Rocky marciano vs the future champions

Yes when Fitzsimmons got old he lost to a bigger man but he previously beat big men, Frazier burnt out and lost to a bigger man but he previously beat big men. Same with jack Johnson. It was not just size that beat them.

Likewise Larry Holmes, Ali and Joe Louis all lost their titles to smaller men after previously proving to beat small guys. It works both ways. It all goes to show once a great fighter is in decline he won't be able to beat guys like he used to.

Your summary of big guys coming out on top could just as well be a summary of guys losing past their sell by date.

It does not explain away the success of dominant champions with what always used to be too high body mass index for their height.

 

I've done figures on weight before. Most times the HW championship has changed hands it has been to the bigger man. That is the way life is. But it isn't always the case and there are times when the athletic man is able to nullify the advantages of the bigger man. It's isn't far off 50/50 when you look at every time the HW championship changed hands. Some thing like 17/14 in favour of the heavier man. Which is to be expected because being bigger is an advantage.

Extrapolation is not simple in boxing because it is man on man combat and statistics mean nothing to the individual.

Those men didn't become number 1 but all hit the top 5 and most came within one fight of being top.

A lot of what we're debating is neither here nor there because you can't possibly compare fights with others in a perfect way.

However one thing I'm taking umbridge with: Ali was a SHW for his era. Justify that claim please.

 

It didn't used to be too high. That's the point. More often than not the bigger man took home the championship.

 

Again, patience with the confusing responses in the quotes, my phone really can't do any better.

 

I did the thread. It's not been dramatic since the 50's, the change started round about the 70's. That's when we first saw a big jump in weight so the average was significantly above 200 pounds.

But what you are trying to extrapolate doesn't work as a prediction model. I live somewhere with crap weather. It rains about 50% of the time. That doesn't mean it will rain tomorrow. I don't wanna get too geeky in terms of stats but the strength of your correlation does not lead to a reliable extrapolation.

Being heavier is not what a SHW is. A SHW is someone so big the HW limit seems unfair, at one time that was anything above 175 then 190, today it's 200.

This I listed came up short, but so did everyone who challenged Wlad and Vitali. The only successful challenge was Fury who beat Wlad with speed and range. Certainly not size and power imo.

 

When Foreman beat Frazier he was within the right kind of BMI for his height. Same with Jeffries when he beat Fitz, when Johnson beat Burns, when Liston beat Patterson. All these guys were near enough spot on, right on the maximum for their height and age when they scored their best wins.

So yes the big guy won those fights when they were in good shape. When the big guys lost in the old days they were often just outside of the right BMI for their height. Johnson against Willard. Foreman against Ali. Sonny against Ali. Sullivan against Corbett. Often the loser is over his right recommended BMI for his height when he lost. Thats how it used to be.

Then in the 1980s we have Tyson winning the title already 20lb heavier than is recommended for his height! Douglas is 15lb over. Holyfield 17lb over. We have Lewis close to the right recommended weight against Ruddock but 20lb over beating Rahman.

It seems to me, for a hundred years it was much harder to win a fight at championship level the further a fighter gets past the recommended BMI for his height ...but this was only before all the unusual stuff began to happen in the 1980s.

Why are fighters so much more effective above the recommended body mass index weight for their height than they used to be?

 

You aren't going to use BMI as an argument now are you?

Surely not.

 

It is not an argument, more a question. Why was it historically more difficult for fighters above the recommended weight for their height to win fights at championship level?

 

It wasn't.

 

i am confused. you think it has always been the case that the majority of dominant champions of yesteryear were always 20lb above their recommended weight to height?

Isnt that a more recent thing?

It used to be that champions were more successful when they were closer to the modern recommended weight to height ratio charts than champions are now. Funnily enough, old champions in their prime still fit within what is considered the modern way to measure a healthy weight today. This being back when the training was more along traditional lines that had not changed for decades.

It must therefore have been the case that it was more difficult to win fights at championship level above what is currently considered a healthy weight in the past than it is now. As a fighter got older he couldn't keep the weight off as easily and he began to fade with age.

In recent years champions are doing better the heavier they get. Age is less of a factor too. This is relatively recent phenomena in the whole scheme of things.

 

You did a thread on it. Don't think I saw the original but the recap looks good. Still, the threads I did and the data I showed saw the size increase steadily each decade from 1950 onward. It's commiserate with the increase to the talent pool, with population increasing and new markets opening up. Doesn't make much sense that a much smaller talent pool would be too competitive, imo. The predictive power is intense. Just as modern athletes generally dominate past athletes operating under the same predictive notions, it's likely, but certainly not indisputable, that that would happen in boxing. Your welcome to believe otherwise, I just don't think it's very supported logically. And I'm also slightly vexed when I see lines, that appear arbitrary at best to me, being drawn for Marciano, but not for Ali. But to each their own, everyone's welcome to seeing it their own way.

As for Fury, I said long ago( I have a thread out there, if you go back far enough) predicting he was Wlad's biggest threat ever, that he had around a 40percent chance, and that he reminded me of Ali to Wlad's Liston. Fury beat Wlad from movement COMBINED with size, just as Ali beat Liston and many others. More than any other Fury has always reminded me of Ali: great height and movement, loud mouth, average power at best, early questions about chin by being kdd twice by lesser fighters, massive upset against a hard hitting champ. I had a thread about it before he pulled off the upset.

 

What's the definition of bigger....I'm assuming weight. I'm interested in this.

Last few recent lineal title changes

2015 Wlad vs Fury
2001 Rahman vs Lewis
2001 Lewis vs Rahman
1997 Briggs vs Lewis
1997 Foreman vs Briggs
1994 Moorer vs Foreman
1993 Holyfield vs Moorer
1993 Bowe vs Holyfield
1992 Holyfield vs Bowe
1990 Douglas vs Holyfield
1990 Tyson vs Douglas
1988 Spinks vs Tyson
1985 Spinks vs Holmes
1980 Ali vs Holmes
1978 Spinks vs Ali
1978 Ali vs Spinks
1974 Foreman vs Ali
1973 Frazier vs Foreman
1971 Ali vs Frazier
1965 Liston vs Ali
1962 Patterson vs Liston
1960 Ingo vs Patterson
1959 Patterson vs Ingo
1952 Walcott vs Marciano

11 times, the heavier man won the lineal title.
However, 13 times the lighter man won.

I really don't see any strong trend here in either direction.

 

according to modern body mass index charts from 1952 until 1985 every time the lighter champion won he was within a healthy range for his height. From 1959 to 1985 every time the bigger man lost he was over his healthy weight for his height.

Yet after 1985 both winners and losers are off the chart.

 

When it goes all the way back to the start, the bigger man just edges it out.

The trend isn't strong enough to say the bigger man always wins or the winner must be the bigger man.

Big men have always won and big men have always lost.

 

Just stop.