Smaller fighters beating bigger fighters what is the real explanation

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Eastpaw, Jul 12, 2015.


  1. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,725
    46,416
    Feb 11, 2005
    Lewis beat every man he faced and is arguably a top 3 All Time greatest heavy. Wlad has endured victorious to the consternation of many and is surely in the argument of top 10. Foreman is definitely top 10.

    The new mold for the heavyweight division is set. Sit around waiting for the next short, slowhanded, slow footed, truncated Italian to rule the division... just don't hold your breath.
     
  2. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    I don't think it's an argument anymore. Wlad is clearly a top 10 heavyweight of all time. Look at his record resume accomplishments.

    64-3 undefeated past 11 years 19 title defenses ...unbelievable
     
  3. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 The Manager Full Member

    37,077
    3,733
    Sep 14, 2005
    What's your beef with Marciano? The guy went 6-0 with 5 knockouts against hall of famers and he beat the best of his time. Marciano would be a cruiser weight today. Do you favor him over huck?

    Why don't you pick on a heavyweight champ who didn't beat the best of his time
     
  4. zadfrak

    zadfrak Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,513
    3,112
    Feb 17, 2008
    The one factor that always gets ignored for some reason is the bigger guy is a bigger target.

    But it's still a game of reflexes. It will be hard to do much against any size once the reflexes have deteriorated too much. Sometimes the smaller guy shows just how much the reflexes have gone downhill for the bigger and larger foe.
     
  5. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    I agree with Bummy call it the super heavyweight division because that's what it is now. The training has changed. Nobody trained to be as big as possible before. They trained to be faster. Mediocre big men within the division have compensated for lack of skill with sheer size. How much harder is it to develop skillful fighters within a division where size compensates for skill? It only really suits the tallest and longest guys but there has never been enough of them to go around so there are a lot of built up guys no taller than 1970s guys. I don't see the level of skill now that even the 1990s heavyweights had among big men. The art of slipping a jab has become a rare sight. Almost entirely bypassed for grunt and groan. A reach disadvantage cannot be overcome now among heavyweights because the shorter guy is too bulky. In many ways it has become a division where the fattest man with the longest arms wins. It's harder for a smaller guy now. You put weight on a smaller guy he becomes less skillful. And he needs weight for the Sumo-factor. pace has become so slow that old guys are relevent. How messed up is that?
     
  6. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,125
    Jun 2, 2006
    Size was about the only thing Valuev had going for him.
     
  7. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,745
    29,125
    Jun 2, 2006
    But it can be a deciding factor in being able to win. A tyro heavyweight would have a decent shot against a fly weight great simply because of his body mass.
     
  8. zadfrak

    zadfrak Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,513
    3,112
    Feb 17, 2008

    Well said. And in my book, impossible to argue against this point.
     
  9. Webbiano

    Webbiano Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,600
    2,495
    Nov 6, 2011
    That is a fantastic point. I remember trying to express my views on why Holmes doesn't to so well against someone like a Frazier, Tyson, Dempsey, Marciano etc and that's because he was so used to fighting big guys, a nice juicy target for that ATG jab to land with! On the other side, there's nothing Joe Frazier wants more than a big juicy target down stairs (apologies for the innuendo) to bang away at, you'd expect him to have more success and wear his opponent down quicker.
     
  10. Webbiano

    Webbiano Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,600
    2,495
    Nov 6, 2011
    Good god tell me about it! Tarver Vs Banks illustrates your point perfectly
     
  11. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    128
    Aug 13, 2009

    I was referencing Ali....not Marciano, got Italian on the brain I see.
     
  12. Foxy 01

    Foxy 01 Boxing Junkie banned

    12,328
    131
    Apr 23, 2012
    I have less than no interest in your opinion of what constitutes class. I know for a fact if a guy who is more than 30 lbs Heavier than you, and can bang, hits your chin, all the class in the world doesn't mean s**t, you need a great chin, or miraculous recuperative powers.
     
  13. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    Exactly. What other point in history could this even be possible?

    The lighter weights are still good. There are still great fights happening that are making great fighters but I think the time has come to call for a super heavyweight division.

    because what we have now is not a true representation of the chronological history of heavyweight boxing. It is a by product that should take its own course and identity seperate to heavyweight boxing.

    Heavyweight should be capped at 229.
     
  14. Unforgiven

    Unforgiven VIP Member banned Full Member

    58,748
    21,578
    Nov 24, 2005
    Jess Willard was still considered a contender when he was old and slow, so it's not just a modern phenomenon.
     
  15. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    The modern phenomenon is a division of Jess Willards...