modern cruiserweight (outside of the gym) because, apart from size, he's probably been matched with opponents within a few pounds of himself since he was an amateur. That's what he's experienced in.
    Whereas if they were thrown together earlier, some of them would develop into proficient "giant killers".
    Great fighters adjust to the environment they are dealt.
     
  9. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,094
    2,163
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 21, 2017
    I didn't say size doesn't matter but you have to admit that it isn't everything, otherwise, Carnera would hit a hell of a lot harder than Shavers. Carnera was about 6 inches taller and 50 to 60 pounds heavier. No light weight is going to hit harder than a pro with that kind of size advantage, but we have seen it among the bigger men. We've also seen in the past where cruiserweight sized heavies have beaten, dropped, knocked out, demolished, massacred etc super heavyweight sized heavies. And if not for the CW division, we might see more of it. What we didn't see were bonafide light weight fighters beating light heavyweight fighters.
     
  10. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,094
    2,163
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 21, 2017
    I think the probability is high
     
  11. InMemoryofJakeLamotta

    InMemoryofJakeLamotta Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,094
    2,163
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Sep 21, 2017
    I agree with this
     
  12. klompton2

    klompton2 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,131
    2,003
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Feb 10, 2013
    Exactly. Modern boxing has shoehorned fighters into divisions that are ridiculously close together and the weigh ins today allow a greater latitude for fighters to abuse weight classes. In the old days you just fought whoever you could make money against or move up the ladder against. Five pounds was rarely ever an issue. I wish there were more cross divisional fights without forcing someone to come down in weight etc. it made for more versatile fighters and more interesting fights when it happened.
     
  13. GOAT Primo Carnera

    GOAT Primo Carnera Active Member Full Member

    1,187
    839
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Jan 28, 2018
    This is exactly what I´ve been talking about: Inductive Reasoning by minority examples of choice. Its shows by no contex the big picture.

    The big picture is an environment of a fighter X with another 60 opponents. These 60 opponents fought another 60, lets say some of them fighting the same, making the "big picture", or the "Environment" 1000 boxers. These boxers could only reveal their credentials among the avarage chin and punching power as the background reference (power*chin level) of that 1000 boxers "big picture".

    You say Schmeling punched harder than Pinklon Thomas => small(power) > big(power) for example will never work, because in fact both Schmeling and Thomas could only prove this value among their background reference environment, with that explicit chin level on avarage. You say Schmeling knocks out Carnera as prove of small > big, than you have to keep in mind what power*chin level Carnera in fact had to overcome to prove himself fighting Baer or Schmeling. According to this, Schmeling proves punching harder than Pinklon Thomas.
    All of that is Inductive Reasoning by picking minor examples among an environment, then putting these credentials (with their power*chin value to overcome) against a total different new value of another environment, in fact the environment Pinklon Thomas had to overcome with power and chin among men 30lb bigger. Of course this can never work.

    The Deductive Reasoning is physical science plus studys including punch measurements etc. proving an environment of bigger man got bigger power*chin level to overcome to get into the top 50. It simply makes no sense to put credentials of old environments against environments totally distinct.
    I hope I´d clarify that.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2019
  14. KuRuPT

    KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,115
    2,083
    Sportsbook:
    1,000
    Aug 26, 2011
    How can size not matter? Think of it this way.. if you have two guys, one is 185, and another 225, both equally skilled, you believe there chances to be the same?
     
  15. Reinhardt

    Reinhardt Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,065
    2,045
    Sportsbook:
    172
    Oct 4, 2016

    I'd wager that a prime Dempsey would destroy Tyson Fury inside 2 rounds