Wilder's win over Ortiz proves old-school heavies have real KO power

He's like 6'7. Get out of here.

 

Hearns was 6'1...they have weight classes and not height classes for a reason. Holyfield was 6'2, one whole inch taller than Hearns. Pound for pound, Hearns hit harder than Holyfield, but Holyfield likely had more absolute punching power than Hearns and if Holyfield was landing punches on welters and middle's, Holyfield would look like a dynamite puncher, too. Weight is more relevant to punching power than height.

 

In any case, he isn't a throwback. Older eras at heavyweight were not full of 6'7 guys getting crazy leverage on their punches, short of a couple mediocre examples.

 

Not only that, but we now see what you can dominate by having exceptional underlying traits, rather than mastery over some niche style of fistic combat.

The Mayweather/Klitschko era had everyone convinced that you needed some ultra super scientific technique to become a great boxer today, even if you had a punch.

The stock of some guys like Max Baer were an all time low during that era.
Many here pleaded to the senses of people that guys like Baer could defeat good modern HWs with his unorthodox power. These people were laughed at and chastised by others who noted that Baer clumsily stuck his lead hand out often. One of Wilders favorite tactics to line up his range.
Will we see a resurgence in Baers legacy given the new data of Wilder?
What about guys like John L and Liston?

By the way, it is also worth mentioning that Wilder has sparred smaller CWs. And didn't tear their heads off. The results of his career is very "classicist" friendly.

 

The data set is still small.
We only have 20 Elite HWs at most.
Almost all of them will be completely unique.

How many other Ali's do we got?

There is always some difference you can point to in the new guy to separate from the old. It used to be weight, incredibly bold arguments and flame wars have occurred because of this. We all saw people getting mocked, insulted, and laughed at for suggesting a lighter fighter could win with a better punch. People were told they knew nothing about boxing if they thought a power puncher could hit harder than another power puncher who had 30 lb on him. Now it's height? The idea that modern HWs have some mystical element that separates them from guys in the past just isn't convincing any more. No matter how desperately some seem to cling to the idea.

 

One man that he reminds me of from a build perspective is Fred Fulton.

His tale of the tape and mass, are more what you would expect from a 6' 7'' fighter from the 1920s.

 

See "short of one of two mediocre examples."

 

Wilder still is not a throwback, nor is he Max Baer.

 

Pacquiao didn't have that great of a skillset until the tailend of his time at 126, but it helped immeasurably when he developed it.

 

Hearns is hardly a counter example to height helping power.

 

Why the motivation to bend over backwards to make a "classicist friendly" narrative out of this guy. Baer's problem wasn't his tools, it was his consistency. Losing to guys like Les Kennedy and Shaaf and Risko are the proof of his inconsistent form and inability to grasp victory from varied circumstances. Wilder apparently has that ability.

 

Wilder will be a "mediocre example" in fifty years time, if he falls under a bus tomorrow.

Like said mediocre examples, his record would be very forgettable, to people who did not live through the era!

 

Morning Oz time Seamus. I reckon one massive difference in Wilder and Baer is Deontay's desperation to win. He gives the impression he is completely willing to put it all on the line in the ring, something the party loving Baer never did.

Baer always seemed to give up when the going got really hard unlike Wilder who at this stage has shown a lotta heart.

Deontay might be cruder than Baer which is saying something.

Cheers Mate.