Which of the following fighters are "SuperHeavyWeight?"

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by reznick, Mar 1, 2019.


Which of these fighters are Super Heavyweights?

  1. Deontay Wilder (Fury Fight 209lb)

    22.2%
  2. Mike Tyson (Ruddock Fight 216lb)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Joe Louis (Charles Fight 218lb)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Jack Johnson (Willard Fight 225lb)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. Lennox Lewis (Bruno Fight 229lb)

    88.9%
  6. John L Sullivan (Burke Fight 238lb)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. Jim Jeffries (Finnegan Fight 240lb)

    3.7%
  8. Anthony Joshua (Klitschko Fight 250lb)

    96.3%
  9. Primo Carnera (Erickson Fight 284lb)

    85.2%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. The Undefeated Lachbuster

    The Undefeated Lachbuster On the Italian agenda Full Member

    4,899
    7,574
    Jul 18, 2018
    A 200lbs Louis and a 250lbs Joshua is a mismatch

    In Louis's favor, of course
     
  2. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    So I've been here for 10 years.
    But it's BS to say I've seen posts here from 10 years ago?

    This is child level math you're struggling with here.
    Not to mention that I've created my account 10 years, which doesn't mean I hadn't started browsing the forum a year prior.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2019
  3. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    I don't care that many people pick Tyson over Marciano. It's a very legitimate pick.
    What I do care about is every time the SHW term comes under scrutiny, people like yourself act like they have amnesia in regards to the endless discussions about the topic.

    https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...ite-to-beat-modern-super-heavyweights.605111/

    And a consensus is a general agreement among many group members, not a unanimous one.

    https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...ite-to-beat-modern-super-heavyweights.605111/

    There are endless threads about this.
    McGrain sums it up pretty well here:
    "I do agree that size is a special obsession. It's the most readily visible attribute after all and so the one that its adherents have the most difficulty imagining being overcome."

    I guess he's just imagining this as well, even though he has closely monitored the contents of this forum as close to, or closer than anyone else?

    Try arguing on the merits of the points being made, rather than fantastical assumptions you've made regarding my intentions.
    If threads like these annoy you, it sounds like you're letting your emotions get in the way of logic and inquiry.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2019
  4. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    So being a SuperHeavyWeight is not merely dependent on size, but also skill?
    Is there any other weight class or size classification in boxing that takes skills into account?
     
  5. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    1. & 2. So adding weight, even if it's mostly fat, is beneficial for fighting bigger fighters?
    3. So everyone gets to decide by themselves what constitutes a SHW? If the term is used so often, and used strongly in arguments, why can't there be more specific criteria regarding the definition of a SHW?
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2019
  6. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    How is it possible that Primo Carnera is the largest fighter in the poll, but has the third most votes?
    Does it point to a hypocrisy fueled by Modernista gatekeeping?

    I've also noticed that Mike Tyson received zero votes. And yet made a career out of blasting out SHWs. Is he the only non SHW in history who would have success against modern SHWs?
     
  7. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,139
    13,094
    Jan 4, 2008
    The thread above is not from the Classic forum and is about height. If that's the best you can up with, I feel quite validated in accusing you of making a straw man argument.
     
    mrkoolkevin likes this.
  8. It's Ovah

    It's Ovah I am very feel me good. Full Member

    14,882
    19,142
    Sep 5, 2016
    Well Superheavyweight isn't a real weight class, so you can more or less define it as you like. The fact is, in an open weight division like Heavyweight, size disparities between combatants have to be taken into account at some level, but so does the relative skill level of the two combatants.

    When most people talk about Superheavyweights, the general consensus seems to be that they're not merely big men but big men with the skills and athletic abilities relative to their size to put them among the upper echelon of similarly sized men. In the past these were virtually unheard of, since the bigger men tended to be clumsy oafs or lacking in world class skills, such that smaller fighters could compete on even terms with them. Nowadays that doesn't appear to be the case as much, hence the need for a term to describe the fighters who not only possess a size advantage over their opponents but the skills and physical abilities to make it very hard for even the best smaller fighters to compete with them.

    Think of it like this. In every other weightclass, for every fighter in the top ten who represents the best of that division there's a whole slew of ever worsening fighters who are only members of that weightclass due to their weight. At some point the size advantages they would have relative to a fighter in a lower weight class would not be big enough to overcome the skill disparity, and hence, if you were to put, say, Errol Spence in against some garbagy top fifty SMW he would have a very real chance of beating their brakes off. But when talking about the very best in each weightclass squaring off then size and weight start to become a much bigger factor because the difference in skill level has narrowed. That's the case nowadays with fighters in the modern HW division, where we're starting to see more and more big men with world class skills and physical abilities who are, by virtue of the division, able to compete with much smaller men.
     
  9. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,139
    13,094
    Jan 4, 2008
    Not only probably. Posters saying such thing in here would be in a very clear minority.
     
    mrkoolkevin likes this.
  10. It's Ovah

    It's Ovah I am very feel me good. Full Member

    14,882
    19,142
    Sep 5, 2016
    Louis had a glass jaw. He's not lasting long.
     
  11. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,727
    29,077
    Jun 2, 2006
    I'm remarking on your statement that posters have been carrying on some sort of crusade boosting size for "about a decade," its BS.I know it and you know it.
     
    Bokaj likes this.
  12. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,727
    29,077
    Jun 2, 2006
    72 fights over 17 years ,stopped twice both times by world champions and excellent punchers.
     
    The Senator likes this.
  13. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,578
    Jan 30, 2014
    Wow, the thread that you cited doesn’t seem to support your claim at all.
     
    Bokaj likes this.
  14. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,139
    13,094
    Jan 4, 2008
    Almost as bad example as when he posted that video of young Ali in "old timey format" to show how much much worse that format made a fighter look. Just as Ali looked great in the video he posted, this thread contradicted his claim rather than supported it. The thread was about a minimum required height, not weight, it was in another forum and the Classic regulars that I saw had posted at a quick glance disagreed with the thread's premise.
     
    mcvey likes this.
  15. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    So the term Superheavyweight is not merely defined by size, but also skill?
    If so, what would you consider the threshold?