The bigger is better theory, a history.

Height, weight, and reach play a big role in boxing. There are weight classes for reasons.

Size, as long as it does not take away from stamina, speed, and flexibility is an advantage.

Modern super heavies with skills are much better than the large heavies of the 00's to 1960's. This is not to say Joe Louis or Jack Dempsey could not win. Those guys has an equalizer...serious punching power. If your much lighter and smaller, I think you are going to need big time power to even things up.

The best small cruiser weight was Holyfield, who bulked up to 210. Yet he is 1-4 vs Bowe and Lewis...yes that draw was bogus.

 

1. Yes the HWs of the 60s and even more so the 70s seem bigger. No the Cruser division came inthe late 80s. More black boxers also got a fairer shake of the dice after the civil rights movement and had more opportunities. African Americans tend to produce more faster/rangier athletes

I think more fighters made money easier in the 60s-70s with TV money, making it easier for fighters to be full time boxers who did not second jobs.

Full time fighters = Better Fighters

2. Many MWs/LHWs fought at HW since. Langford/Greb/Tunney and then Patterson/Charles/Moore/Ellis/Spinks/Jones Jr/Byrd. Most of these fighters added muscle mass to compete, something they all felt was necessary

3. 167lb is never the best weight to fight heavyweights at, thats why Patterson force fed himself to grow into a 190lb fighter, thats why pretty much every fighter since has thought it necessary to add muscle mass.

4. I think your point seems to be, I don't think Jones Jr/Toney could be dominant against the very best in their primes at HW and thats why they didn't move up sooner. I agree they were past prime but neither were ever going to beat the very best of the 90s/00s as much as I'm a fan of both. And thats for the simple fact they weren't big enough

Byrd ofcourse was a SMW who force fed himself so he could compete at HW but he still wasn't really big enough to compete despite being a 6'2 210lb man

They also didn't need to move up to HW in their prime because they could make millions at MW/LHW something that wasn't possible in the past. Fighters do what they need to do to make money at the end of the day

5. This is a good point. BUT remember the best have 100s of amateur fights against the very best to learn their trade. They also regularly spar with world class fighters. 2 fights a year does see fighters degrade typically though

6. Both are physical phenomenons, not only are they the tallest/rangiest, they are also very strong and very well conditioned. Emanuel Steward claimed both brothers ran 800m intervals at 2miniute pace, this if true is astounding for such big men

A great bobbing and weaving fighter who can cover ground fast and attack their bodies bulling them around would be the best style to beat them. But even then they are hard to beat

You ask if the dominance is due to them not facing great smaller fighters? I take it you mean fast mobile fighters. I don't think Sharkey/Dempsey would give them too many problems, Tyson would though as he's a better jab slipper. They have all fought faster more dynamic fighters in the shape of Lennox, Sanders, Chambers, Byrd, Brewster

 

Well peak Joe Louis was 197 to say 203. Much larger men in those days were mostly useless technique wise compared to smaller guys and were FAR less available than now. Modern history has an absolute abundance of 220+ guys that can fight quite decently. Just look at Lewis and the two Klits.

 

All I know is the greatest heavyweight just so happens to be the biggest champion in history and of that there can be no doubt or disagreement. 46-0 in his prime and against superior opposition to that of Marciano's 49-0 fame. I doubt we'll ever see that kind of feat again...

This content is protected

 

Mayrunner? Come on Bill what the ****? We don't need that **** in classic. Please don't tell me you'd rather watch the grit and slugging of Carl Froch than the skill of Floyd Mayweather, please don't say that Bill, please.

No disrespect to Froch, he gets in the ring and does his thing, and he impressed me against Kessler, but please, please don't say that **** Bill.

 

With all other things being equal, bigger is better, for human beings boxing, until you get over the 180-190 pounds range, then it's a trade off...in my opinion. Of course, if the heavyweight minimum is 200 pounds, then you are not going to have any under 200 pound heavyweights. Yes, it's an open division, but, realistically you're not going to have heavyweights under 200 pounds as long as there is a Cruiserweight Division.

 

Jack Dempsey, himself, told me that often the old time fighters would dry out for the weigh-ins, even in the heavyweight division, so their opponents would think they were in great shape. Bigger was not always considered better back then.

 

A very respected boxing scribe once told me the perfect heavyweight size wise was Joe Louis and I could see his point but in most cases it depends on strengths and weaknesses of the individual fighter. The Klitschko's are big men but they are also very well conditioned and have vast amateur careers but I still would not expect them to survive Joe Louis.

Rocky Marciano at 5"11 and 188lbs was an exception to the rule but he had freakish power and great stamina and a rhythm breaking style and an odd-ball assortment of crushing power. Today he would be genetically larger but not only that there are supplements that enhance muscle. Mike Tyson at 5"10 fought in the under 200 lB limit his whole amateur career but gained a quick 15lbs of muscle for the pros

I think Janitor is correct for the most part here because the heavyweight division always had big men and some very good but they never dominated until Lennox, who also had a amateur pedigree but Lennox was clean KO'd by 2 men about Joe Louis height, McCall and Rahman but neither man had Louis's power or talent

I think talent has a lot to do with it and the overall package of a fighter. Today they make heavyweight bigger but not necessarily better. After watching the Areola/Adamak fight and I like both men but I would bet my house Jack Dempsey would stop both men before 5 and Louis I would bet my house and my Dog

 

This. You can't compare Willard to Lewis.

 

I meant at their current weights :yep

 

What makes you say that?

We dont have film of may of the giants like Fulton, Morris, Wills etc. We assume they dont have skill because there were better little guys. Those we do have are guys like Willard, Carnera and Hein Ten Hoff. These guys do not look any better or worse than most of the smaller contenders at the time, just not as good as the out and out champions.

Wouldnt it be truer to say that nowadays, we dont have any skilled and decent smaller fighters? The ones we do have eg Jones Jr, Hopkins, Toney, simply fight the majority of their careers at lighter weights (which earn pretty much the same money nowadays), until they get older and are past prime and condition. Adamek is going okay in the heavy division, despite the fact, that he couldnt beat Chad Dawson in two attempts. Now suddenly, he is a class above Dawson according to many.

Plus, In Lennox, Bowe, and arguably the klitchskos, we have simply the 4 best fighters in the heavy division, regardless of size.