Why were "small" men able to dominate the HW division?

And I bet a lot of the time the big men did this, right up until they met a really good little man like Dempsey or Langford. I accept that the little man has to be a much better fighter to overcome size. Today however it's harder. A much better smaller guy has even more stacked against him.

 

I think Joe Louis and Dempsey would chose their small old gloves over modern big gloves against Giants.

 

They would probably choose whatever gloves they were most familiar with.

 

They would know enough that they could do more damage with smaller gloves.

 

Yes you are 100% wrong.This is the only one good idea by you.
I don't wanna respect from a "wlad" fan so calm down !


The typical anti-social style is yours.You can't/could accept the
official result of a fight.The Holyfield-Bowe/Lewis 1-4 /1-5
are lies by you.

You're too hysterical in your "wlad" case.When a 37 years old
out of shape bum (Sanders) destroys a young well-trained
prime fighter (w. klitschko) in the second round is a shame and
every excuse is ridicolous.
I hope you'll finish these pathetic "wlad" excuses.

Your "wlad" never beat a Bowe quality fighter. Holyfield
did at least .
Your "wlad" never knocked down a Bowe quality fighter.
Holyfield could.
THIS PROVES HOLYFIELD IS(yes,still) FAR BETTER
HEAVYWEIGHT FIGHTER THAN YOUR GLASS-CHINNED ECTOMORPH "WLAD".
It's pathetic(especially from a "wlad fan) when he can't respect a fighter(Holyfield) who has some remarkable wins.
Your objectivity is a big zero this proves you're an hysterical "wlad"
ass-licker. I think nobody can say remarkable "wlad wins"

Unfortunately (I know you hate it) Holyfield beat a prime
Douglas.Yes Douglas was out of shape but the Holyfield-Douglas fight was in Buster's prime era.


I believe you're very proud of your english. But it's very funny
when the following comes from you "REFERRES".
What does it mean? Please help me "gentleman" because
i am too stupid to understand this word ! I know "referees" but
your "REFERRES" is strange .
Like i said i believe you're proud of your english.And
William Shakespeare ? I doubt it.
I have an idea: try to teach your idiota mother maybe he or she
deserves it ! And still i was a GENTLEMAN.

(Honorable mention: I was wrong because Butterbean is
better than "wlad" considering the out of shape Esch
went the distance with the ATG Holmes)

Don't forget!
What does it mean your strange word "REFERRES" ?
Please teach me !
I don't wanna forget your "great bab" phrase. What a funny
phrase !
Or your "bvelieve". I has an idea: learn to write !
Can you write ? What about your "sdeserve" ?
Long live your "sdeserve" joke ! You're laughable !

 

1) VVMM, you are divorced from reality.
I already told you I am NOT a Wlad fan.
But I am not an irrational hater like you either.
To say he is not near the top 50, let alone top 100 head to head is crazy.

2) To call someone names because you think he got someone's HEIGHT wrong by 1"-or any other honest error-is childish & cruel. :verysad:verysad

3) Due to your language issues, it is unclear what you mean that i am either wrong or correct about.


4) You did not ADDRESS what I said was antisocial.

5) You have not shown I was either lying OR wrong about the Holyfield fight results. They are exceedingly easy to look up.
Anyway to insist someone is LYTING-when it is easy to see who is wrong, would be foolish to lie, & you have no indication I am trying to deceive...Is highly immature. And you are completely wrong.

6) I did not MAKE any excuses for Wlad in the Sanders fight.
This whole issue has been YOU arguing with an imaginary opponent.
Did you flashback to some ancient debate & steretype me as saying or believing things I did not speak of? Yes, you indiputably did.


7) Wlad is not "my" fighter.
Yes, he did not beat or KO a Bowe quality fighter-though in 1 in 3 fights. Documentation: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evander_Holyfield[/url]

8) One factor like this is NOT AT ALL proof of who is better. If I cherry-picked 1 fioght it would be equally absurd.

9) Since YOU insist on comparing the 2, i rank Wlad higher.
Holyfield had more bad losses, but past prime...That is a wash.
but Wlad was undisputed champion somewhat longer, with a better KO record, 63-3 with 43 KOs is a great record indeed.

10) One guy doing it with PEDs DOES downgrade his accomplishments at least to some degree. Cheating, taking unfair advantages, fuggetibout lying: he almost certainly did BETTER than he would have in completely clean, fair competition.

9) I have been highly critical of Wlad in this fight, to show unlike you i am unbiased, here are the facts: "Klitschko vs. Povetkin took place in October 2013, his third undefeated consecutive opponent. The bout was marred with over 160 clinches, most initiated by Klitschko, followed by several repeated roughhouse tactics throughout the match against Povetkin. This included leaning on his opponent and pushing his head down and throwing Povetkin to the canvas, which resulted in the referee scoring some as knockdowns. Klitschko won by unanimous decision scoring a knockdown in round 2 from a flush jab, and 3 knockdowns in round 7 including one prompted from a big right uppercut. All 3 judges scored it 119–104 on the scorecards".

But Holyfield fought more dirty sometimes, some headbutts intentional, picking up a fighter...Both should be penalized for how MUCH they cheated. Like anyone else who cheats.

10) WHERE do you get that I do not respect holyfield? Again you are living in a Dream World. I respect his skills & toughness. Not so much the religious fanaticism, anti-gay ignorance, & undeniable PED usage.

