Why are modern heavyweights all fatasses?

An agenda? You're projecting your bias on to me and others. :yep

Carnera & Willard would get beat by Byrd & Iggy, and look what Wlad did to Byrd twice. Yeah, they got off the canvas and continued getting beat within an inch of their lives. :-(

Of course you'll give Wlad credit for continuing to get up from Sanders shots, huh. No?
Maybe you have an agenda - a nation or race based one. :hi:

 

Look at that sad excuse of a photoshopped picture

 

Chagaev, Ibragimov, Valuev, Skelton, and Peter all have more fat than they need on them. Povetkin too, for that matter.

Then again, it doesn't appear to impact their athletic performance (at least, not compared to highly muscular Shannon Briggs, for instance), so it doesn't matter that much. I suspect it's partly a genetic issue.

 

With the slav's, you'll find that many of them have extra meat on them, take Fedor for example as the best MMA fighter, who has no impressive physique. This is genetic like you said.

They are not 'fatasses' though, they just have some minor padding. A 'fatass' would be James Toney in every bout after the Holyfield fight, and even then, he was functional but chubby.

Tua is also quite chunky, but he's not ranked now and the weight seems to be coming down. 230 is solid for his body type and he was 235ish recently.

Skelton's a bit overweight, but he's only a domestic brit level fighter, Peter is not fat either and around 245, he looks very good in my opinion for his body type.

 

Good response, Chrispontius. You illustrated how off base and exaggerated this whole thread topic is.

In truth, only a few of the top heavies are what you'd call, fat. This thread topic has proven to be rather rediculous.

 

I agree. My point is that, when you take the extra fat into account--genetic, or whatever other cause you choose to assign to it--fighters aren't quite as big in terms of muscle mass as their weight would indicate.

 

Yeah, about as much all the other brainiacs on here :rofl including you :yep
Speak for yourself about the ****** ass issue. It shows you have no argument when you throw words around like that. Hell many like you suggest that Lewis or K bros are "gay". Why? Because they have UK and East Euro accents. Listen to Tyson speak - who sounds more gay? :rofl I had better put down material in grade school. And I don't need to see pix of the K bros semi nude - does nothing for me, but seems to get more than a few ESBers stiff. :hey You one of them?

I do not play the race card - I state that it is one of the main agendas most don't own up to. I'm also very consistent regarding nationality & race. I have argued that the Dempseys & Marcianos would not stand a chance vs modern HWs anymore than black HWs of yesteryear. And I don't "hate" any of them. In fact I think the fighters of the past had much more class on average than todays.
But I'm noticing some backlash from too much trash talk. It's been worn out. :tired

OK, that's your view. I think the past 15-20 years has been among the best. It is interesting that you'd say Tyson's era was the worst, since you seem to think so highly of bob & weavers. That is something to debate.

We can f you and call each other *** and whatnot all day long. Frankly it's plain boring to me. Some barbs or sarcastic counters are fine, even funny. The other bull**** is silly since most of us don't and won't ever get to know who we really are. It gives the image of the nerdy keyboard "warrior" or somebody that's lost the debate. :deal

 

Agree 100%. It's entertaining to debate some ESBers, but the "HW no good now" brigade :| isn't even good for laughs anymore - except for the ones that can at least attempt an argument losely based on facts. :yep

 

:good Glad I made your day !

 

Yes, an agenda of beeing sane.

 

:good Love those quick, short snappy comebacks - like a great 6" punch

 

Take off the rose colored glasses. Too bad it's impossible to actually summon up prime versions of Ali, Louis, Marciano, Dempsey and let them compete against the current crop, I think the majority of them would be "exposed" by the current crop of "bums". The " old time heavyweights were better than today's heavyweights is as old as boxing. " If you are inclined to do so by some old boxing magazines and you'll see the pencil necked boxing writers of bygone eras bemoaned the lack of talent during their time, not that their time has long since past the current day heavies can't compete with the "bums of yesteryear". I don't think the majority of greats of the past would fare well vs the modern day big men anymore than I think Johnny Weismuller could comeback in his prime and repeat his gold medal winning Olympic performance or Byron Nelson would beat Tiger Woods, or Babe Ruth could keep up with Barry Bonds and so forth.

 

People haven't changed biologically since Weismuller and Ruth, though. Countries with low GDP's and sports budgets are still capable of pumping out excellent athletes (especially boxers). I would expect the same to be true of previous eras in history.

Much of this question boils down to whether you believe that a fighter today can train "old school" and still win. Do you?

 

Decker you claim the 2000s were just as good as the 90s, we should make a list of all the fighters in this decade versus 90s and lets just see what people think.