Yep. Brewster has zero in common with the fighters on that list. But then again...it's not like mikE has seen many, if any, of their fights.
How old are you ?? seriously As i said earlier, by using you're idiotic criteria, the 30's hw are bigger than the 80's one since Buddy Baer 199, Ray Impellittiere 202, Jack Trammell 198 are all bigger than any 80's top hw. not too mention that by barrel scrapping you cand find a lot of guys with these kind of size in the 80's such as Ribalta, pierre coetzer and Eclund, wich were about as pertinent otu the hw divison in the 80's as most of the bums that you named are now (Wach, pinata are no-names) Anyway, youre either too dumb or stubborn to understand this, so i'm done with it
:: In 20 years when some other disliked heavy is doing the rounds, people will be pulling Arreola out of their butt and pondering aloud if he couldn't have made some noise "today"
There is more to it than just size though. When guys are this big, throwing one-twos and putting everything behind right cross becomes an effective tactic, since one such punch can turn bouts around more easily. Also simply keeping gloves up for defense might be a more effective way of avoiding punches since for a large guy slipping and ducking is both difficult and also burns more energy. So I think the guys of 80s still fought in a traditional 'lightweight style' and things have changed since. The guys now fight more in Foreman-manner (though, of course, Foreman was much better than anyone now apart from Klitshkos). And once more, I am not saying guys now are better than the fighters of 80s, in fact I believe the opposite is true. But the game has CHANGED too, in addition to decreasing
Larry Holmes and "Iron" Michael Tyson were dominant champions in the 1980's. They both held the heavyweight title.
Yes there is, it is a relative advantage but it is there nonetheless. Jess Willard was legitimately steered to the HW title despite lacking a big punch. He became a part of boxing folklore simply because he was fresh enough and ballsy enough to outlast a more talented but rusty champion. A 6'0" Willard might not have won that fight. A 6'6" Willard might lose the fight anyways if Johnson has a tune up. Ironically, the less talented, less refined, less nuanced Jack Dempsey made light of the differences that Johnson had found so insurmountable simply because he was fresher and had a style for dealing with Willard. The division, uniquely, has always been about being able to take it and then dish it out later. That has ALWAYS been a mode of operation in HW. True, it has crept into other divisions with gross divisions of bargaining power and same-day-weigh ins but the HW division remains the best example of a limited big guy being able to win fights. Again, I go back to Purritty...he had a fraction of the skills of Wlad but was heavier by far on the night, came in relatively fresh and let the man punch himself out. Granted, it is all relative. Nobody is saying a shit big guy beats a good little guy, as a general rule. But, within reason, it happens.
Size is an advantage, fosho. Being shit (ear muffs, no punch variety) doesn't become an advantage as you get bigger tho....which seemed to be what ugo is suggesting unless i misunderstood him.
I don't get it. YOu said earlier that guys look worse than they are now cause they were bigger than before, but when I proved that they aren't bigger, you still claim that the stylistic change doesn meant they're worse than before, only different. You just seem to find any angle to stick to your conclusion, even if the premisse was false I think the only reasonnable thing to say is that current hw look worse than the one of the 80's cause they are way worst, not cause they are bigger (wich they aren't). Guys in the 80's were as big and using a lightweigh style cause they had a lot more talent and were more in shape than the fat robotic clowns that mansquerade as boxer now
Personally, I think a person would have to be blind or completely ignorant about what goes on in a boxing ring to think Arreola is analogous to someone like Tim Witherspoon or Pinklon Thomas
Today's top 20 according to boxrec includes: 1. Vitali: 6'7" 248 lbs 2. Wlad: 6'6" 249 lbs 3. Pulev: 6'4.5" 249 lbs 6. Fury 6'9" 254 lbs 8. Thompson 6'5" 262 lbs 9. Helenius 6'6.5", 239 lbs 13. Wilder 6'7" 224 lbs 16. Pianeta 6'5" 240 lbs 17. Wach 6'7.5" 251 lbs 18. Dimitrenko 6'7" 251 Edit: Here are the 80's guys discussed in this thread: Holmes 6'3 225 lbs Page 6'2 230 lbs (i went back since his last fight of the 80's was 215 lbs) Spinks 6'2.5" 205 lbs Tucker 6'5" 246 lbs (i used his last fight of the 80's even though it's about 25 lbs heavier than his other 80's fights) Witherspoon 6' 3.5" 231 lbs Douglas 6'3.5" 242 lbs Tubbs 6'3" 233 lbs Thomas 6'3" 222 lbs Bruno 6'3" 228 lbs Berbick 6'2" 220 lbs Cooney 6'6" 238 lbs How much wronger can you be? 50% of the today's top 20 would be freaking giants compared to the best of the 80's. But, no, heavyweights aren't bigger today. What's funny is that you actually seem to think you're right. Bigger means height + weight. Today's heavies are taller and heavier, in general. Anyone with eyes knows that.
