Home News Current Champs WAIL! Encyclopedia
The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board
Closed Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 151 to 172 of 172

Thread: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

  1. #151
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Thumper,

    I never said that Ali wouldn't dominate at a lower weight class being flawed, of coarse he would, look at Roy Jones (who doesn't have Ali's chin). all I said was that it is easier to get away with being technically flawed at heavy than the other classes, which is true. Because at heavyweight, size speed, and power often trump technical skills, more often than at the lower weight classes. Jimmy Ellis had 100X the skills than George Foreman, but Foreman's walking through him and is going to KO him in 3 rounds. Yes, there are occasionally the John Mugabi's at the lower weights.

    Heavies can cut corners because they can get away with it more often than at the lower weight classes. as far as athleticism, there are no Dominique Wilkens' in the 1920's, whether they had supplements or not or whether basketball was a major sport or not, no one of that era has the athleticism to do reverse dunks, or 360's, especially a 6-7 person of that era, who would be lucky to walk and chew bubblegum; Jim Thorpe, the best athlete of the first half of the 20th century, wouldn't even place in a High school decatholon today. And I don't care what supplements he takes, what shoes he wears or what track he runs on. No fighter from the 1920's has any where near the pysical tools Mike Tyson has, especially at 220 llbs. Interesting, you complain about the holding and mauling of today (okay, I'll grant you that) then you praise Johnson, Jeffries, and Sullivan- that's all they practically did.That was the way they fought back then. Of coarse everyone views them with stars in their eyes. as far as a bare knuckle fighter like Sullivan(who holds his fists vertically) competing today, come on. Jim Corbett, who beat him, got KO'ed with the "deadly" solar plexes punch. last point; I notice one thing in your criticism that you didn't address was "why hasn't there been a sub 190 llb champion or major contender in the last 45 years ?" Or, "why hasn't there been any power punching heavyweight under 190 llbs in the last 40 years ?"

    Those questions don't have any "ifs" in them.

  2. #152
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Again

    There is a Certainty that you are pointing to that can't really be backed up with a whole lot given the inconsistancy of these fighters.

    I have yet to read a report of Sharkey Schemling II that states: "Sharkey was just as sharp as he was in the first fight and for that matter as he EVER had been, yet Schmeling was clearly superior, more seasoned than he had previously shown."

    I don't completely reject your positions re these fighters. I only reject the Clear Cut manner with which you paint it.

    Hawk

  3. #153
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Shoe

    I don't get the Wilkins could NOT have existed in the 20's had everything that is avaialbe now (popularity, Suplements, training etc) being exactly the same back then, why a Wilkins could NOT have existed.

    What do you hang your hat on that makes this so?

    Why WOULDN'T Modern conditions, if placed in an earlier era, not affect that era and it's athletes? Is intelligence under the same gun here? I would think based on all that is avaialble to us now that there are indeed smarter people on our planet than say 80 years ago. But if individuals were afforded the same benefits of today and they GREW up with them as today's folks have, would they not be able to absorb the same material? Or were they just simpley "limited" and could never advance?

    I think we need to break out Trading Places here for everyone to watch.

    Hawk

  4. #154
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Elmer,

    A time-line based on less-than-facts is not evidence but opinion. As for Schmeling 'could have' from the first bout, I offer he was on his way to being beaten to a pulp..and could have been stopped in round 4.

    or 5. or 6.

    ---This thread should be returnd to it's rightful purpose: discussing unnatrual heavyweights..of which the Max's and Sharkey are not included within. Apologies for the hijack---
    Last edited by Sharkey; 03-30-2006 at 03:00 PM.

  5. #155
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    373
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by Elmer Ray
    i would also like to add, jack sharkey may have won the first 3 rounds of the first schmeling fight, but there were still 12 rounds to go. schmeling could have turned it around. lets not be so fast to critisize max. the real fight took place in 1932 when WE GOT TO SEE what happened when they tangle for 15 rounds.
    I'm convinced that Schmeling went down because he was getting his ass kicked and thought he might sneak one past the goal-tender, as it were. That was a very common ploy in the late 20s and early 30s. It's a sign he gave up.

