Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
Closed Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 172

Thread: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

  1. #91
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Sharkey, Unless there has been a ton of pygmies out there statistically decreasing the average size of the population, I can't see how you havn't noticed how much bigger (including height) the athletes are (and the population as well) When Wilt chamberlin played in the NBA in the early 60's there were maybe 3 7 footers. Now there is probably close to 100. And a lot of them have the athleticism to handle the ball (Dirk Nowetski). It sure as hell seems like we are bigger stronger and faster than 40 years ago. There are quarterbacks who weigh 260, with no fat. They just don't look it because you are watching them play surrounded by 6-7, 350 beasts. Now there arn't any 7 footers in the NFL, but wait about 20 years and there will be. I don't know where you got your stats, but if they are accurate in regards to people being the same on average as they were 40 years ago, then damn, I must be missing something. It sure as hell looks like it. However, you can't dispute that the difference in size from the early part of the 20th century. Like i said the average height was 5-6, the average shoe size was a size 6. I think improved neutrition during the baby boom era may be a factor- but I don't have any evidence to back that up.

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Question

    "My point that no one has answered yet, is why hasn't there been a Heavyweight champion that has weighed 185 llb's or less, in the past 40+ years ? I can't even think of a contender."

    Are you telling me that if Evander Holyfieldwhen he was a Cruiserweight around 190 pounds, if he took on James Tillis and Pinklon Thomas when he did, but did so while still weighing what he did for Deleon or Ocasio, that he doesn't beat those guys? I say he might have faired better than he did as he was still adjusting to his bigger frame.

    Evander did not "bulk" up to Heavyweight naturally. And he didn't need to be 207 to compete or defeat Seamus McDonough, either.

    As far as supplements and steroids from 20 to 30 years ago vs. today, are you telling me that with the dietary and weight gain supplements that are used WITH steroid today don't have a marked effect on size? Do you honestly think that if what is avaialbe TODAY, were avaialble to Alzado 25 years ago, that he would not be incrementally bigger than he was?

    As far as smaller heavies competeing agianst bigger heavies, skill and size win out imo. At Lightheavyweight, I see Tunney being a superior fighter to Roy Jones AT THAT weight. Pound for pound, I think Jones was his superior. And while I am not blown away with Tunney's heavyweight accomplishments, I do feel he was more effective and better suited for that weight than was Jones.

    So while I do see Jones having issues with bigger, decently skilled heavyweights, I think Tunney, who is superior to and better suited at such weights, would fair much better agianst a Tony Tucker type fighter who, let's be honest, was a marginal titleist to begin with.

    I don't think Tunney beats Lewis at heavyweight and would have serious issues with the Riddick Bowe of his one night prime. But I don;t think it's a stretch to say Tunney beats a Tucker or a Page. Would I take Jones over Tucker or Page? No. Then agian, at heavyweight OR lightheavyweight, I don't see Jones beating Tunney.

    Hawk

  3. #93
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Pete,
    I agree with you on Rocky. I could be wrong, but I think he is a freak of nature. His walking around weight was 210, it was that he was such a fanatical trainer that he trained himself down. most people don't have his genes, if they followed his regiment, they'd overtrain. Al Weil did keep him away from big heavies of that era (Valdez), not saying that he wouldn't have destroyed Valdez. I mean Weil was afraid of matching Rocky with Archie Moore, in fact Moore had to go on a campaign just to get Rocky in the ring with him (what's the old saying-don't wish for what you hope for ?). Still, Rocky would have had a bitch of a time with Liston, Foreman, Lewis, Tyson or Tua. I am sure he'd win some of them but I don't think he's running that gauntlet. as far as RJJ vrs Tucker: Jones has never fought anyone 6-5, with long arms, so he has his work cut out for him. Tucker can hold up under Tyson's shots, so I don't think Jones is going to KO him. Tucker may not hit, but he is a heavyweight, and if Jones' chin can't hold up with some Light heavies, it ain't holding up if a heavy catches him. A buddy of mine was a middleweight swarmer with a tough chin. He told me he sparred Jimmy Young once, with 16 ounce gloves. He said it was like getting hit with a ton of bricks
    and Young is a light hitter.

  4. #94
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Al Weil did keep him away from big heavies of that era (Valdez)
    joe louis at 6'2 214lb was bigger than nino valdes and better too. then again weill wanted no part of louis, the IBC forced him to take it.



    Still, Rocky would have had a bitch of a time with Liston, Foreman, Lewis, Tyson or Tua.

    not tua, hes not in a league with these guys


    shoemaker,


    don't u think rocky would come in at around 205lb if he were fighting today? with all the modern benefits? i spoke with rocky's brother and goody petronelli personally and they both told me rocky would be 20-30lb heavier if he were fighting today. based on rocky's bone structure, id say he could bulk up to 205lb and still retain all his physical abilites .
    Last edited by Elmer Ray; 03-28-2006 at 06:05 PM.

