Worst Boxers who could beat a greater Boxer due to matchup style?

Cause usually the bigger they are, the more durable they are. There's a reason boxers usually don't climb too much above their weight, that's if they climb at all. Mayweather and Pac are clearly more skilled than anyone in the MW or SMW division, yet they never climbed there cause they knew they lacked the punching power to take those guys out and the chin to survive getting hit by bigger men.

 

It's like Rock Paper Scissors.
1. Swarmers > Boxers (Frazier - Ali)
2. Punchers > Swarmers (Foreman - Frazer)
3. Boxers > Punchers (Ali - Foreman)

No disparagement of Frazier, he had a lot of dedication...great athlete but to me Frazier isn't the best skilled fighter of all time. Overall he is barely in the same league as Ali (And i mean the 70s Ali). But Ali also had great trouble with Norton, and also 37yo Patterson. So i think: let em both be 30 yo in 1972, with no cut...and Patterson should have outpointed Ali maybe 6-7 out of 10 times.

Other calls:

1. Frazier, Patterson, vs Holmes / Weaver vs. Ali 75-77 / Orlin Norris vs. Holmes 85-92
2. Wilder, Corrie Sanders, Ruddock vs. Norton / Shavers vs. Patterson
3. Page, Tillis, Tucker, vs. Foreman / Young vs Vitali

Most scnearios i do not highly favor the underdog...but he could beat.

 

Right, I agree. That leads me to my next question: What evidence do we have that gaining extra pounds by weightlifting and overeating make a fighter more durable? Because the 70s heavyweights and most of the 2000s heavies are basically the same size aside from the lifting and sometimes unhealthy diets.

 

Look at fights of 90s Foreman vs 70s Foreman. You can clearly see 90s Foreman was being able to absorb way more punishment.
As for why this extra weight gives you more durability, it's hard to explain why, since I'm not a medic to know exactly how the human body works. Perhaps it's the fact that the extra weight makes you more stable on your feet, or perhaps bigger neck muscles help you absorb punches better.

 

I don't think they've figured out what makes somebody more durable yet, although there's more research in that line than 20 years ago.

Still, imagine the following scenario. Imagine Shavers knocks out a prime Ali from the Terrell fight. Shavers wouldn't get much credit for that knockout, since Ali from the Terrell fight was under 215 pounds. Now a few years pass. Ali gets old, overeats at McDonald's, and gains 30 pounds of fat. Shavers knocks old, fat Ali out a second time. Suddenly, Shavers has credit for knocking out a superheavyweight. This seems like an odd result.

 

Your logic here is a bit faulty in the sense that by modern HW I don't mean some normal HW that got fat, but some guys that can carry +215 lb and are pretty lean, not fat. Tyson was not fat. Lewis was not fat. The Klitschkos were not fat. etc

 

Ah, ok. I was just going by what you said earlier about Foreman, who was significantly plumper, older, etc. in his second career.

That said, the scenario can be tweaked a bit and still seem a little odd to me. If Terrell fight Ali bulked up 20 pounds with Mackie Shilstone, I'm not sure he would be more durable, or a more impressive knockout victim for Shavers. Most of the heavyweights from the 70s have similar sized frames / bone structures / bodies to the 2000s guys. They're just not lifting, so their muscles aren't as large.

 

Wilder over Norton
Williams over Holyfield
Baer over Patterson & Frazier

 

So, you’re asking for a list of big punchers who aren’t very skilled? Because any big puncher could end up getting lucky against someone they have no business being in a ring with.

 

Morrison was a pretty good fighter. Just saying.