    I think Schmeling was in his prime for that bout-- younger, stronger and faster than he was against Louis for sure-- and he'd had plenty of fights under his belt by then, too, so he was plenty experienced. When both were "on," Sharkey was just flat better than Schmeling, IMO.

  6. #156
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    394
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    "The guy's you named Ali, robinson and Louis have ungodlty athletic ability to go along with their skills and chin (although Ali's fundamentaly flawed you can get away with it at heavy, especially with his size ,speed, and chin.). So at the elite level athleticism doesn't hurt"

    sounds like you said you can get away with flaws like he had at heavyweight doesn't it?

    as for the imaginary 190# line, it might be important to consider:

    There were only a few at that weight ever to hold the title, the last and most notable being Dempsey...

    In the past 40 years, you would have Floyd Patterson..... Quarry fought at 195#s Leotis Martin fought in that weight territory, Ellis did....it's not like heavyweights at that size are non existent...and they often beat the bigger guys,, Bonavena, Chuvalo, Foster, Lyle etc.

    It's easy to surmise that each of them (and other) would weigh in around 10 or so #s heavier if fighting today....

    Finally, I've stayed mainly on fighters of the past being competitive with todays fighters, not getting into could Firpo or Sharkey beat a Tony Tucker a Tony Tubbs or a David Tua...that stuff belongs in the fantasy threads. My conjecture is yes they could compete/would be competitive and in many senses, especially the heavyweights, todays guys are less schooled, more flawed, and in poorer condition. As to styles, Ali changed everything, and they haven't moved from that an inch....that was 40 yearsago.

    People are bigger today, no question...the world is also a smaller place...you never had a Russian heavyweight contender, a Japanese player in the Major Leagues or an NBA combing the planet for Yao Ming, the Chinese probably didnt even play basketball. Circumstances have made things as they are, but circumstances don't make yesterday's athletes chumps compared to today's athletes, period.

  7. #157
    MANAGING EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    In an undisclosed bunker deep in the weird, wild, woods of the Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    11,450
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Jeez, this thread has morphed way off the subject. By this time hasn't this thread been flogged to death already?

    GorDoom

  8. #158
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    577
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    I think Schmeling was in his prime for that bout-- younger, stronger and faster than he was against Louis for sure

    disagree,

    schmeling was better in the louis fight. he was bigger, stronger, more mature, just as fast, smarter, more experienced.

    schmeling was still too young when he fought sharkey in 1930. he hadnt reached his peak yet.



    - i did not notice any signs of sharkey aging in the 2nd schmeling fight. however i did notice schmeling was a lot better.
    schmeling on his best day IMO is better than any version of sharkey

  9. #159
    MANAGING EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    In an undisclosed bunker deep in the weird, wild, woods of the Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    11,450
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    & what do Schmeling & Sharkey have to do with the top ten unnatural heavyweights? They were both legit heavies in their time.

    GorDoom

  10. #160
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    I can't see

    how either you OR Mr. E can be so clear (And "clear" polar Opposites) about two heavyweights whose careers' were anything but clear.

    The only thing clear about Schmeling and Sharkey (and Baer), is that their careers lacked the defintiveness, clarity and conssistancy that you both seem to think existed in (Mr. E) Sharkey and (Elmer) Schmeling.

    As Gordoom just pointed out, both were Clearly Heavyweights. That's about it.

    Hawk

  11. #161
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    373
    vCash
    500

    Re: I can't see

    Quote Originally Posted by hawk5ins
    how either you OR Mr. E can be so clear (And "clear" polar Opposites) about two heavyweights whose careers' were anything but clear.

    The only thing clear about Schmeling and Sharkey (and Baer), is that their careers lacked the defintiveness, clarity and conssistancy that you both seem to think existed in (Mr. E) Sharkey and (Elmer) Schmeling.