  5. #95
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Hawk,
    Yes, Alzado would be bigger, but if i remember correctly, he's about 6-3, so i can't see him getting to 320. there's only so much you can put on even with roids and supplements (A lot of supplements are bullshit anyway. Your body can only take in so much protein, it's going to piss out the rest. I wasted so much money on the bullshit claims of "Amino Acids", "Spirolena or whatever the latest BS Protien supplement fad there was, and all the other BS during the 80's). And yes Alzado could go up to 330, but he'd have a big fat barral, ala James Toney. I realize that Nose Tackles, DT's and interior lineman often have fat asses and fat guts, but they can get away with it. unlike Alzado, who is supposed to be rushing the passer. Left Offensive tackles and Defensive Ends are usually athletes.
    Hollyfield is an excellant counter point (the best one so far) but he still doesn't become champ until he's over 200. Yes, he'd probably beat some heavies when he weighed under 190 (Bob Foster did), but you are using the multi-champion format to aid your argument (Jones beating Ruiz). If there were 5 heavyweight champions during the 30's and 40's you'd have some stiffs as champs as well. Remember- just because there are 5 champions doesn't mean that the top 5 fighters in the world are champions (look at the Russian 7 foot stiff). Technically, Joe Louis beat Lee Savold for the Heavyweight championship during the 50's, since Savold was recognized as champ by the British Boxing Board (they recognized Charles after Louis KO'ed Savold). Hollyfield does have a hell of a chin, but I don't think he has the power to be the best heavy in the world during the lull between Holmes and Tyson. Plus, i could accuse hollyfield of being on roids, just like Toney, Byrd, and even Michael Spinks (man he gained weight in a hurry before he fought Holmes- must have been Macky Shackelstein's milk shakes- kind of like Panama Lewis' 'Vitamin bottle" he gave to Pryor). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on supplements and roids having something to do with the athletes of today's sizes. But like I said, supplements and roids don't make you taller, don't give you a bigger frame, and don't give you longer arms. That's genetics
    Plus like i said, I could use supplements in my argument as well, in regards to athletes of today being bigger, faster, and stronger than the "Golden eras of the past"

  6. #96
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    How many 7'0" centers

    Play in the NBA today? And Play well? How many Power forwards? ANd that play well?

    Nowitski certainly is an anomoly. He certainly is not the norm

    What adds more quality to a team? A 6'6" (generous) HOF Center in Wes Unseld or 7'0" STARTING Center Desagna Diop for the Mavs? What are Desagna's stats? 2 points and 5 rebounds a game? Give me a 20 20 night out of Unseld any day of the week.

    And Charles Barkley during his career showed that You don't have to be the tallest in the division to pull in boards either.

    If there are 100 7 footers in the league today (which I think is a bit generous), I'd be willing to state FLATLY, that roughly 80% of them, if not more, are Stanely Roberts level players (all size, no skill) rather than saying we have 100 Nowitski or O'Neal's running around.

    Additionallly, basket ball IS a bigger sport today. Colleges recruit for size as well as skill with much more intent than they did back in Wilt's day. And the NBA had fewer teams 30 40 years ago. To waste time on a 7 foot stiff who has very little skill level, when there weren't that many roster spots to go around? There are over 30 teams today. ANd many of these stiffs actually START today!

    Wilt was so heavily recruited becuase of skill AND size. Are we suggesting that we have a multitude of athletes running around today that bring to the table what Wilt brought back then? If so, how come I don't see track and field contestants running around today that are Wilt's size doing what Wilt did for Kansas in the late 50's?

    If Wilt is More of the NORM today, how come our Olympics don't field a team of 7 footers to compete in the Summer games? Was Wilt a freak back then? Yes. And he would be so today as well. MORESO. Give him the Training, suplements and diet of today and we probably never see the 250 pound rookie that we saw for the Warriors. We'd be seeing a 300 pound goliath, that we saw in his later Sixer and Laker years, but with the deer like speed he had in his early 20's. And as years rolled on, he would maintain that weight, rather than purposefully put it on with the archaic weight training programs that he used in 67-68. And when one talked about freakish strength, there would be only one name whom you would point to. And his middle name was Norman.

    Agian, diet and vitamins and supplements ARE the cause for whatever seeming boom in height we see today. Naturally over the course of 40 years, height and weight didn't increase to what we are seeing without any boost or assistance.

    Hawk

  7. #97
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    373
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by naf2003
    Jess Willard turned pro at age 29. He was mostly big and strong. No great skills. On tape he is not impressive. He is not even impressively built.

