just thought i give my two cents on short heavies since most people today say giants (6'4") and up are the future of the division.looking from the 1900's till almost present day,i feel the hardest punching and vicious have been 6'1" or under and some were really only cruiserweights.here's my list:john l sullivan 5'10" 200lb,langford 5'6" 185lb,johnson 6'1" 200lb,fitzsimmons 5'11" 165lb,dempsey 6' 3/4" 187lb,sharkey 5'8" 180lb,chonski 5'10" 170lb,louis 6'1/2" 200lb,galento 5'8" 225lb,marciano 5'9" 189lb,liston 6'1'' 210lb,frazier 5'11"1/2 205lb,bonavena 5'10" 210lb,mike weaver 6'1" 210lb,ray mercer 6'1" 225,cooper 5'11" 215lb,shavers 6' 212lb,tyson5'10" 220lb lionel butler 5'11" 230lb.you can see the smaller guys were overwhelmingly the hardest punching ones, they may have been outboxed by long armed tall fighters but i would rather fight like tyson than holmes.
Outside of Lewis and the Klitschkos and Bowe, there haven't been too many outstanding ultra-big men in the heavyweight division. I agree that most of the more damaging punchers have been more normal-sized heavyweights. And I don't think that should be such a shock. Height in and of itself does not automatically equate to bone-breaking punching power or vicious combination punching. While I agree that height does give certain advantages, it's not the end-all-be-all of anything. Depending on style, I think shortness can be an asset at times. I doubt Mike Tyson would be the same explosive phenom if he were 6'4 with an 81" reach. The same goes with David Tua. But whether or not the future of the heavyweight division will belong to the super-sized heavyweight remains to be seen. There have always been really big guys around, so it's not like 6'5"+ guys just came into existence within the last generation; they've always been around. They just never panned out so well in professional boxing (outside of a few exceptions).
