Wladimir Klitschko vs. Sultan Ibragimov February!!!

No, I meant fatter and slower than heavyweights from 10+ years ago.

 

dsimon writes:

Oh yeah we are all in denial.... You alone see this fact while we are blinded to it. I will let Donny do the honors on this one. Just a quick question how much bigger is a prome Vlad compared to a prime Foreman? think about it.:notallthere:

 

Prime Foreman is 6'3'' and 220lbs, prime Wlad is 6'6'' and 245lbs. I'd say there is a difference there

 

From another thread....

Mike Tyson was 5'10" (with an afro on a windy day) and in his prime weighed 215-220.

David Tua is 5'10"; and in his best years was 210-225 lbs. or so.

Joe Frazier was 5'11" and weighed under or at around 210 lbs. for almost his whole career.

Earnie Shavers - 6'0" and from 200-215 for practically his entire career (thought of as likely the biggest hitter EVER at HWT).

Michael Moorer - 6'2" and under 220 most of his prime years at HWT.

Tommy Morrison - 6'2" and around 220.

Oscar Bonavena - 5'10" and 200-210.

George Chuvalo - 6'0" and 200-215 at his best.

Sonny Liston - 6'1" and anywhere from 200 - 218 or thereabouts.

Ray Mercer. Bert Cooper. Folley.

:dunno:

Being a mammoth boxer is STILL a rare occurence, even in today's game...and is not a guarantee that you will not be KO'd.

Now, even guys that are 5'10" - 6'2" or so tend to weigh a bit more these days (210-230); but I would submit to you that alot of that is simply under-training...or the erroneous perception that they "need" the weight to compete.

And most of the guys above are by no means "movers."

Were there other factors back in those days? Sure, there were some.

But Louis' power, for example, had ALOT to do with his natural talent - and excellent punching technique. I think it is easy to overlook just how special Louis' power and accuracy and timing were.

Let's take Valuev, for example. Now, damn, of course, Valuev represents a huge size disparity for Louis in both height AND weight, and that will pose problems.

But I don't think Valuev would have "ruled the division" back in "those days" - not because he wasn't big enough, but because of TALENT (or lack thereof).

Fact remains that Ruiz beat Valuev (I had it 115-113); Chagaev beat him (6'1"; 228 lbs) and wild-swinging Barrett (6'3", 222 lbs.) gave him all he could handle.

Do you think it's THAT much of a stretch to think a 6'2" 210 lb. Louis could have beaten Valuev? Joe was faster and a MUCH better, more accurate puncher.

And it's not as if Valuev is really hard to time or that it's difficult to see his punches coming.

I don't think Nikolay hits that hard, to be honest.

Yeah, Carnera and Firpo really looked impressive in black and white. ::

Size/strength isn't as big of a difference as you make it out to be, especially if you're comparing eras like the 60's-70's to today.

HWT boxing today doesn't "look as good" as it did in the EIGHTIES or NINETIES (just 10-20 years ago); never mind the other golden eras. And that right there should be the proof you need that it's not simply because men have gotten SO BIG and SO STRONG that they are now lumbering around slowly throwing 3 shots per round.

Again, there is some truth in what you say, but it's just not nearly as clear-cut or as significant of an issue and it's getting blown out of proportion.

And to your point, bigger/stronger/better athletes (with better nutrition, and training methods and all that supposed jazz) SHOULD translate into bigger, stronger, better-moving fighters in the ring, all other conditions being equal.

Men in other sports aren't just getting bigger....they're getting faster, more coordinated, better (but again, in increments).

Which tells you.....there is less talent today, and less dedication and less training - and THAT is by far the biggest issue.

Peace.

 

Close thread.
:bears: opcorn:

 

Shut up kid, adults will continue discussing

 

agREED

 

:: I don't mind at all if I am "schooled". I am not trying to "win" anything when I discuss, I just try to share some views with others and that's why I just find the "thread over" remarks pretty silly. I will answer Donny later on

 

i know, and agREED. "Close thread now", "best post ever" (until the next one), etc. - all annoy me when mentioned in any discussion.

 

and stop talking in air quotes

 

"Reading" too "many" posts like "that" makes me "want" to "over"use "them"

 

"Both" of you "please" stop your "foolishness."

Thread "closed."