    On the other hand guys like both Klitschkos, Lewis, and Bowe are as big or bigger, obviously skilled, and they are apparently much more athletic if one can gauge athleticism by the available tape of Willard.
    I think Willard looks a LOT better in the films against Johnson than people give him credit for being. [Johnson looks a lot better, too, for that matter, given that folks will tell you that he showed up drunk, weighed 400 pounds and hadn't fought for 20 years.] But be that as it may, Willard had to have been a HECK of an athlete to be able to do all the roping and riding tricks that paid in his bills in the wild west shows when he wasn't defending his title. That stuff ain't easy-- those cowboys, Willard included, are very athletic. You think Vitaly Klitschko or Michael Grant could hit a calf with a lariet whilst going full-speed on a horse? I very much doubt it.

  8. #98
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Elmer,
    As usual excellant points. Yes, Tua's a lazy fu*k, but with that chin and that power and handspeed, he'd be a bitch for a lot of swarmers (especially one's without plan B's) they'd force Tua's lazy ass to fight. (maybe Tyson and Tua would be "cutting deals" by about the 5th round, especially if they can't hurt the other). as for Rocky, that's a valid arguement, he would weigh over 200 llbs today. He's still stuck with his frame however, but he's built to be a swarmer anyway. He doesn't have Tyson and Tua's skill's but he's got 1000X their hearts, and would definatly beat them if he was born during their eras (at least I think so, i can't prove it), he'd probably beat them weighing 185 as well, we are not exactly talking about two mentally tough individuals. But skill wise- those two may have top 5 all time skills. Someone told me he was built like Larry Cszonka before he trained and after he retired.

  9. #99
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Shoe:

    In response to pygmies and assorted other wee-folk...my point was that people have not over the last 30 years been born prone to a humongousosity due to evolutionary forces kicking in around the Ford administration.

    Instead, it is the science and lack thereof to some degree encouraging the accumulation of gigantic guts on lineman in the NFL, and the utter body-building cum cue-stick exteriors of the NBA swingmen of today.

    Quaterbacks can weigh 260 today because no one is telling them not to weigh that much. Terry Bradshaw I am sure could have weighed in at a nice solid 240...if that wouldn't have made Noll's already simmering jugular explode.

    The point is athletes as larger people than the general populace are encouraged to become fine-edged in appearance in many sports, while the internal machinery is roughly the same.

    I am not in agreement that hospitals around the USA are littered with 30% larger children with ab-development than when I was born...nor that the pressures of living in the modern world coupled with the darwinistic forces of the absence of the ColdWar have somehow produced a mutation providing us with 100 pound heavier athletes from the womb.

  10. #100
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    So yes people are bigger, and there are many more people to boot. However, nutrition and medicine have a lot to do with it...as you state.

    My contention was strictly disagreeing with the opinion advanced that people are bigger to the degree they are merely through attrition of time.

  11. #101
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,272
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    A few points.

    In the 1940s, kids didn't play basketball in gym class. That leads us to why basketball can't be used as a basis for comparison. Basketaball was a FRINGE sport really until the 1970s and didn't become a major American sport, on the professional level, until the 1980s. Chamberlain was a giant in B-Ball for the 1960s not b/c they are less 7 ft guys all around, but b/c not many people played professional basketball. Young poor kids did not have 'hoop dreams' in 1960, at least the wide majority. Boxing on the other hand was a major American sport from the 19teens until the 1990s.
    Ditto with football. Hell until the 1980s the majority of professional footballers did football as a part-time job. Forget the massive off-season training camps they do now.

    Either way, Chamberlain WAS a very athletic guy who could've def. been a top player today. Centers now can't even do hook shots.

    Williard was a very good athlete for his size. You you just judge choppy sped-up film no-one looks athletic. Anyone who can 'break in' wild horses has immense strength and agility.

    A HUGE reason Wladimir beat Byrd WAS his speed. Slow? Besides Byrd and Toney Wlad has the fastest hands in the HW division.

    About today's HWs and conditioning. Foreman, a 6'3 BIG man was IN SHAPE at 217 lbs. Ruiz, a former 188 lber at 6'1, is NOT at 240. Neither is chubby Brewster at 225 or Rahman at 240 or any of these 6'1-6'2 guys who are muscular but not in boxing condition and over 220 lbs. If you really think someone like Zora Folley at 200 lbs wouldn't have knocked out the clumsy slow Rahman we saw two weeks ago you are dreaming.
    Last edited by hagler04; 03-28-2006 at 06:44 PM.

  12. #102
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    398
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Apparently men in the middle ages were actually taller than those living in the 17th and 18th century. This definitely goes against the grain of the common thought process of "we've gradually gotten taller". Apparently height on a national level has more to do with social standing than evolution and genetics.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0902090552.htm

    Check this link out.

  13. #103
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Corrie Sanders' hands were incredibly fast....faster than Wlads. Same with Tony Tubbs'. What catches one's eye is that when these guys have fast hands we a re told they have fast hands..."for a big guy".

    In all sports we have the thoroughbred craze for the 'skill' positions and the 'lunchpail' requirements for the men in the 'trenches'.

    There is a definite trend towards at once specialization AND versatility. The accepted notions of what doth a fighter make have changed..but it is within the change of attitude that a change in the available pool of talent is made maleable.