    As Gordoom just pointed out, both were Clearly Heavyweights. That's about it.

    Hawk
    ...which, I would think obviously, is why I consistently couch my own statements in terms of "I think" and "in my opinion."

  12. #162
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    373
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by GorDoom
    & what do Schmeling & Sharkey have to do with the top ten unnatural heavyweights? They were both legit heavies in their time.

    GorDoom

    Thread drift is part of message board culture, my good man. But you're the boss, so I shall tip my cap with a waive of good cheer and discontinue my participation.

  13. #163
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by The Shoemaker
    .Jim Thorpe, the best athlete of the first half of the 20th century, wouldn't even place in a High school decatholon today.

    That has to be some of the most unnatural logic I've ever heard.

  14. #164
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Roberto- as far as "unnatural logic", I would say your Quarry-Holmes post where you brought up Holmes' loss to Mike Tyson, would have to be up there. i mean there was a 17 year age gap between the two (Larry was almost 39 years old) and Larry hadn't fought in 22 months, so to use that fight to diss Holmes isn't exactly logical. like i said, you have a fighter with arguably the greatest jab in the game, fighting a guy (Quarry)who couldn't slip a jab if there was a hole in the ring, plus Jerry cuts- but you think it's a close fight. It's like Ali-Quarry- a missmatch.

    Hawk- My point on "Nique" is that 99% of what he can do is because of genetics- traits that people from the 20's didn't have. wilkens was born in 1960, so odds are, he didn't have suppliments, plyometrics, or any of the other BS. He was born that way. As were Ali, Leonard, Robinson, ect.

    My point earlier was that unless they take roids (which i suspect Byrd, Toney, Hollyfield, Spinks were on) or have really late growth spurts, the odds are that you will have less unatural heavyweights becoming champions or even contenders. as I stated earlier, the heavies and Light heavy ratings were interchangable (take a look at the Ring ratings of the 20,30's,40's and 50's) until the late 60's, then it "magically" ended. My blasphemous point was that it's a lot easier to make the transistion from being a light heavy to heavyweight, when your elite heavyweights are 6-1,190 llbs, than if they're 6-3 to 6-5, 215 to 235 llbs, which has been the case since the late 60's- early 70's. I'll submit to the moderator's request to kill this "off topic" discussion (which often happens on forums) even though it has brought some argument and interest to this site. Mainly 162 replies and over 1200 viewers in about 5 days.

  15. #165
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,890
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    I'll just reiterate what several others have already said: physical evolution does not take place in fifty or sixty years.

    Also, to anyone who doesn't think people of the Twenties and Thirties were capable of the kinds of athletic ingenuity that present basketball players exhibit, my advice is to track down tapes of vaudevillian "trick dancers" and then watch them with your mouth hanging open in awe. Those guys were freaking awe-inspiring. Most seemed to actually be defying gravity and achieving real levitation, even into their fifties and sixties.

    Better nutrition probably contributes to greater overall height and weight since the early part of the Twentieth century, but I'd bet 99% of all non-steroid-assisted athletic "superiority" nowadays is attributal to better equipment, more training, and individual showmanship. Most of the spectacular theatrics to be found on modern basketball courts was specifically forbidden by coaches in prior times, when the team was infinitely more important than individual achievements. These "show off" actions were considered unacceptable evidence of selfishness. Even dunking was frowned upon.

    Why are there no more 190lb. heavyweights? Because the prevailing "wisdom" is that bigger is better (I personally think this idea took root in the division when "big" Sonny Listion -- all 210 pounds of him -- made "little" Floyd Patterson collapse into a quivering puddle). Today's contenders seem to feel that if "A" is going to tip the scales at 245, then it will take at least 250 pounds of suet for him to be competitive. They forget about "little" Jerry Quarry, who made monkeys out of "giants" like Mathis, Lyle, and Foster at only 195 or so.