I have a question for you mike there's 2 familly one has 4 members wich are all 6 feet tall the otehr has 2 members that are 5 feet tall, and 2 member that are 7 feet tall. Wich familly is taller in average ?
seems pretty self-evident that there are a lot more really tall and heavy guys in the top 20 now than there were in 1983 or 1993 even I don't understand the argument, frankly
the standard deviation is waay bigger in the top 11 of current era than in the 80's, wich means that theyr are more taller, guy, but more shorter guy also. but the average height of the top 11 is the same between the 2 era, wich mean that the average hw is not bigger now than they were. Unless you want to use mike dumb argument that a mean doesnt represent the average. So saying the guys look like shit now cause they are bigger is simply not true, cause they aren't bigger in average.
ok, but there are definitely more ranked guys over 6'4 fighting now than there were at any time in the 80s, no? There's one guy (Cooney) at 6'6 or bigger in the 80s top ten... There's 4 in the top ten right now alone and the rest of the top ten are all at least 6'4... It seems to me you guys are arguing different things... He's arguing top guys, ranked guys... you are arguing everyone... In this kind of discussion, only the top guys would seem to be relevant
no the stats I used was using only fighter in the ring annual top 11. So , as I said, the average top 11 guy in the current era (last 25 fighters that cracked these rating) is not taller now than the average top 11 guys in the 80. Ther are more plus 6'4 guys, but also more 6'2 and below guys, while in the 80's they were pretty much all around 6'3
I disagree with this on so many levels Jack Dempsey revolutionized the sport... he was like something from the future in 1919... Along with Benny Leonard, he was chiefly responsible for guys who boxed like Jack Johnson becoming dinosaurs... Jack Johnson never bobbed and weaved or punched in combination in his life, he never moved around as much as Dempsey did... His style was refined for 1910... Dempsey would have annihilated him and it wouldn't have taken him 20 plus rounds of outlasting him like Willard did, it would have been brief and brutal. Dempsey killed Willard because he so far advanced beyond anything Willard had ever encountered before and that includes Jack Johnson. Dempsey and Leonard flipped the game on its head... The difference in skills between the average top ten guy in 1930 and 1920 is astronomical... The film doesn't lie. Jack Johnson stood upright, threw one shot at a time, grappled and his defense was almost entirely parrying (which worked fine against his opponents who also tended to throw one shot at a time) or clinching. The film shows Dempsey fighting out of a crouch, moving his head, hooking to the head and the body, punching in combination, moving laterally to change his position of attack, blocking punches in motion... It's the first real pressure fighting... he looks like a raw-as hell, somewhat primitive Mike Tyson, but for the time it is like re-inventing the wheel. Benny Leonard, too, completely changes how things are done. He is the first guy in any footage I've studied who can punch effectively while in retreat, he's the first guy to fight mostly on the move, bouncing on his toes, double jabbing, changing directions suddenly... he looks like a very stiff Ray Leonard or Ray Robinson, but again the impact is enormous and the result stunning. Refined? Johnson was a caveman compared to a guy like Dempsey or Leonard. Johnson was the last of the old guard. Dempsey and Leonard gave birth to modern boxing and so huge was their impact that within 15 years there were more guys who did what one or the other did than there were guys who did neither.
Excellent post, I agree Dempsey was the first true pressure fighter, the first person to be somewhat crafty and unpredictable with it, however raw he looks now. And from what I have seen of Leonard, he seemed WAY ahead of his time too. Very slick and fluid and mobile compared to the guys at the time.
