Who beat bigger opponents - Gene Tunney or Jim Jeffries ?

The two fights you mention had Tyson. The issue is how much are top level fighters paid. How much more is Wlad Klitschko paid per bout than Joe Calzaghe?

Bryd bulked up and used supplements. So did his opponents. I think the real issue is would he have fought at the weight he did if his opponents were not using supplements. If he were around a couple of generations ago, he would probably never have fought over 190 or so at the most.

 

Old Fogey,

Byrd was only a few pounds less as an amatuer as Joe Frazier and Ali. They gained weight in the 1960's.

While not a big heavyweight, Byrd did not carry much fat on him either. He was in shape, and quick in his prime at the weight 210 poudns or so.

Byrd's attmept to go back to light heavyweight was a disater for him. He was well past his prime.

 

It is possible, but it seems highly unlikely. There is certainly no evidence to suggest what you are saying, and it pretty much goes against common sense and all traditional thinking. If you are trimmer and fitter, you should have a better chin. Anyone who has been in shape and has been out of shape will tell you that. I think it is very unrealistic to think that because a fighter loses 20 or 30 pounds by training hard they cant take as much of a punch. It would be like saying that if Tua got dropped 30 lbs and trained hard and for endurance, he would no longer take a punch. Or if Toney went back down to Cruiserweight, he wouldnt have as good a chin as he has now.

Spinks beat an old Holmes twice, the same Old Homes (who was competive with every fighter he ever fought in the 90s superheavy era, except Tyson, when he was an awful lot older and out of shape than when spinks beat him. Spinks beat every heavy he fought other than Holmes and Tyson very easily. Tyson caught him clean, but still, when he caught Holmes (a proven atg heavy chin) clean he KOd him. Same with Berbick, who had a decent proven record, Biggs, Bruno and many, many others. In fact, virtually everyone who was caught clean.

Well Jones Jr vs Klithcsko would have certainly been the biggest fight klithchsko could sign in terms of making money, at one stage.
Are you sure about that? I believe Tyson-Lewis was the biggest money maker and Tyson-Holyfield for that.

And yeah, of course the smaller weightclasses would take it on depth.

It's matching up money makers from 10 weight classes vs 1 weight class! Hardly a fair comparison, but if you look at the individual fights, on average heavyweights make a lot more.[/quote]

 

All this is true, but it doesn't really come to grips with the impact supplements had on Byrd.

Ali was a teenager when he fought in the 170's--18 I believe. Byrd weighed 169 at 23. At that age Ali was all muscle and would never see 200 lbs again. Supplements destroy direct historical comparisions, but if Byrd fought in Ali's era, he would have been smaller than Ali, and it is possible, and I think probable, that if Byrd fought in Marciano's era, he would have been lighter than Marciano. Marciano was never a lightheavy.

 

"Who says Byrd could have taken those big shots at 175 or 190?"

This is the same old big guys punch harder and take a punch better argument. Could you give actual historical evidence to support your case? Is there any historical evidence that a 190 lber (Uzcudun, Marciano, Dempsey) was easier to knock out than a 220 plus lb'ers (Neuhaus, Firpo, Carnera). I know I select names, but I think the point is still fair.

 

If it was advantageous to come in lower, then why did Byrd, and virtually every fighter who had the means, bulk up and come in a bit above 200 lbs?
I don't think durability goes up much once you get beyond, say, 200lbs.


Historical evidence is hard to provide, because boxing is involved with some many variables besides durability.

However, if you look at a list of durable heavyweight (180+lbs):

McCall
Chuvalo
Marciano
Jeffries
Godoy
Uzcudun
Dempsey
Ali
Holmes
Tyson
Galento
Tucker
McCline
V. Klitscko
Willard
Mercer
M. Baer
Braddock
Tua
Cobb
Holyfield
Valuev

I've highlighted the fighters below 200lbs. Now obviously this list is by no means "complete", but the majority of those are over the limit.

I don't know how much Klitschko or Calzaghe make, unfortunately. I do know that Wlad makes a shitload of money in Germany, as Calzaghe did in Wales against Kessler.

Probably, but how is it relevant?

One more thing. These things often get exaggerated because it sounds much cooler to say "Yeah i went in with that guy with a 30lbs weight disadvantage" than "with a 20 lbs disadvantage". I read that Byrd left the training camp for the first W. Klitschko fight at 204lbs and then bulked up to 212lbs. But then i've also seen an article saying he was 190lbs and then ate himself up to 212lbs. Considering he is close to ripped and in very sharp shape, i question the latter article. It's not like he's walking around fat. Toney, now there's a guy who ate himself up to a weight.

