the short heavyweights

Tyson was made to look as though he had average power against Tillis, Green, Smith and Tucker, and he consolidated the HW Title against the latter two. Mike decisioned all four of them pretty handily. In shape, Tua had the workrate to succeed when his power was insufficient for taking an opponent out, and many believe he deserved the nod over Ibeabuchi. Frazier was past peak when he dealt with Bugner. Between the rematch with Bonavena and the FOTC, he had the hustle, stamina and nonstop hook to the body to outwork anybody over 15 rounds. Marciano's stamina, work rate and physical strength along with low center of gravity and underrated skills made him a headache for everybody who dealt with him.

I don't think Dempsey belongs in this discussion. He was taller and with longer arms than Jerry Quarry, who at 6'0" and with a 72" reach easily out boxed tall super heavyweights Lyle and Mathis. If Jack had injured both his hands during the course of a match though, he had the combination of speed, skill and mobility to outbox most opponents during his peak.

 

In this day and age, no one under (or even at) 6 foot should fight at heavyweight unless they are happy to accept the severe disadvantage. There is no need for a super heavyweight division, there just needs to be more promotion of the cruiserweight division, which in my opinion has exciting fights anyway and shouldn't need promoting

 

Dempsey was NOT short.
He also was only a few inchs shorter than Joe Louis in reach I belive.


Marciano, Tyson and Frazier are the 3 greatness short fighters in the heavyweight divsion.

I think Bob Fitz and Tommy Burns, both strong hitters belongs in the talks in regards to this.

 

It wasnt just power, it was speed and ability too, but no, because the skills could be a lot easier offset by a taller guy who didnt have to worry about the power factor.
For example many guys could box with Tyson, but not many of them could afford to take chances, make mistakes, or punch back in combinations, because of Tysons ability to counterpunch so well with his tremendous power. Thats why most either held, got knocked out, or took a serious one sided beating.

 

I dont know about that. Someone with the skills power and chin of Tyson in his prime would do very well in todays era. The top guys have shown very little ability to do anything but box and would be lost if the distance factor was taken away from them.

 

Dempsey wasn't short, he was 6'1.

 

Someone with those attributes would do well in any era :yep

A 6'2 or 6'3 Tyson would be more effective though, so the point about being at a disadvantage still stands.

 

Being taller is a disadvantage in boxing. There's a misconception in boxing brought on by the fact that, as children, we all thought big=better. When you fight, the target is the other man's chin. If your opponent is taller, you can easily hit his chin (even if he tucks it in) and he can only hit your with an uppercut (not easily if you're tucking it in).

Tyson, Marciano, Tua and Frazier were almost impossible to hit flush on the jaw, and never took more than a 2-count in their primes (Frazier was fat and out of shape against Foreman - he weighed 10 pounds more than he did in the fight of the century against Ali).

 

he was the same height as liston and louis,or within an half an inch.just not as good

 

check chris byrd , james toney and orlin norris .
had orlin norris not been matched against the likes of akiwande , klitschko and tucker he would have been a belt holder. remember he still ended it on even terms with tucker , and decisioned mccall , the glorified sparring partner who surpassed his subject of train by some means.

 

Burns was an excellent infighter with proved 20 round stamina. He had a number of fine decision wins to his credit, and was robbed of a clear one by referee Jeffries following his first title defense against Jack O'Brien. (I wonder how much today's heavyweights would weigh on average if 20 rounds was the standard distance not just for championship fights, but for most bouts.)

 

He would have to change his style completely. I stood next to Mike years back and he was 5-9 or 5-10 tops. He took advantage of his stature to fight "short", presenting a small and elusive target. It would make no sense to do this at 6-2 or 6-3 unless one was up against Julian Francis or Valuev. The things that made Tyson great, the angles, speed, combos... all of which resulted in power, came from a style based around both his assets and, no pun intended, shortcomings.

 

about this i can say , that a 6'2" 6'3" tyson could really have destroyed wlad and may have even beaten vitali which a 5'10" tyson surely could never do.
and all of this regarding the same technique applied by a tad bit slower tyson.

 

James Toney was 5"10 and other than getting too fat I have to say he did fine despite a not so killer punch. Marciano had super-heavyweight power and Galento beat some big boys despite his reluctance to train. Davis Tua is listed as 5"10 may be shorter. Tyson may be 5"11 and he beat most of the big guys. The only reason Tucker and Smith lasted with him is that they held on for dear life. Tyson was past his best vs Lewis but Lennox along with the Klitschko Bro's are head and shoulders vs all of the Big guys of the past. I think being short you would have to have freak power like Tyson or Marciano or great skills like Toney or Langford to overcome the disadvantage. Dwight Quawi did well vs an older but in shape Foreman but Dwight did not bring the power and he was 5"7