    Has there been a better pound for pound hitter than Jimmy Wilde? A faster or slicker boxer than Willie Pep? A tougher "ironman" than Paulino Uzcudun? These men were all at their peaks fifty to a hundred years ago, so why aren't they merely over-shadowed blips on the boxing radar now? Why do behemoths like W. Klitschko, Michael Grant, and even Lennox Lewis still drop like sacks of wet sand when the fists of smaller guys collide with their chins?

    Personally, I think Dempsey, Louis, Frazier, and men of that oaken ilk would run riot through today's heavies, even without injecting an extra fifty pounds of hormonal musculature into their systems. But, seeing as how everyone else is doing it, I don't know if they could resist the temptation to juice up, as well. PeteLeo.

  16. #166
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    154
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Pete, there is nothing I hate worse than people who deviate from the topic !
    I'll guarentee that none of the vaudevile performers were 6-5 and above; because people 6-5 then were Giants. Like i said, the average shoe size in the US during the 20's was a size 6, and the average height was about 5-6.

    For the hundreth time (check my posts) I've never said that today's heavies are any good, in fact I said they suck. But still, if you're 6-3 +, 220 + and have FLUIDITY and skills, you're going to kick practically all of the 185'er's asses, look at big stiffs like Simon, Carnera, and Willard- they were contenders, dispite having no skills.

    No Jerry Quarry doesn't do (I said UNDER 190) and I believe that Foster and Lyle weighed around 215 (Mathis was way out of shape, so it wasn't a functional 235). Jerry was around 195 to 202 (Shavers fight) during that era. Yes, Jerry got the most out of his limited physique, countering the big slow guys to death, but they were headhunters, who really didn't jab (Lyle developed one later, not that they would have beaten Jerry with one but it would have helped), still Ali, Liston, Holmes, Bowe, and others (including the big, slow Lennox Lewis) will beat Jerry with just their jabs. As far as Lewis getting KO'ed, yes Rahman and McCall got lucky and landed lottery punches on him, but Rahman was 238, and McCall was 231 (to Lewis' 238), it wasn't as though a 6-0, 185 llber, with Alligator arms, KO'ed him (they'd never get passed his jab).

    As far as your "bigger is better" theory: I would think that Freddie Roach, Teddy Atlas, Buddy McGirt, and any other trainer today would grab a quicker 185 llber and make them into a world champion since the championship is worth millions (plus the heavies suck, so you would think that today would be the opportune time to do it). Unless you think that those guys are idiots and subscribe to that theory as well. On steroids: it's not as though you simply inject your arm with that junk and gain 50 llbs of muscle over night, there is still only so much you can do with your frame. Steroids allow you to over train, so you still have to work your ass off to make any gains. I tried them about 20 years ago for about 6 weeks, like a dumbass kid. I gained a little on my bench press, but you lose it when you come off them. I can't see any advantage for them in boxing, unless you are like the "Unnatural heavyweights" and at least add muscle to your frame (beats the alternative which is fat), but far as I know they don't add punching power.

    I'll tell you one thing that steroids do, they provide an excuse for these old geezers to bitch about the modern athlete. The same old geezers, who used to blast the modern players for weight training (said they'd get to muscle bound), then they turn around and bitch about roids. Like i keep saying, the heavyweight championship is worth tens of millions of dollars, there are and have been tons of 6-1",185-190 llb fighters in the past 40 years
    yet, they can't generate any power- why not ?

  17. #167
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Jeez Shoe

    Tie the points together. ALL of them.

    Pete is pointing to the athletic ability that existed in vaudeville performers in the early part of the last century.

    Now ADD to that, nutrition, diet, vitamins, Poularity and interest in a sport, opportunity, training, etc etc etc.

    Forget it. I'm done with this one.

    Hawk

  18. #168
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    394
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Thank you Gordoom

    As I said a couple days ago, its another thread flung far afield.....

    shoemaker...most of the thread's volume is from you.....

    we've finally honed in on the point you're making and it seems to the imaginary 190# line....."No Jerry Quarry doesn't do (I said UNDER 190)"

    "there are and have been tons of 6-1",185-190 llb fighters in the past 40 years
    yet, they can't generate any power- why not ?"