    Large guys were always encoruaged to become fighters. Now, the largest of the large are not exposed by the true fighting machines, because the great athletes are not in boxing at the level of the biggest divisions. Anyone want to claim that the crusiers of today are on a par with those who tipped the scales similarly in the old days?

    If men are so big today as opposed to yesterday to the point of exclusionary thinking in terms of their coupled 'evolutionary' induced coordination...in that they are more the norm than the exception...then why was Lennox Lewis a 220 pound man who became a guy that weighed 250? Why did Bowe go from 225 to 256? Because they could.

    Why did Jack Dempsey have bigger arms than Evander Holyfield or Mike Tyson..and a larger chest cavity than either? When was Frank Bruno born? Gerry Cooney? Abe Simon? Otto Von Porat?

    Who is bigger..James Toney or Jim Jeffries? Tim Witherspoon (213 against Holmes or something like that) or Max Baer?

    There is a melding of the ideal athlete body-type that no longer is sport-specific. Baseball players are routinely the clone-type size of 6'3", 210-240. Need they be? Or if you are that size is it seen as you fit the ideal.

    to keep this about boxing consider this: it has become common to see the late-to-boxing-guy. A guy that was good at some other sport, but came to boxing later in life than most would ideally. Many of them have one thing in common: size. That there is room for them to flourish speaks to me more of the absence of depth than to the abilities born of being large.
    Last edited by Sharkey; 03-28-2006 at 07:33 PM.

  14. #104
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Hawk,
    Come on, size and athleticism in basketball are way more important than in boxing. at least the boxing people on this site have an argument. Basletball-give me a break. No, Wes Unseld is not getting 20 and 20 a night (the rebounding numbers were higher than, because THEY MISSED MORE), today, because at 6-6, 230 he ain't playing center today. That size was huge during the 60's, it ain't anymore. All Chamberlin did was toss up his ugly-ass finger roll, miss it, then get his own rebound. It sure as hell didn't hurt being 7 foot tall and agile, playing against 6-8, 210 llb centers (you also had 6-6 power forwards, 6-5 shooting forwards, a 6-2 off guard and a 5-11 point.
    I havn't even gone into the "Black Quota's" of the era Which league is better the all white SEC of the 60's or the SEC today (you can chose football or basketball for your choice). You also forget that there were a few 7 foot 220 llb stringbeans playing in the NBA during the 60's (the coaches didn't believe in weight training in practically every sport). Tom Burlision and Neal Walk, averaged around 20 points and 20 rebounds back then, why because they were 7 foot tall. Yes, Wilt could play today, but he's not dominating on that level, because he won't have a freakish size advantage. Plus coaches arn't dumb enough to sit around and watch a player play "butt ball" and go one on one. They'll run another 6-10 to 7 footer at him to double. The games also changed, ever since Jordan (with the exception of Shaq, who buy the way at 7-1, 330 would be illegal during the 60's.) As far as Chambelin, Jabbar kicked his ass, with his sky hook, Jerry West said that Wilt used to bitch about not getting any help. And if i want to lump in the 6-10 + guys of today, along with the athletic 6-10+ players of the 80's and 90's Olyjawan, Robinson, Duncan, Garnett-(another 7 footer), O'Neil, and on and on, they'd destroy the teams of the 60's. The list of athletic big men of that era (early 60's) are Chamberlin and Russell, that's it. The rest is basically crap. Why can't anyone see that Chamberlin, Jim Brown, and others of that era, dominated because of their size and athleticism ? The thing is that their size and athleticism wouldn't be that dominant today. In any sport, including to a much lesser extent boxing. I'll have to finish this on a B.Ball forum, back to boxing !

  15. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    I'm not saying Wes

    Get's 20 20 a night. But rebounding has MORE to do with desire and positioning than it does with size.

    Who would you rather have at center: Unseld or a 2 point 5 board stiff? ( and as far as the more rebounds to grab aspect, it is not as dramatic as it is suggested. Someone of Oneal's size is a pitiful rebounder. He has had multiple 1,2 and 3 Board nights and has been shut out from grabbing a single rebound on more than one occasion. Wilt by comparison, NEVER had a professional Game in which grabbed less than 10 boards. Never. That goes beyond shooting percentages. That's hustle and desire.) Note: Burleson and Walk NEVER came close to averaging 20 points and 20 boards a game in ANY season. So NO. It wasn't done by every Tom, Neal or Harry.

    Would Wilt with TODAY's Training, vitamins, diet etc. have a Height advantage over the league that some suggest was the only reason he flourished back in the 60's and 70's? Mybe not the height. But the combination of Speed, size and strength that Wilt would combine would set him apart from today's centers.

    Add to the fact that Wilt played more of a finesse game becuase he was sensitive to criticism that he was a Goliath. In today's game, that would NOT be scrutinized and would actually be ENCOURAGED. So take THAT govenor off of Wilt and he could and IMO WOULD dominate today.