 

"peace"

 

::

 

Out of these guys I think Shavers was indeed an exceptional guy, though even him, being from 70-80s, is not a modern guy, but for how he was build he hit damn hard. Tua and Tyson both had the same amount/more muscle as the giants of today so in that sense both were big for their time (though I'd like to remind you that both also had difficulties with much larger men). Other guys you mentioned demonstrated their power in earlier decades, when men against them were smaller. Where are the Zora Folleys of today? That's all I am wondering.


About Valouev: I do see him as a kind of Primo Carnera of today. His success is based mainly on his physique, but a guy of Carnera's size could not be as effective now since he wouldn't be exceptionally big nw. That right there shows you how the sport has developed. Also, Valouev has a crappy technique for sure, but his size and strength will get you tired when you wrestle with him. Just that happened to Barret who was the "better" boxer.

I see it just the other way around. It can't be that heavyweight becomes worse and worse all the time when all sports get better and better. So the change of how it looks IMHo has to be an indication of something else. And I believe it is that the guys are stronger now, so they can throw less punches, have less techniques of old-timers, yet if they fought in older eras, they would dominate. Because if they are worse than the old generations, then, once again:

WHERE ARE THE SMALL KO ARTISTS OF TODAY? Why is the heavyweight limit now 200lbs instead of 175?

 

just not THERE... that's why back in the days everything was better! ::

 

dsimon writes;

your flaw in logic is one that a lot of people make. Combat sports have an extra dimension to them. They are not based simply on physical attributes but also skill sets and they change randomly at times. boxers once fought very differently, with a different stance and with more range of techniques

People have been punching for a long time now. There are so many variations in this art that progress hardly goes in a straight line. At times it had grappling and subtelty in the techniques that you can't see on film. And things like footwork and counterpunching, body punching, etc are skills that take a lot to master.

What you are seeing is guys trained to try for a knockout in a short amount of time (12 rounds as compared to 15). What you don't see is the command of skills like body punching and footwork in the heavyweight division. These guys are one trick ponies who punch to the head with big gloves....

you have to see things as a martial artist yugo.... The best blade systems are the ones that were around when combat was done with blades. All these modern masters of the blade look flashy but as a martial artist you can see more holes in their system than swiss cheese. Compare this to the noble art of the Samurai and you want to talk about progress?

 

dsimon writes;

its good that hugo does not mind getting schooled... i hope you feel the same way Royness, as i do not mind schooling my Euro brothers. German, norwegian, good blokes to school the lot of em.::

 

Ok, we're talking in circles, so final post to a good discussion:

1. Shavers is modern. Ugo, if you're defining "modern" by decade increments or less, I don't know what else to say. That actually throws further into perspective the fact that you are micro-focusing and blowing this very much out of proportion because of a VERY FEW "big" men. :dunno:

2. Again - opponents weren't always "smaller". You can verify this in the records. The average size of a HWT hasn't changed THAT MUCH from the 60s/70s; to the 80s/90's; to now. Focusing on 2-3 (or even 4-5) exceptions doesn't prove your point. Those exceptions have existed for a long, long time.

3. WHAT??? See, this right here is your problem. You latch on to 1-2 examples (Wlad, Vitaly, Lewis, Valuev - which btw span TWO DECADES) and say this is now the norm. Carnera was almost 6'6" with an 85" reach and weighed around 260-270 lbs. He would be HUGE by today's standards when looking at the entire HWT field or the average size.

4. I'm not saying "worse and worse all the time"...I'm saying that boxing is a sport of peaks and valleys (cycles) over the long-term and right now we're in a valley, HWT particularly so. It should be obvious. ANd why not? Boxing is one of the most savage, barbaric sports left, truth be told. The sports talent and the athlete now has ALOT more options - especially in the U.S., but certainly globally as well.

5. Who says being stronger means you throw less punches? Tell that to Wlad or Lewis or Tyson or Morrison or Vitali (who throws bunches) or Bowe or Foreman or Shavers or Peter...and so on.

Again, I'm not disputing that guys today haven't on average gotten a bit bigger and heavier. I just don't think it's so clear-cut and significant as you've made it out to be - and certainly not enough to throw out things like less talent, a smaller pool of interested/quality athletes to draw from, less fighting frequency, overall less dedication/hunger, etc.

Not nearly enough.

Peace.

 

Out of everything that's been posted thus far I agree with Donny for the most part, but some of the things you mentioned (and that i bolded above) are great points.

 

::


I'm not sure what the subject is really - are we discussing why heavyweights are better these days or if they are just all bigger these days?? :dunno: