Man heavyweights have gotten big

true and i can't disagree but a simple slogan is a true one: a good big man will always beat a good little man

schmeling is nowhere NEAR mickey walker p4p but demolished him. essentially on size alone. yes, schmeling is a great heavyweight but walker is a much better fighter but he was too small. size matters

 

It cant have just been size because Walker went 15 rounds with Sharkey, and was perhaps robbed, around the time that Sharkey was still on a par with Schmeling.
Walker had good results against big men, and prefered fighting bigger men because they are slower. He conceded that Schmeling had the speed to go with a size advantage, and that was the problem.

 

that's a good point but if all things were equal, if they were the same size: how would schmeling havedone?

walker was probably a harder puncher p4p as well (i might get burned for it but...). schmeling kind of proves my point: good/great big man beats great little man

 

Good point....while the klitschkos and lewis where very big..most top heavyweights are not that big..and where they do weigh 240 it is due to being fat...if eddie chambers and Ruslan Povetkin had the same body fat percentage as Jack dempsey and Ali they would each weigh the same as those respective fighters.

 

Well, let's see. 6'0" tall Chris Byrd made his professional debut at 169 in 1996, competed at 174 in 2008, 194 just last year, and handed Vitali his first defeat in 2000. Dempsey and Louis were naturally bigger men than Byrd, who has proved he could have competed at 175 throughout his career, so obviously yes. (And if Marciano could have gotten himself down under 175, that's the weight Goldman and Weil would have had him competing at.)

David Haye has competed as low as 189, and made Valuev dance the chicken dance in the closing moments when handing the big man his first defeat.

 

I dont know. If we make him Walker's size he gets less power and strength but we have to give him even more speed.
I'd say it might swing to Walker's advantage. And, yes, I agree with your general point.

Generally, yes. Size is definitely advantageous, that's why weight divisions exist.
But each individual case is different. Styles obviously matter, and the abilities of dealing with various styles. Some good/great fighters actually seemed to do as well or better against bigger men than they do against men their own size or smaller.

 

good post and good points. BUT those fighter that do as well or better against bigger men tended to fight less skilled fighters

it's blasphemy but would langford's record at heavy be better if he took on more 220 pound boxcar hobos? probably but he took on the best at heavy and lost quite a few. at the same time, harry wills was not as good as langford and he held skill and speed advantages over him. if langford fought dempsey and tunny 17 times, he might not have picked up ANY wins

greb as well took many great fighters at higher weights and relied on his speed to beat those fighters. but not every heavy he took on was good or great.

fighting bigger fighters helps if you're taking on a jess willard type, not if you're taking on someone as skilled as schmeling

 

The Klits would destroy a fighter of Dempsey's size, even Dempsey.

Of course, if they put on a little black-face, Dempsey wouldn't even enter the ring.

 

ZING!!! but true...he was scared of black fighters.

 

I think Frazier would have some problems with both Klits. I doubt they would be big problems though so ...thumbsup:thumbsup

 

I...don't understand what you're saying right now.

 

it's clear he's on the train

SNV is not good....he's great... he's orgasmic....he's poetry in hairy-backed motion

SNV is not big in size but genius

 

Well Frazier is a slow starter, but when he got to the middle rounds, which he would, they would get heavily punished for any success they had early, as the vicious body punches on the inside grinded them down.

 

For the sake of his sanity, I hope it was sarcasm.

 

Many of the points raised here are what I've been saying(Or thinking)all along when talking about how some of the old timers beat bigger men. We all know how guys like Fitzimmons beat men like Ed Dunkhorst and some use that fact to claim that he could beat later HW's. But how good was Dunkhorst? I don't think size was such a big issue back then because there weren't as many quality big men back then as there were in later years. Plus the disparity in size between a light heavyweight and a heavyweight might have only been 10lbs. Or a middleweight and heavyweight might have only been 20lbs so the possibility of a victory for the MW was greater than it would be later on. Can anyone really picture someone like Joe Choyinski beating Ali or Holmes or Tyson? Or Fitzimmons starching Holyfield or Bowe? Greb beating Frazier? No, it's not possible imo. Size matters if you're good. And even if you're mediocre the bigger the size disparity the harder it is for the smaller man to win even if he is relatively superior. If you're big and skilled you'll beat small and skilled almost every time.