    I don't want to turn this into a Hoops conversation (and all due respect Mr. E, I'm going to shy away from the Rodeo clown aspect as well), as I think there is plenty to talk about in dealing with the boxing end of this.

    ESPECIALLY the Stamina endurance aspect which the "newer is better" faction NEVER addresses when asked. Let's refoucus this back to boxing.

    Hawk
    Last edited by hawk5ins; 03-28-2006 at 07:17 PM.

  16. #106
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Shark,
    You make excellant points, especially the one in relation to population growth (it's like Duh ! why didn't i think of it). Plus sports are going outside the US to grab athletes increasing it even more. Maybe when Castro croaks you'll get some decent boxers (although i think the Cubans are overrated to begin with- the guy that Bowe destroyed -Gonzales ?). You could have also added that these wacked out parents following the Todd Marinovich, Tiger Woods, Williams' sisters, examples of making your kid into a superstar, by hiring all of these trainers and coaches, also contributed (nothing like Gravy Training off your children). Still, where the hell are all of these Giants coming from ? Too bad none of these wacked out parents in the US are building great boxers (although D'Amato-Tyson come close).

  17. #107
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    More people=more big people.(and more small people as well)

    There are only so many NBA and NFL jobs available. See my edit above, I had a eureka moment.

    There appears to be a removal of the 'limit'..of the 'sport-specific' body type and the scouts' eye is at once more wide-ranging and at the same time transfixed by sheer physical ability that is not sport specific...at least it seems to me.

  18. #108
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Hawk,
    Cut me some slack, I've been arguing with 5 different people for the last few hours! I've got to get some things done that I was supposed to do a few hours ago. But I'll sneak in a reply before I go. You and i are actually in agreement on a few issues. i think the athletes of today are better (except in boxing-which they would be if it was still a major sport) because of gnetics, you argue diet and supplements. Still, we both agree on the principle
    (at least I think we do). On boxing: it doesn't hurt to be 6-5" and fluid. Yes, you are correct it is a lot harder for a 240 llber to fight a fast pace fight and still have endurance to finish and carry their power. That's why I have a ton of respect for Marciano and Frazier. it's a hell of a lot easier for Henry Armstrong or Manny Pacquio (spelling) to fight at that pace than it is for a heavy. But to force some of these guys to fight that pace is easier said than done. Like I used Foreman in Zaire as an example. People think that the old man in his 40's was in better shape, but unlike the killer in Zaire, the old man was fighting at a measured pace. If he or someone can force him to fight at the Zaire pace, he ain't seeing the 4th round. But to force him to fight at that pace, you have to take risks (ala Michael Moorer). Sonny Liston looked in great shape against Eddie Machen, but Machen wasn't pushing him and not trying to win- so Liston's not going to fade, but when Sonny's getting his ass kicked by Ali it's a different story (that Liston of "64" would still beat any Eddie Machen). yes, the lighter fighter usually has a stamina edge on the bigger guy, but FORCING the bigger guy to fight at that pace is easier said then done. Lastley, most fighters fight at a different pace for a 12 round fight than they would for a 15 or 20 rounder. Same with a 6 or 8 rounder in reverse. I actually thought Rahman looked in shape against Toney and threw a ton of punches, of coarse his opponet was gassed by the 3rd round, but still he did throw a lot of shots. Look at David Tua- Ike Ibeabuchi. I think that fight set a punch stat record, possibly for all weight classes. In fact I could always use Ibeabuchi in my arguements about the garbage fighters of today's era. The best one's probably sitting in jail. Not comparing the two, but if you took Joe Louis out of the 1940's, think how bad the era would be. Especially with no one to break the color line. you may have Abe Simon as your champion. I am sure the supporters of Firpo and willard would add the great Abe Simon to their list of "would be champion today". I've got o go Hawk, I'll check your post later tonight.

  19. #109
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,272
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Tommy Farr, Max Baer, Leroy Haynes, Elmer Ray, Joe Walcott, Nova, and Godoy were all very good heavyweights. Without Louis the 40s still had a lot of very good fighters. MUCH better than today.

    Rahman threw a lot of punches but most of those were thrown laying on the inside and were completly arm punches. Compare that activity to Liston vs Machen, constantly moving his body and head, throwing out LOTS of stiff jabs (and continually jabbing tires you out) Eddie was making Liston move, giving him odd angles. I'm much more impressed by Liston's stamina vs Machen than Rahman, or even Ibeabuchi vs Tua. Tua was hardly doing anything for the first 5 rounds, and Ike was throwing punches, flat-footed, against a stationary target up close. By the 5th round Ike tired and Tua swept most of the remaining rounds. Ike got a 2nd wind around the 10th round but again Tua was flat-footed, stationary, and a target to be hit. Most of the punches traded were on the inside with the fighters leaning on each other. It's not so easy to fight a guy who can stick and move. Ike was already tiring by that 5th round vs Byrd when he landed that Hail Mary hook. If they had rematched a few months later I would've picked Byrd by decision.

