Why does size matter?

Tyson was extremely out of prime for the Lewis fight. If it was a prime vs prime match up Tyson would get him out of there fast.

Dempsey didn't take a beating getting on the inside against Willard. A small target is harder to hit than a big target. Especially when that small target is crouching low. It is one of the attributes that made fighters such as Dempsey, Marciano and Tyson so difficult.

 

If the experiment has a dependent variable, independent variable, is measurable and is repeatable then yes it is a scientific experiment. Your complaints are with the surface of the track, the shoes Andre De Grasse is wearing, and his athletic performance. That does not decrease the validity of the science. The Question was "Is Andre De Grasse faster than Jesse Owens?" The answer that the scientists came up with is no.

 

Obviously you didn't read the OP. This is a thread about HEAVYWEIGHTS. Not Welterweights vs Heavyweights and other preposterous match ups.

 

That is if they are accurate. Regardless of the accuracy of the complaints the results are still scientific.

 

You obviously don't know a lot about Jess Willard and older era big men. Marciano wasn't easy to hit either. Take Ezzard Charles off of the list and who really banged him up? Walcott out classed him for 12 rds and Moore landed a great counter punch.

 

You are assuming that the complaints are accurate. From the video footage we have seen, they are not. Therefore they aren't meaningless. If Andre De Grasse had beaten Owens record your tune would be very different.

 

If you go on boxrec and click on the encyclopedia for Willards fights there are many newspaper reports that talk about Willards skills. Most people in the boxing world thought Willard was going to destroy Dempsey. He had a 65 lb advantage to do so. When does the line where skill cannot make up for weight advantage start? If it isn't present yet at 65 lbs then it isn't there at all.

Have you ever honestly seen Marciano fight or the fighters he fought? Answer honestly. Marciano did not fight journeymen or unskilled opponents. Walcott 2x, Charles 2x, Moore, Layne, Lastarza 2x, Matthews, Reynolds, Savold, Cockell. These guys were not unskilled bums or club fighters. Sure not all were Champions but they were all good enough to fight for the title. Take away all of the titles today, junior/super divisions and put in only 1 belt for 8 weight classes then I can guarantee you there would be a lot less of Former world titlists on a guys resume. A guy can be unproven today and still be a champion. Look at Joe Louis's resume before he became champ. There are a ton of tough/top contenders on there.

 

I literally quoted you saying that the guys Marciano faced were unskilled. What you are saying is guys who fight on the outside could outpoint Marciano. That is a stylistic match up more than a size match up. Marciano was a seek and destroy fighter just like Louis was. A big man has less room to box from because he is bigger in size and just takes up more space. Marciano had hard time with fast smaller fighters. He would have no problem landing on any big guy.

Look at Chris Arreola, he weighed in at 246 for his fight with Wilder. Now lets say that is his average weight because he comes in around the 250 mark at times and in the 230s as well. His bodyfat is somewhere around 30%. If we cut Chris down to 10% bodyfat he weighs in at sub 200. Are you telling me that the fat Arreola has on his body makes him a better fighter? That level of fatness provides no benefits and if anything is holding him back.

I did answer your questions about Willard. Look up what I said too look up and read for yourself. That is your problem, you take the word of other people and are too lazy to check the facts for yourself. Here is something to start you off: [url]http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Fight:28224[/url]