Smaller fighters beating bigger fighters what is the real explanation

E=mc2

 

They're just better fighters, size does come in to play but with enough skills a smaller boxer can beat a bigger one. Having more athleticism helps too, like Dempsey and Tyson did compared to their larger heavyweight opponents.

 

The common factor, is that they all had some kind of equalizer.

Fitz, Langford, and Dempsey, were just incredible finishers.

Walker basically did it on superior technique, even though he was a terrific puncher.

Greb did it on speed and unpredictability.

 

How about Orlin Norris?

He might not be remembered at all but he beat a fair few Heavyweight champions. Tucker, McCall, page..

 

Obviously Terry McGovern!

 

After reading some of the posts on this forum over the past year or so . I am slowly coming to the conclusion that these fights either never happened and we had all lived through a period of mass hallucinations , or the bigger fighters of years gone really had no skills or boxing savy what so ever.

 

Being big has nothing to do with being able to fight.

 

I think the common denominator in all of these fights is that the fights were actually made.

Looking through history, (even recent history) we see things such as Bernard Hopkins, a career middleweight stepping up to light heavyweight directly after getting too old and finding himself not good enough to defend his middleweight titles and going on to become the best light heavyweight in the world. Could he have not done the same thing when he was prime and weighing in as a middleweight?

James Toney is the obvious example. Competing on an even keel with heavyweights as an old man when the younger, lighter version was twice the fighter he was. Probably had a stronger chin too! But there are countless others. Old man Antonio Tarver is campaining as a heavy now. Surely his performances as a heavy would have been twice as good 15 to 20 years ago.

Adamek was a world light heavyweight, who fought successfully at the higher weight limit after he was a world light heavyweight champion. Did he really magically improve when he left the division? Most light heavyweight champs like Spinks, Moorer etc are successful when they go up in weight. Pacman and others also are still capable of winning when they go up in weight.

Realistically speaking, if to top 50 middleweights or light heavys fought the top 50 heavys, today it would definitely not be a whitewash. FLoyd Mayweather for example may or may not be as good as Barbados Joe Walcott. If he were to fight the same level of contenders as Barbados did (including their weights) there is nothing to say that he couldnt have similar success levels. I would say that Most, if not all, World champions who are dominating champions in their division will make a fight of it when they go up a weight division or two, with the corresponding top ranked fighters fo the next division and that is regardless of whether or not they add the extra weight.

I think you woul

 

The bigger fighters are bums.

 

People have always assumed that weight divisions protected the smaller fighters from the larger fighters but this discussion groups has taught me it is actually the reverse.

 

Because history has only produced two all time great so called super heavies and neither looked invincible. Lewis and Wlad.

 

But both are considered the best of their respected ERAs by the majority.

Invincible is a hard stick to use to measure any fighter :bbb