I don't understand the Tua example. There's no way he could get to 180lbs. :huh

Foreman, Tua and Galento all took a great punch when they were fat. But those are irrelevant, i'm talking about a natural 170-180-190lbs fighter bulking up here. I don't believe Toney could've taken those monster shots from Peter and Rahman had he come in at 175 or 185lbs.

Wrong, that was not the same Holmes. The Holmes in the 90's was well prepared, just like the Holmes of the Spinks rematch. And what happened there? He beat Spinks on any decent scorecard. As for "being competitive with every fighter from the superheavyweight era", the only top fighter he faced and beat was Ray Mercer, who wasn't a superheavyweight to begin with.

And sorry to say so because Spinks is one of my favorite lightheavyweights, but outside of Holmes, the heavyweights he beat were garbage. Cooney was washed and coked up and never much to begin with... never beat a ranked contender. Spinks dropped his belt to avoid Tucker. He flopped worse against Tyson than almost all of Tyson's victims did. Impressive for his size, but not for a heavyweight.

As for your last comment, i don't really see what you mean. Holmes took a vicious beating from pillar to post for almost a minute before being stopped, and after 4 rounds .. if you think Tyson didn't land anything during the first three then i suggest you re-watch the fight. Spinks went down after the first decent shot that landed and out cold after the follow-up.

Yes. And what does that prove? Of course it pays big money to see a big champion fight a smaller champion.

But two big heavyweight names will always bring in more money than two big cruiserweight names. Unless you think Haye-Maccaranelli was a big as Tyson-Lewis.

 

the same ray mercer who outjabbed outworked outfought your boy prime lennox lewis. perhaps lennox wont be as dominant against great smaller heavyweights as you think?

 

Your list of the most durable fighters is not only incomplete, it is grossly biased toward plus 200 pounders:

1. Mike Tyson--stopped 5 times in 58 fights. He ranks behind Ezzard Charles (7-112) who has been criticized as "chinny" on this board. Yes, Tyson's ko's came largely when past his best, but so did Charles'.

2. Jess Willard--stopped 3 times in 36 fights. Why is he on this list and not Billy Miske who was stopped 1 time in 103 fights and that by Dempsey (and he might have been ill).

3. Jameel McCline--stopped 3 times in 50 fights. Seems an ordinary chin--nothing like Maxie Rosenbloom with 2 stoppages in 298 fights.

4. Tony Galento--stopped 6 times in 110 fights. Young Stribling was stopped once in 288 fights and that by referee's intervention with seconds to go in the 15th round against Schmeling.

5. Max Baer--stopped 3 times in 81 fights. Johnny Risko was stopped 3 times in 142 fights, fought many more rounds, and was in with more good fighters.

Other small men who fought a lot at heavyweight and were rarely stopped--Battling Levinsky (4-289,), Tommy Loughran (3-174), Cesar Brion (1-59), Bob Pastor (2-65), John Henry Lewis (1-117), Tommy Gibbons (1-106)

I would point out that Vitali Klitschko has actually been stopped 2 times in 37 fights, nothing to get excited about. Yes, you could focus on injuries, but that was true of these older guys also. One of Greb's and one of Loughran's stoppages were with injuries.

 

Ok, like i said it's not a complete list. And to avoid a long discussion over a small point, i think it's better to discontinue discussing this particular point.... for a few reasons:

-I was discussing durability asin the ability to take a punch, not being stopped on cuts, injuries or anything similar. Tyson's ability to take a punch is proven on film against very hard punchers. It's other factors that lead to him getting TKO'd.

-The statistics of Charles (and i don't mind Charles on the list and i don't call him "chinny" - just a random example) or John Lewis are disfigured because they fought a lot of fights at lower weights

-An extension of the last point: many older fighters didn't have to deal with the talented 210+ punchers that fighters from the 60's had to deal with. I know you may not subscribe to this theory, further complicating the discussion. A guy like Tunney may have never been stopped, but exactly how tested is he against heavyweight punchers?

 

Ezzard Charles took flush punches on film vs very hard punchers like Rocky Marciano, bob satterfield, Joe Louis, Nino Valdez, Rex Layne, Johnny Haynes....does that mean he has a top chin?

 

I haven't seen all of those fights, but Charles certainly was very durable. He fought a ton of top contenders and only was stopped once until the Marciano fight, if i'm not mistaken.

 

No problem. It is a complicated discussion, and I don't entirely disagree about talented modern big fighters, but I do think someone should press for historical evidence rather than accepting as a given that bigger is better.

Janitor once made the excellent point that the 210 plus pounders of the past were trained by the same trainers who trained the smaller men.

 

I may open a new topic on it one of these days, but i'd like it to have a bit more substance than "heavyweights post 1960 were bigger on average" .. -"No they weren't".

Anyway, i'm off to bed now. Good night.