    Just look at the movement of Liston in fights of him in his prime (and Sonny is never thought of as a very fluid fighter). And then look at Brewster, Rahman, Brock etc. It's a joke.

  20. #110
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by The Shoemaker
    No, Wes Unseld is not getting 20 and 20 a night (the rebounding numbers were higher than, because THEY MISSED MORE), today, because at 6-6, 230 he ain't playing center today. That size was huge during the 60's, it ain't anymore.
    Wes' nickname was Stump. Do you know why?

    He was under 6-4 and weighed about 270 by the time he retired and couldn't be moved once he picked his spot, thus was a rebounding, pick setting machine. The average center in his day was around 6-10, 240. He was not a classic great ball player, but a specialized player filling out an important role as part of the larger team whose sum was greater than it's parts added together. I know the NBA publicity machine made him out to be taller than he was, but he was a freak among NBA centers.

    I would also add that Elvin Hayes was much taller, 6-9, a natural college center who went head to head against Kareem in college and much more athletic, but they pegged him in at forward to take advantage of his ball handling skills. He was a huge dominant forward but would have been under average size for center.
    Last edited by Roberto Aqui; 03-28-2006 at 09:58 PM.

  21. #111
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,890
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    If you take John Ruiz as the ampersand, the RJJ who embarrassed Ruiz would easily out maneuver (and probably KO) the Tucker who was chewed up by John. Yeah, Tony was past his best by then, but so was Roy. PeteLeo.

  22. #112
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Especially with no one to break the color line. you may have Abe Simon as your champion

    no u would have jimmy bivins or billy conn as your champions. then in mid 40s, u would have elmer ray as ur champion

  23. #113
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Elmer Ray,
    My comment about Abe Simon was more or less a jab at the people I've been arguing with about Firpo and willard. Remember, i said with the color line still in place. As bad as he was, Simon would contend in an all white division, basically because of his size. And they'd say he was better than anyone today the old "he may look awkward on film, but ..." Instead of reality, "he looked awkward on film, because he was awkward." What would have really happened with no Joe Louis ? Probably Schmelling beats Braddock and takes the title back to Germany, which Hitler will use for propaganda and it will be stuck over there for years with Schmelling only defending against Germans and a few Euro's, maybe some bottem of the barral US fighters. Hitler sure as hell wouldn't let Schmelling defend against Baer, who was at least thought to be Jewish, and he could beat Schmelling, nor would he have defended it against any black fighters (hell, you can't even get US fighters to defend against blacks). eventually the NBA and NY State would strip Schmelling or WWII would break out. Conn's probably the best white fighter off the top of my head, but Baer might be too big for him, and could catch him. Then again, we know Nova would beat Baer. The trouble is that there are no black fighters that are going to garner the interest like Louis did during the 30's; that's why he broke the color line- there was public interest in him. Plus you had a power struggle between Jacobs and Johnson (I think that was his name), along with the fear that Braddock would lose to Schmelling and the title would go back to Germany (actually Louis would have gotten a shot at Braddock earlier, but he took the easy money against Schmelling, which threw the whole division on its head when schmelling won) My point is that I don't think that Bivins is that much better than anyone else (barely beat Mauriello during the war for the duration title), so they ain't breaking the color line for him. Maybe walcott, Charles, or Ray near the end of the decade (I think Charles beat Ray pretty easy the second time-disputed loss the first time) Charles is getting bigger. What would probably break the color line is that Jackie Robinson would break it in baseball, so boxing would then be under pressure to break it. It's a good "what if" though.

  24. #114
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Roberto- Actually Wes Unseld had a shit load of athletic ability before he tore up his knee (that's when he was the 20-20 man that Hawk keeps refering to)
    I think he was only dominant for a year or two (his rookie and second season- I think). Yes, Wesley would play today as a role player, because the NBA like the NFL loves specialists. if you're great at one thing, you'll last. He'd also be strong today, but not the animal he was during his era. as far as Elvin Hayes: everyone brings up the UCLA game when Houston ended their winning streak. No one remembers that Jabbar kicked Hayes' ass in the rematch, when they blew Houston out by about 30 in the final four match up. And Jabbar kept kicking Hayes ass throught the pro's (Jabbar hated him). Also, they usually didn't put Unseld on Jabbar when Washington played them, usually Hayes took him. Because i don't care how strong Wes was, Jabbar's still shooting over him, as would Duncan, Oneil, and just about every big man. Yes, Wes could move them off their spot, but with their size advantage, he'd have to push them into the parking lot to stop them. I mean they know Wes isn't going to block their shot, and Wes knows he isn't going to block their shots. Wes would be a role playing rebounder (thug) who would use all six of his fouls.

  25. #115
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Pete,
    I don't think its fair to use Ruiz as a barometer between Tucker and Jones. There are style match ups to deal with, plus Tucker was pretty much shot. Ruiz has nothing outside of immense strength (that's according to people who have boxed him either in the ring or in the gym), toughness, and conditioning. He doesn't have the skills to beat Jones, and with Jay Nady as the ref, he's not going to be allowed to maul and brawl jones into a corner (not criticising Nady, that's the way he calls fights). I never saw the Tucker fight, but i am sure he mauled him (theirs a shock) and wore the old man down. Yes, Jones could beat a prime Tucker, but I don't think so, like I said, he's never fought anyone 6-5 before and Tucker can box. So I'd think he'd keep Jones on the end of his jab and win a boring fight. i know Jones isn't going to maul and brawl Tucker and throw him around the ring like Ruiz may do
    I also doubt if Jones would take the risks to get inside on Tucker. as long as Tucker jabs Jones he should keep him outside; unless of coarse he tries to land the right, then Jones could counter him. But his chin stood up to Tyson's shots so I am sure it could hold up to Jones' . What an ugly fight.

  26. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Shoe

    "Yes, you are correct it is a lot harder for a 240 llber to fight a fast pace fight and still have endurance to finish and carry their power."

    Who is saying anything about limiting the stamina argument to just heavyweights? If the newer is better theory is the standard, then fighters who are competing at 147 TODAY, by the Newer=Superior theory, Should have superior Stamina to a 147 pound fighter from 40 to 50 or more years ago. That simply is NOT the case.

    So let's not limit this to Size. If the modern athlete is so superior, why do they lack the endurance of fighters who trained "archaically?

    And while you mentioned lower weight fighters such as Pacquiao, he has shown that he slows down in later in the fight and could not have HIS stamina compared to an Armstrong or Jack or even a Pryor. Heck, Marquez and Morales I were examples of that. He was much stronger than Morales in the return, but that was becuase Morales didn't have a whole lot after round 6. He was superior to Morales not superior stamina wise to fighters of days gone by. His volume and pace are not out of the norm either.

    Hawk

  27. #117
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by The Shoemaker
    What would probably break the color line is that Jackie Robinson would break it in baseball, so boxing would then be under pressure to break it. It's a good "what if" though.
    Nope, without a Joe Louis there would've been no Jackie Robinson in baseball. Robinson would've been courtmartialed and spending a decade in the brigg.

    I would also remind you that the color line in boxing had been broken thousands of times prior to Robinson. Breaking the colorline in the rest of society would probably be delayed by a decade without a Joe Louis.

    Joe did not break a barrier, he built on previously laid groundwork for a larger equity and justice, not only in boxing but in the greater society. Only a non-assuming unsophisticated country boy from the South could ever challenge the status quo with such unconscious effort.

  28. #118
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    390
    vCash
    500

    The Elite 2006 Super Fighter.

    Did you guys recall Roger Bannister the athlete who was the first man to run a four minute mile on May 6th back in 1954, Well just one of his studs or spikes in the shoes he wore weighted more then a modern athlete's whole shoe. Everything has been done including the surfaces the guys run on to help boost and increase the runners chances of putting in faster and faster times on the track. To say nothing even about the enhancing drugs, better diets, personal trainers and the full time training or time off work that is given to the modern guy to complete compared to the runner from years ago. With all this in mind its no wonder that today's runners are so much faster by comparison.


    Lets also keep in mind in regard to the HWs today they are much older then most of the old time fighters. When your about 19 - 25 you normally have quite a good body shape. In most cases ten or so years later you start to put on weight. I recall many years ago a HW was considered at his peak around about 26 years of age. Check the ages of the modern HW. Time most start fighting there body's are not in the best shape anyway. They start fighting when most of the old timers had years of boxing experience behind them and were ready to call it a day. The modern HW, to tell you the truth i would be ashamed at there age to even strip off if i had a gut that hangs over my shorts and tits that could fill a bra. I have often wondered what sort of training in fact the fat no stamina modern slob does do. I agree there are the odd one or two but from what i can see there far and few anyway. In any sport you go in for you should enter the arena in condition and at least try to give it your best shot.

  29. #119
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    373
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Let's not get TOO carried away with how great the talent level was in the 1940s. WWII wiped out a generation of young fighters, don't forget-- which I would imagine is part of the reason guys like Archie Moore and Jersey Joe Walcott were able to hang on so long.

    Joe Louis was the cream of the crop by a country mile, IMO. Had he defended against a prime Jimmy Bivins, Elmer Ray, Lee Q. Murray, Turkey Thompson and Joe Baksi -- 5 fighters he is occassionally accused of having ducked -- he would have had 30 successful defenses instead of 25, not to mention 5 more knockouts.

    I've always thought Max Baer was over-rated-- I don't think he beats either Willard or Firpo. Leroy Haynes beat Carnera, but he couldn't beat Al Ettore in 3 tries-- and Ettore had more losses on his record than Paris Hilton has had boyfriends. Tommy Farr's losses to Baer and a washed-up Braddock show he was not an A-level contender, IMO.

    Here's how I think the post-Gene Tunney title progression would have gone had their been no color line and no corruption (and if Joe Louis didn't exist):

    1930: Jack Sharkey TKO5 Max Schmeling -- [they tell Schmeling to quit pretending, get off his ass and take his beating like a man, which he does]

    --Sharkey successfully defends the title with close, hard-fought decisions over George Godfrey and Larry Gains, the 2 most deserving contenders after Schmeling

    1933: Max Schmeling W15 Jack Sharkey -- [this does NOT mean I think Schmeling was robbed in the rematch; but I do think that Sharkey would be getting a little long in the tooth by now and might under-estimate Schmeling for the rematch; and Schmeling would be hungrier than ever]

    --Schmeling succussfully defends against 1 or 2 of Carnera, Uzcuden, Loughran, Rosenbloom

    1934: Max Baer KO10 Max Schmeling

    1935: Jim Braddock W15 Max Baer

    1936: Max Schmeling W15 Jim Braddock [Schmeling becomes the 1st to regain the title]

    --Schmeling getting old, not willing to risk anything he doesn't have to, retreats to Germany and feasts on a few European contenders as easy defenses, finally lured back to America for big money match against reigning light-heavy champ, Billy Conn...

    1941: Billy Conn W15 Max Schmeling [The Black Uhlan washed up; Conn pitches a shut-out]

    --Conn, also careful, eeks out a few defenses over slower heavyweights for a couple years, until...

    1944: Jimmy Bivins W15 Billy Conn [Bivins in his prime, sharp as a tack-- Conn had lost a step]

    --Bivins successfully defends against a trio of terrific young heavyweights, Elmer Ray, Lee Q. Murray and Turkey Thompson, but then runs into...

    1947: Archie Moore W15 Jimmy Bivins

    1948: Ezzard Charles W15 Archie Moore

    1951: Jersey Joe Walcott KO7 Ezzard Charles

    1951: Ezzard Charles W15 Jersey Joe Walcott

    1952: Rocky Marciano W15 Ezzard Charles
    Last edited by Mr E; 03-29-2006 at 02:37 PM.

  30. #120
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    As far as Roger Bannester's shoes: yes, I am sure you are correct, new training gear helps, but... pretty soon you guys are going to claim that the Track stars of pre-1980 ran with 10 llb weight vests on. Yes, modern tracks and equipment helps them, but it's still genetics, better diet, better coaching and better supplements. actually, I think a lot of older records from the 90's are still standing, probably due to better drug testing and stiffer penelties (Track and Field's was about the only sport that was serious about their drug problem, until the others got pushed into it by public pressure). But even though the records are artificially high, along with being lower (it's harder to break a 9.7, 100 than a 11.0 sec 100) and closer to the maximin human limits, we still ain't at our limits, so the records will continue to fall in the next 20 years. Before Bannister broke the 4 minute mile, some physisits said the mark was physically impossible for humans (same now with a 2 hour marathon)
    You are right that boxers and other athletes usually peak later in life and last longer. But boxing being so brutal, I think it's more of a case of less fights. i know there are exceptions like Walcott who peaked later in life or Moore who fought on a high level for 20 years, but like you said most boxers of yesteryear were shot by the time they were 32. Definatly, starting later in life (although some of these kids have extensive amantuer careers).
    In the other sports it's really different. Nolan Ryan was still cracking 90MPH on his fastball when he was in his 40's. Look at Cleamon's today. Obviously 5 man rotations help, but I just think that they work harder than the oldtimes (I know that's blasphemy to some). But Pro sports are in most cases a full time job , 365 days a year (they have enough money so they don't have to work in the off season) plus, since it's such a big business Pro Teams put forth the money to finance year-round training, because their competors do. football players usued to use training campt to get in shape, not any more (in most instances)
    You're right about boxers, they're often the opposite. Could be that you can cut more corners with a 12 round fight limit. Plus, as with all sports the relationship between coach (or trainer) has changed. I am sure Freddie Roach views James Toney as a business opportunity, it wasn't as though he groomed him from age 15 on (most guys who groom their fighters from an early age, get their prospects stolen when the kid looks like he has potentual
    Earnie Butler-Larry holmes) unless they have a father-son relationship. I remember arguing with a friend about whether Angelo dundee should have been criticised for not having Ali prepared to fight Jimmy Young (not just being in shape-but Ali didn't have a clue on how to lead) He said, "Ali wouldn't have listened anyway" Same with Roach, you can leave Toney, but some other competor will get the money by being his trainer. Even Eddie Futch put up with a lot more of Riddick Bowe's bullshit than he would have 30 years ago, before he finally quit.

Closed Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia Links Home