The Five Foot Ten Heavyweight Club

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by OvidsExile, Jun 2, 2014.


  1. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    34,234
    36,449
    Aug 28, 2012
    The other day I was in that Ray Mercer vs Jack Dempsey thread and it really impressed me how similar their achievements and physical measurements were, and I got the same sort of "Ah huh?" feeling like when I heard how close Muhammad Ali and Evander Holyfield's measurements were. It made me think, "Well, that's probably about what a guy from that era with those measurements might be capable of in today's game." So then I scroll down the forum and see that fellow talking about his top 100 heavyweights and it occurs to me that I'd only ever picked maybe a top 45, with most of the top 20 or so being larger more modern dudes. I started wondering how guys from different eras measured up and who would maybe be who and how far they would have gone, so I took the height and reach of a hundred or so guys and put them in a list.

    Some interesting match ups popped out to me up and down the list, weird things like Joe Frazier 5'11.5" 73" and Marvin Hart 5'11.5" 74". Matches like Jersey Joe Walcott 6'0" 74" and Chris Byrd 6'0" 74". But I thought I'd start with two sets of four guys from the shorter end of the heavyweight spectrum and see how you think they'd stack up in each other's eras.

    My first group is:
    Joe Jeannette 5'10" 74"
    James Toney 5'10" 72"
    Mike Tyson 5'10" 71"
    David Tua 5'10" 70"

    And my second group is:
    Sam McVea 5'10.5" 75"
    John L. Sullivan 5'10.5" 74"
    Oscar Bonavena 5'10.5 73"
    Rocky Marciano 5'10.5" 68"

    How do you think the guys match up in terms of speed, power, and skill? And if transplanted to each others times could they fill each other's shoes?
     
  2. thistle1

    thistle1 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,915
    149
    Jul 30, 2006
    just cause a man fought there doesn't always mean you can count him there...

    Toney was NEVER a HW. he was more a fat _unt in the end who's MW body was in love with Big Mac's and other such opponents.
     
  3. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    34,234
    36,449
    Aug 28, 2012
    It seemed fair to include Toney seeing as how he beat Holyfield and Ruiz at that weight. Besides, if I was going to include all the light heavyweight weight climbers and the old heavyweight champions who also fought as middleweights like Bob Fitzsimmons and Tommy Burns, it only seemed fair to include Toney. I consider Toney to be rather like what a modern Sam Langford would be in this era, and I have Langford on my list of heavyweights too.

    Part of my thinking on this subject is just how big do you have to be in modern heavyweight contention. A guy who was big enough to be champ a century ago might only make the top 10 today, etc. Personally, I think that Chris Byrd, Eddie Chambers, and Tomasz Adamek are/were fighting in the wrong division. They'll never be champs in an era of superheavy weights but they still manage to knock off a few of the big clumsy contenders. However, Adamek is the same size as Jimmy Ellis who was WBA champ from '68 to 70.

    Also, Chris Byrd has an Olympic medal as a middleweight. If he's a heavyweight than so is Toney. They both probably belonged somewhere around light heavyweight, but there you go.
     
  4. thistle1

    thistle1 Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,915
    149
    Jul 30, 2006
    yes agree, HW is no longer HW.

    I'd say over 6'3" and 225lbs plus to compete equally in the S-HW division.
     
  5. Boilermaker

    Boilermaker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,372
    471
    Oct 6, 2004
    I cant agree with this at all. I think this thread demonstrates quite well that there have been changes in weights, more so than actual height and reach.

    Who would have thought that Marvin Hart and Joe Frazier were similar sizes. Marvin arguably a little bigger. The reason for the weight gains is simply that fighters train with weights (and arguably steroids), and dont run as much. whether this is due to changes in conditions or something i am not sure about, but i would have thought it was.

    The likes of Wlad and Lennox really have skewed things a lot, because they are not only giants but actually great boxers. Wlad, for example, appears to me to to train and work harder than any other heavyweight around by quite a good distance. He is always in shape, and fights more regularly than most of challengers. Assuming his dodgy chin is not as bad as some people seem to think, he would probably be a top fighter and even dominant champion, even if he was 5 foot 10. He does have good speed and power and has shown he has the dedication to work on a gameplan his coach develops. At 5 10, he could easily rely on his long left swings and powerful jabs and straight rights (perhaps he could even clinch as well as Ruis if that was required) and i dont really see any reason why he couldnt dominate regardless of his size.