    Must be some magical power difference between 189 3/4 #'s and 194-195....

    So all this for that?

    I think the real point you want to make is:"The same old geezers, who used to blast the modern players for weight training (said they'd get to muscle bound), then they turn around and bitch about roids"

    Volume doesn't equal substance imho

  19. #169
    Roberto Aqui
    Guest

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    Quote Originally Posted by The Shoemaker
    Roberto- as far as "unnatural logic", I would say your Quarry-Holmes post where you brought up Holmes' loss to Mike Tyson, would have to be up there. i mean there was a 17 year age gap between the two (Larry was almost 39 years old) and Larry hadn't fought in 22 months, so to use that fight to diss Holmes isn't exactly logical. like i said, you have a fighter with arguably the greatest jab in the game, fighting a guy (Quarry)who couldn't slip a jab if there was a hole in the ring, plus Jerry cuts- but you think it's a close fight. It's like Ali-Quarry- a missmatch.
    .
    Well, looks like you're as unnaturally wrong about me as you are on Thorpe.

    Larry didn't face the top names who were active during his undefeated streak. Those he did face, Shavers, Cooney, and Snipes gave him tough fights. Quarry is easily as good as those guys and a dangerous counter puncher and Holmes could be rocked. There's no stretch to say Quarry could possibly beat Holmes who was never some invincible fighter. He was just a fighter with a glossed record and easy schedule.

    I brought up the Tyson fight because of the ease Tyson disposed of Holmes. On paper Holmes should have been a tough fight for a 21 yr old heavy, especially since Holmes picked Tyson for his supposed stylistic weaknesses. When you look at who beat Holmes, it's when he stepped up his competition, Spinks, Tyson, Holy. Could a more prime Holmes have beat Frazier/Foreman/Ali/Norton in their heydays? 29 yr old Larry had a tough disputed split decision over a fading Norton, so no, it doesn't look like Larry is in their category either. Younger, inexperienced young guns like Witherspoon and Williams also lost close disputed decisions to Holmes. Larry was only invincible against the Franks, Zanons, ect that he padded his record with.

  20. #170
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    I'm the one in the middle.
    Posts
    9,487
    vCash
    500

    Roberto

    This is equally ridiculous.

    To state that Age, activity and prime had little to do with Holmes' performances agianst Spinks, Tyson and Holyfield is as out to lunch as some of the other points you are debating agianst Shoe here.

    It's funny you state Holmes faced a "fading" Norton, but would dismiss that Holmes was "possibly" faded himself when facing the aforementioned trio (heck add in Williams as well. I think Holmes beat Witherspoon and simply over looked him and had a tough bout with him. Agianst Timmy and Carl, Larry sucked it up and pulled out wins. Does that not count for anything?).

    This thread is turning into an abyss of sillyness if you ask me.

    Hawk
    Last edited by hawk5ins; 03-31-2006 at 11:58 AM.

  21. #171
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    2,615
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    I don't see much logic here, no offense intended, on either side.

    Holmes was past it. And in my opinion, unaware of it in his head...so he hadn't adapted to the crab-grab-and-paw he employed later to survive.

    Logic involves straight lines and paralells that are understood to be built on the facts preceeding such.

    It doesn't involve analogies or ask/give result-oriented conclusions that THEN need to be supported. (AKA 190 pound or less men with power in boxing).

    Read this twice before anyone thinks I am saying anything bad about the postors...I am not.

  22. #172
    MANAGING EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    In an undisclosed bunker deep in the weird, wild, woods of the Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    11,450
    vCash
    500

    Re: Top Ten Unnatural Heavyweights

    I am locking this thread due to the sheer innanity of it. You guys have gone so far off topic & you're just blurting factoids & the thread makes absolutely no sense anymore.

    GorDoom

Closed Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456

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