11) YOU take a love or hate him, all or nothing approach to fighters. I am nothing like that; you project your OWN deep biases upon me.

12) I do not hate at ALL that Holyfield beat Douglas. Where do you get these fantasies/ But we disagree about what "prime" means. Douglas that night would have not been a challenge to most quality fighters due to condition & motivation. Like Ali vs. Williams, not there fault, but not "prime", which is NOT just measured in age & how good they COULD have been, but how good they WERE.

13) SO VVMM, are you so very petty & absent ideas that you mock me for a several TYPOS? That is pathetic.
And it was easy to see what words i intended when i misplaced a letter.
I did NOT mock you for your English, I respect it is a 2nd language, it is just hard to know what you mean sometimes.

14) Your ramblings about Shakespeare are incoherent. But you claim to be a "gentleman", yet have randlomly call my Mother an "idiota"? Why DO that VVMM?
It is low, ugly, hateful...And if you keep it up, i can easily get you banned. i could already, but I want to give you a chance to grow up. Hopefully you are very young & are not finished with your development.

15) I wish you were joking about Butterbean. Who roundly lost to a 52(!) year old Holmes.

16) You mock Wlad as an "ectomorph". Huh?
He is LONG, was not skinny, And added muscle so is LEAN ~ 246 lbs. As was Holyfield ~ 30 lbs. lighter-when at his heaviest & best.

Even CONSIDERING the difference in height, & even WITH PEDS, & looking at tale of the tape, & considering Holyfield's thin lower body for a HW...

Wlad has more muscle. You are completely biased.


Just quit when you are WAAAAAAAY behind.
Nobody here will agree with your extreme opinions & HATE of WLAd, nor abusive language. Nobody.

You can see NO evidence that I am a liar, that i am a Wlad fan, or even that I am a one sided cheerleader for anyone.

Nor am I a hater like you.
Of certain fighters, OR anyone on this or any forum.

Just stop & regain your dignity.
And stop the mocking insults & name calling so I or others do not shgow the undeniable evidence of your personal attacks & get you banned.

And if you act nice to others some WILL start to talk with & respect you. Actually i would ADMIRE anyone who is able to progress from a low level of hate & contempt to a decent, kind human being.

 

THreads like this make me laugh when the so called expert posters talk about "modern nutrion" and that makes the difference, lol, those old timers ate probably better than today, no hormons, nothing artificial, everything was "organic", they had high protein diets with plenty of fresh fruits and vegetables. Marciano in training camp only chewed steaks and spit it out only taking in the juices... the list goes on.

Those old timers fought at their BEST WEIGHT WHERE THEY WERE ABLE TO COMPETE AT THEIR PEAK LEVEL.....today they would fight at similar weight because they would not be willing to give up there advantages they had fighting trimmed down. Some of them would go heavyweight for the $$$ but would win and loose some against todays. tall, skilled and big Heavyweights.

 

I agree 100%.

I guess the myth of superior athletes due to "advanced nutrition" suits the companies that make millions out of selling nutritional supplements, but it's ridiculous to give it so much credit it in a serious discussion on boxing.

As you know, there's a finite limit to the benefits of good nutrition, and the old-timer who ate lean meat and fresh vegetables religiously is pretty damn close to that limit.
A nutritionist with a degree and a clipboard, and two dozen supplements, are not going to add much at all, if you're doing it right already with proper food.

Exactly.

As I said earlier, I think some could be surprisingly successful for the reason they were successful back then too .... ie. because THEY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO FIGHT THE BIGGER HEAVYWEIGHTS ... and many of them had a lot of experience throughout their careers of facing bigger men, it was more common then.
Humans have a tendency to adapt to the environment and the tasks at hand, if they have few other choices.

 

I watched the first Vitali Klitschko-Chris Byrd fight today and rotator cuff aside, the much smaller Byrd was giving Vitali fits with his style. Why couldn't Archie Moore, Jimmy Young or Jack Johnson do the same?

 

I'd expect them to do something. :good

 

I was surprised how "oafish" Vitali looked. He reminded me of Carnera!

 

pesticides were widespread from the 50's.

healthy food is always better than less healthy food, but a modern athletes diet is way more calculated, by people with way more understanding of the body than was available in the past.

 

Fair enough.. a lot of modern day light heavyweights are often about the same weight as a lot of classic heavy's come fight night.. Would you say that Sergei Kovalev was as good as some such heavies ?

 

Vitali was just a big awkward unskilled labourer really, a decent heavy all-things considered, but him being so competitive with Lewis said more about Lennox pathetic shape and unfocused preperation than Vitali being a giant of considerable and comparable talent imo.That fight was not the least impressive watching it back then, even if Vitali went on to do well in the division in his wholly uninspiring manner for a while after, it still largely remains to me an unskilled huff and puff fest.

The fight with Byrd-which i thought he was well ahead in, largely due to his size despite not looking good-is not a good one to point out the virtues of small men per se, imo it rather shows size can be a key advantage(same as speed, power edge or whatever else seperates two similarly talented fighters) when you have two fighters of relatively similar quality.

I'd not be shocked at all if he was very troubled or ended up beat because of the far superior skill of a small heavy like Charles or Walcott, but i'd also not be too shocked if his size alone made things much tougher than they would have been had the two been physically equal.

Any decent **** jokes in this thread yet btw?.