Rocky vs SHW champions

Yeah and the answer everyone comes out with is because giants of the past weren't as skilful, but why weren't they has skilful when the likes of Joe Louis, Jersey Joe Walcott etc were some of the most skilful fighters of all time. The trainers back in the day were arguably better than those around today.

 

Personally I think big men back then got by on size but it only took them so far because of the changes we have seen since and perhaps because there were not developing with more guys their own size.

There was no artificial weight in the division at all.

Boxing training was a one size fits all regimen. Young boxers often had both youth and experience because they fought so much more often. Big men ran as far as small men in camp. Their training was not tailored to their size.

Pace in the heavyweight division was uncomfortable for a giant too. They were not chasing shorter bodybuilders who were trying to compete for size, they were trying to pin down lythe boxing technicians who boxed ten times a year.

 

Emanuel Steward.

 

Sure, but far fewer. If you've got a bigger talent pool, you've got a higher likelihood for top talent across all phases. It's why school sports programs are separated on the basis of school size. Back in Willard's day, he won just because he was a giant. Had few other qualities. Nowadays, we have giants who have the athleticism of decent SMW's.

 

Back in the 1980's, my wife and I were at a boxing show in Queens, NY. In the audience was the former boxing great Sandy Sadler. He was dressed in a very nice suit and tie and was shaking hands and signing autographs. Some don't remember, but Sandy and Archie Moore were hired by **** Saddler (no relation) to teach George Foreman leverage and balance, among other things. I believe they were in his corner in Jamaica against Frazier. Anyway, I asked him a few questions about boxing training, and right before I left, I asked him if he thought Foreman was the second greatest heavy of all time (after Ali). He said something like "Good Lord no". I was kind of surprised so I asked him, who outside of Ali would have beaten him. He replied "Well, Marciano for one". I said wasn't he too small. Sadler said "big men go down too if he hit them hard. If Rocky fought George, both men would have gone down, but Rocky would be the one who got up." My wife was there and to this day we can't believe that a man who saw Foreman's power up close would bet that a man who weighed 188 would beat him. But that is what he said, back in the 1980's, I can't remember the exact year.

 

Thanks for posting!

This view point must seem strange without being from an earlier time .

Sandy would know all about levels, competition and changes in world level boxing. He saw size as just one asset against many other ingredients as all fight people used to.


George was a very raw talent first time around compared to the multi fight era Sandy Sadler grew up in. Foreman was certainly an ATG two handed powerhouse, crude but bigger than Rocky. But Sadler knew about the required subtlety and maturity at top level.

I'm sure this view on young George was measured against his temperament and stamina in foremans prime. He can't have seen another champion from his day who could have fought as naively against Ali as Foreman did. This always counted against Foremans resume until he returned as an old man, then of course you never could combine both versions rather that we had to accept the talent that was always there.

 

Thanks. :good

 

We see the same thing in basketball and American football, better skilled LARGE athletes. Even discounting "supplements", taller, larger framed athletes today are exhibiting skills and speed their similarly framed counterparts from past decades did not.

 

i agree, yet many find this claim to be untrue it seems :think

 

No true in the sport of boxing however. You do not find the skills of Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Walcott, Marciano or Ali in today's hwts. Not even close.

 

Because you don't want to see them. They're there alright.

 

Wow. A list of names that really signifies nothing but that you have been told over and over in your life that they were important and represent something glorious and unrepeatable. That is called indoctrination. Sure, these guys were all great in their days, but the sport, and moreso the division, have evolved. Put the blinders on if you chose. But don't think that rattling off some tired list of supposed greats means anything to the past 30 years of the sport.

 

If you don't see anyone with the "skill" of Marciano, then you should give up watching the sport. :-(

 

Watch Wlad vs Klit. Then watch Ali Frazier 3. What you see, if you know the sport of boxing technically (huge if), is the recent "championship" fight was between two very low skilled fighters. See the straight from the shoulder combinations by Ali...perfectly thrown. See Frazier roll, slip, Bob and weave around Ali's punches and guard? See Frazier perfectly counter an Ali hook in round six with his own solid hook? All this is textbook boxing the way it's been taught historically. Now look for those same skills during the more recent hwt laugh fest......keep looking as you won't find any great boxing skills at any time during that fight.