Why did dominant super tall heavyweights only emerge relatively recently?

Wilder has fought very very few world class opponents. He is nowhere near dominating his own era. And how is he unskilled relative to someone like Ruddock or Rahman?

In the 1990s and early 2000s Moorer, old Foreman, and Rahman were all lineal champs while Wilder was never lineal so how is his limited success an indictment of the current era?

 

Lol are you backtracking on Wilder now, just like you did Joshua after he lost to Ruiz? You’re a clown.

Wilder was for a period of time, no worse than second best of his era and arguably number 1.

 

I agree.

1. The human population in the 50s was about 2.5 billion
2. The human population in the 70s was about 3.7 billion
3. The human population today is 8 billion
This is the first thing: there were less tall people interested in boxing through the years. Now comes the second that is more significant, but combines with the first, of course: the average human height grew few centimeters for the last 50-70 years. Thanks to better medicine, better food, maybe it’s also a natural process. Growing taller means we grew heavier. I find that we’re a bit heavier than we must be, even excluding the growing obesity, but maybe it’s just me. So we’ve a lot more taller and heavier people than before, what’s their choice except the heavy division (it's not like the lightweight ones where you change category after visiting the toilet) once you’re around 193 cm and taller? You can go down to cruiser if you're not close or above 200 cm, but won’t be that competitive just because you’re taller – you’ll rather look skinny and you will surely have less muscles than the other competitors in the division that are shorter. I also think that there're many tall men who became boxers just because of their height.

1. The US man isn't the only, nor the average man on the planet (the US population represents around 4.25% of the world's)
2. You see it in inches, but 1 inch equals 2.54 centimeters, so it isn't that insignificant

I don't think it's mainly the trainers, could be at some level. I find them more incapable even today of properly training southpaws, but that's a different topic.

 

That's based on complete guesswork though. Fact is he was never lineal and never the consensus number one heavyweight. Moorer on the other hand was lineal champion in a supposedly strong era and I'd pick Wilder to beat him. How is Wilders success indicative of a weak era if Moorer can become lineal in a supposedly strong era?

 

I have a theory that is more to do with advances in modern sports science rather than people just getting bigger.

For years the tallest biggest guys could not function as successfully in boxing. The higher echelons anyway. There were physical limitations to being that big until the science overcame this.

 

Guys that size in the 1950s did not have access to what has made the same sized guys as physically successful as they later became. There were limits to what diet and exercise could do for them.

This is what Should be asked a whole lot more but nobody likes the answer.

They just didn’t make the grade. To maintain strength they conceded speed and endurance. In the pursuit of adequate speed and endurance they conceded too much natural strength.

The cost of supporting a giant boxer in those days too. Injuries sustained in training. Recovery etc.

I think reach itself can largely overcome skill providing the guy with the reach can stay accurate and strong enough for long enough.

indeed. Without steroids the cruiserweight division wouldn’t have been needed in the first place. Before the age of supplements, On average World class heavyweights tended to max out at about 199lb.

In truth, Cruiserweight was only ever invented so that Superheavyweight didn’t have to be invented.

we now have a ridiculous situation where SHWs are called “heavyweights” and real heavyweights get to be called cruisers.

 

Skill level have fallen off, thus allowing the decently skilled 6'5" fighters
to have a physical advantage over smaller fighters that have
basically the same skill level as they do. The smaller heavy's today simply
don't have the superior skills as was true years past.
Thus if the skill level is about equal, the physical advantages come
into play for the bigger man.

 

This logic only makes sense to me if you think skill levels have only reduced for smaller fighters, whilst, for some reason, have remained static, or at least have reduced to a lesser degree, for the huge guys.

All other factors being equal, a good man beats a good smaller man and a great big man beats a greater smaller man.

Are you saying that there have always been good big men and still are today, whilst there used to great smaller HWs, but now there are only good?

My view, which is going to be enormously unpopular with you, is that boxing, as with all other sports, has evolved (and from an entertainment perspective, mostly for the worse).

I rank Joe Louis as the greatest ever HW and I cant possibly envisage anyone surpassing him during my lifetime, based on achievements in the fighters respective eras.

I also rank Jesse Owens as one of the greatest sprinters of all time, but drop him into today via a time machine and he wouldn't come close to qualifying for the US Olympic squad.....that doesn't stop him being one of the greatest sprinters of all time, based on achievements in their respective eras.

Sprinting and boxing are different sports I know, but isnt funny how, with the exception of a minority of outliers, in sports where performance is quantifiable (weights, throwing, running, etc.) and performance levels are completely objective, there is a clear trend to improved athletic performance as decades pass by?