    The only thing his size really does is help him develp the boring style and take less risks.

    When Wlad retires, we could easily see a light heavyweight or more topically, a 5 10 heavy win the title.
     
  6. Entaowed

    Entaowed Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,837
    4,166
    Dec 16, 2012
    His lefts & jabs & straight rights would be less effective if he was 5' 10" w/proportionate arm length. His size allows him to hit a lot & avoid equal punishment.
     
  7. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,669
    7,628
    Dec 31, 2009
    They certainly gave that effect but was that because these giants were fighting Jack Dempsey sized heavyweights that were slowed down with the personal weight of an actual giant? Would Lewis and co look more clumsy if they were trying to pin down a speedy guy not blowing and breathing so hard?
    This and his experience is a massive advantage he has over his inactive, aging over weight, inexperienced chalengers.

    This is a good point, there is no doubting he is a good boxer, experienced and well conditioned.
    he also hangs his full weight on opponents, uses his massive strength in a clinch. I think his size is quite a large percentage of his sucsess but I think his superior conditioning and most importantly his experience is catching that up. He has had so many fights now and is still in better shape than the kids.


    I agree. There just are not enough giants to go around. Training is changing again. Pace will become more of a factor once a top fighter can establish this as a real asset, but so far size and sumo tactics have been used as distraction to mask the lack of experience in the HW division.
     
  8. Anh

    Anh Undisputed chicken dancer Full Member

    224
    5
    Oct 25, 2010
    Tyson's height was actually advantageous for his style of fighting, which was compact and implosive.

    Height and body shape type really does dictate much of your style rather than what weight class you fight in.
     
  9. doug.ie

    doug.ie 'Classic Boxing Society' Full Member

    14,214
    76
    Apr 1, 2008
    joe jeanette really only 5"10"..wow.......why is he in first group though ?
     
  10. Mendoza

    Mendoza Hrgovic = Next Heavyweight champion of the world. banned Full Member

    55,255
    10,331
    Jun 29, 2007
    Outside of Tyson there has not been a top level 5'10" heavy since Marciano in the 1950's. Tyson would be fine any era, as would Tua.

    Essentially if your short, you need to be " long " on power and durability as out boxing taller skilled guys is not very likely.

    Regarding Sam McVey, His reach might be greater than 75"
     
  11. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    34,234
    36,449
    Aug 28, 2012
    A couple of different reasons. The two groups are separated by half an inch in height. Then I also thought it would be easier for people to process and access two groups of four rather than all eight against each other. Most people don't have an appetite for hypothetical match ups going beyond 1 v 1. Lastly, because I was more eager to see what people thought of a John L. Sullivan vs Oscar Bonavena and Tyson vs Jeannette match up than I was to hear about Tyson vs Sullivan.
     
  12. OvidsExile

    OvidsExile At a minimum, a huckleberry over your persimmon. Full Member

    34,234
    36,449
    Aug 28, 2012
    No high level 5'10" heavies besides Tyson, Tua, and Bonavena, but there have been two notable 5'11" heavies since then. Joe Frazier 5'11.5" 73" and Ruslan Chagaev 5'11" 74".
     
  13. doug.ie

    doug.ie 'Classic Boxing Society' Full Member

    14,214
    76
    Apr 1, 2008
    chagaev fighting for the wba world heavyweight title on saturday....i **** you not.

    well....thats what it says anyway
     
  14. frank

    frank Active Member Full Member

    688
    3
    Jul 12, 2012
    i am from the Boston area near Brockton were rocky comes from and the guys he grew up with(before the elevator shoes) say he was 5'9",frazier was 5'10" there is a pic of him and 6' chuvalo and he is clearly shorter than a half inch. toney is also 5'9",tua 5'9.5",
     
  15. frank

    frank Active Member Full Member

    688
    3
    Jul 12, 2012
    don't forget orlin norris out boxed much taller from outside not much power.