 

Boxing is the ultimate sport of repetition. Meaning the more one practices, generally the better they become if they have the physicality to do so.
Unlike track and field football or basketball where your point is true, boxing IS that outlier.
World class boxers in the past trained and fought to the point their actions and reactions were instinctive. They didn't think about countering , the counter came from muscle memory for the opportunity that presented itself.
Those instincts came from countless hours of sparring, and fighting regularly.
Boxers today are basically You punch,I block, I punch, you block. The art of instinctive Slipping and countering we rarely see today. Especially at heavyweight. It's because they don't put the time in. In order for the sport to survive its become much more safety oriented. ( Rightly so) but that also has its draw backs, the skill level has declined.
In my opinion Joe Louis would be just as effective against Wilder, Joshua, or Ruiz as he was against Braddock, Baer, and Canera.Prime Louis didn't think about countering , the counter came all by itself. His impeccable technique , Speed and power came from yrs of sparring and actual fights . Prime Louis would consistently beat a fighter like Wilder to the punch because he telegraphed his punches, especially his right hand.
Repetition practiced enough until it instinctive. Boxers that have honed their skills enough not to watch his opponents fist, but watch their shoulders, pectoral muscles and feet, giving them that millisecond advantage to make the opponent miss , or beat them to the spot, or punch.
If as you say the sport has progressed. Where are the super talented defensive specialists today? Every decade had at least one up until the last 10- 20 yrs. Why don't we see that level of skills in today's game.
The answer is simple in my opinion.
Anthony Joshua probably could bench press and squat more weight than Ali or Holmes could. He'd never beat them in a boxing ring.

 

I agree that with the likely advent of PEDs, advancements in sports science orientated training, nutrition and supplements, there has been a shift of focus and emphasis from technique to physical attributes.

The same is true in Rugby (and probably US football?). Today's rugby players, in the main, don't have the subtly of skill as those from many decades ago. They are, however, much bigger, stronger, faster and fitter, and would obliterate their predecessors if they were transported via time machine, into a game today.

Fighters clearly fight far less regularly today, but I'm not sure the top fighters train train less. Certainly not less effectively with the advancements in sports science to help prepare them, though again, I accept there will have been a shift in emphasis from technical training to training designed to maximise various physical capacities.

Mayweather wasn't bad defensively. For fighters who throw so many punches, Uysk and prime Loma are/were defensively sound too.

I'm not of the extreme view that all modern fighters beat all fighters from previous eras in time machine H2H contests and in truth it doesn't really interest me. I'd much rather rank fighters all time based on what they achieved in their own era.

Your assertion that the top HWs today are bigger because todays boxers are less skilled initially didn't make sense to me, but it does now. I agree its plausible that as there has been the shift in emphasis from technical to athletic and physical attributes that I describe above, this is consistent with an increase in less skilled, but bigger, stronger and more powerful fighters.

 

Primo would be a good exception, whatever you think of him he was very dominant for a period, among the highest KO percentages too.

 

Andrea Degrass the Olympic silver medal winner in the 100 meter participated in a experiment where he ran the 100 meters with the old style running spikes and on a dirt track, he did not break 11 seconds. Jesse Owens ran it in 10.30 in 1936. In a lot of sports equipment has changed. Which should be taken into account with different records.

This content is protected

 

I'm no expert on sprinting, but my guess is Owens would have been used to running in those conditions & Degrass not.

My wider point is that there has been a clear shift to improved measurable athletic performance over the last several decades. There are some very long standing world records, but generally the best athletes today are stronger, faster and fitter than their counterparts from 80+ years ago. That shouldn't diminish the achievements or greatness of athletes from previous eras, different times, different resources, in some instances practically different sports.

 

The funny thing is that the rising size of athletes may make boxing more attractive again. If you're 6'3" and 220 when fit, what are you going to do? Unless you're a generational talent, probably too small for football or basketball these days, and football has the same problems as boxing (if not more).

Make HW be in the range of 200-225 or so, create a SHW above there. Might open the door for a bunch of 70's sized heavyweights.

The biggest drag on boxing is probably MMA, followed by basketball (if we look at the SHW size guys). Basketball is, by a mile, the best sport to get into if one has the size, athletic ability, and aptitude. No CTE, can play for longer, and the second tier guys have the ability to make solid money for many years by playing overseas.

 

Boxing is a little bit different though due to the hard to quantify element of "toughness" and due to how much more they used to fight back in the day. I'd imagine that if you took, say, Archie Moore at his best and slot him into whatever modern weight class he'd fit with day before weigh-in, he'd stomp everyone due to the vast, vast advantage he'd have had in experience over everyone he faced, even if he wasn't using the latest nutritional and training knowledge.