Heavyweight Boxing

walshb

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Anyone can be ko'd at heavy weight Toney included, Its a tale as old as time itself

Agreed. In theory, yes. I just would back Toney to not ever lose via KO-TKO, unless via TKO injury...

normanoffside

The Nal wrote: »

Yeah. Which is all he had. They weren't big men. Even Jack Johnson. 6ft, 14 stone. Marciano 5ft 10, Dempsey 6ft 1. Joe Louis was big at 6ft 2. Liston changed it in a way, fighters had to be bigger and stronger. Although Liston ended up being fairly pathetic.

To be fair, Johnson and Louis were 205-225lbs for most of their title fights.
Dempsey and Marciano were certainly modern day Cruisers.

Patterson and Frazier were really the last cruiser sized HW champs, but cruisers only came into fashion about 30 years ago (and 189lbs at the time).

Traditionally a good sized heavy was always 210-220lbs, it's only very recently that you'd get fit, tall and skilled Heavie's weighing in at 240lb+.
That's why i think it's unfair to compare modern day champions against guys of old, the modern guys almost have a genetic advantage.

normanoffside

By the by, I follow an Italian Boxing critic on Facebook, he is normally spot on but he recently did an all time top 10 European lb for lb list and had Lennox Lewis (Wlad at 8) at 7 and Primo Carnera at 6 :eek:

Just goes to show there is such huge variance opinions people have in boxing. Good to have debate.

US2

walshb wrote: »

Patterson was 190 lbs soaking wet for chrissake. He'd be giving away 30 lbs and several inches to most of the top 80s HWs. Plenty could easily find his chin, with 30 lbs on him. Liston, who would not be a huge HW in the 1980s blasted him away with ease....

Seriously, someone back me up here.....

This is getting silly now......

Floyd would get knocked out by big men such as Tucker and Bruno and Smith and Pinklon and Ruddock and others. He's too damn small.

Edit: Just realized. No, not all Tyson's victims beat Floyd. I didn't mean to interpret that, but all Mike's wins during his championship reign, which was mostly the 1980s, yes, thay all beat Floyd. Too big...I should have stressed this.

No way Floyd beats Tucker, Thomas, Smith, Berbick, Bruno, Holmes, Tubbs.......no way he beats Ruddock either, or Douglas....

They'd all dwarf him, and beat him up.

You can't use size soley as a reason he wins though. You'd have MT beat Fury for example, does size not matter there ?

walshb

US2 wrote: »

You can't use size soley as a reason he wins though. You'd have MT beat Fury for example, does size not matter there ?

I didn’t just use size...

He’s too small, he is not near strong enough, and the names I mentioned would find his chin..

Actually, in some instances, you can just use size. Good big one beats a good little one.

Floyd was 185-190. Tyson’s championship victims had 30 + lbs on him.

If I said a LHW easily beats a SLW, 30 + lbs difference, why can’t size be a sole reason for me?

And there are times where size becomes less a factor.

Tyson was 220 lbs solid muscle. He would be giving away 30 lbs and 8 inches to Fury; I wouldn’t dismiss this, and I didn’t, but Tyson is not Patterson. He’s far far deadlier, hence my believing that he can take Fury out. And when you have the likes of Steve Cunningham dropping Fury, and some other nobodies wobbling him, then the thought of a 220 lbs prime Tyson getting to him doesn’t seem at all far-fetched.

Every situation can be broken down and analysed.

The Patterson one is mainly the size difference. He was not big enough, and was not strong enough, and also could be knocked out by bigger men.

Finally, there are times where a size advantage does not translate into an actual advantage. Mike’s shorter stature in a lot of fights caused his taller opponents issues, because Mike used his shorter stature to make it quite difficult for taller men to land more “normal” thrown shots. Of course, the fighter giving away height, reach and weight needs to be really talented to use his size disadvantage to his advantage. Tyson was very talented.

walshb

Meant to add as well, that sometimes being “too big” can be a disadvantage at HW

Guys 250 + who are should really be a deal lighter, or even the naturally 250 + guys, whose size slows them that bit, and they are less mobile and fast as a man a fair bit lighter..

Look at AJ; I see his size advantage over Tyson as not at all a factor, because he’s not very quick on his feet, which would be a disaster against the smaller, fast attacking punching Tyson..AJs weight and physique also see him that bit slower upper body-wise, stiffer and more readable...

Of course, different fights mean different analyses...sometimes their size will see it advantageous for them.

BDI

Tyson to watch during his peak was amazing. He wasn’t at his peak long enough to be in the greatest of all time bracket.

His head movement was amazing at his best and a lot of the time when he did get hit nobody noticed, amazingly a few of his knockouts come after getting hit fairly hard right before but without watching closely you won’t see it. It was like he could counter your knockout punch after you hit him with it.

His footwork also doesn’t get the recognition it deserves people just speak mostly of his power, hunger and showmanship.
His speed and explosiveness was also like something you wouldnt see at heavyweight.

Pity he lost the head and didn’t stay at the top for a few more years. If he had I think the comparison with Ali would be fair.

squinn2912

BDI wrote: »

Tyson to watch during his peak was amazing. He wasn’t at his peak long enough to be in the greatest of all time bracket.

His head movement was amazing at his best and a lot of the time when he did get hit nobody noticed, amazingly a few of his knockouts come after getting hit fairly hard right before but without watching closely you won’t see it. It was like he could counter your knockout punch after you hit him with it.

His footwork also doesn’t get the recognition it deserves people just speak mostly of his power, hunger and showmanship.
His speed and explosiveness was also like something you wouldnt see at heavyweight.

Pity he lost the head and didn’t stay at the top for a few more years. If he had I think the comparison with Ali would be fair.

I like this post very calm and measured.

Part of Ali’s greatness is how he reinvented and adapted himself to beat the odds. He was robbed of his prime years too where Tyson threw them away.

Good points about comparing from different eras earlier. In 25 years humans and training changes a lot.

BDI

squinn2912 wrote: »

I like this post very calm and measured.

Part of Ali’s greatness is how he reinvented and adapted himself to beat the odds. He was robbed of his prime years too where Tyson threw them away.

Good points about comparing from different eras earlier. In 25 years humans and training changes a lot.

I’m sure the medicine available to Tyson was much better than Ali’s medicine too. Sadly Dylan Wyhte is getting the best stuff ever available I’d imagine.

walshb

squinn2912 wrote: »

I like this post very calm and measured.

P.

I agree.

I will add, however, that even if Mike retired after prison, his body of work as regards record at the top, still beats a few historical names that get bandied about at HW; Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Liston to name a few....

None of the above had as many actual championship victories as Tyson

Tyson would be on 10 wins and one defeat...clearing out the division, as well as unifying it..

Ali the GOAT.....

Holmes, an interesting one. Like Tyson, his record gets a fair bit of derision...

Cooney, Norton and Shavers his best wins....none are what I would label great...

I’d have no hesitation saying Mike beats all by KO.

Holmes then lost to a LHW, and the return match as well, and was knocked out by Tyson, where folks have no issue claiming he was well past it, while at the same time, bringing up Mike’s loss to Lewis, when Mike was clearly past it.

BDI

walshb wrote: »

I agree.

I will add, however, that even if Mike retired after prison, his body of work as regards record at the top, still beats a few historical names that get bandied about at HW; Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Liston to name a few....

None of the above had as many actual championship victories as Tyson

Tyson would be on 10 wins and one defeat...clearing out the division, as well as unifying it..

Ali the GOAT.....

Holmes an interesting one. Like Tyson, his record gets a fair bit of derision...

Cooney, Norton and Shavers his best wins....none are what I would label great...

I’d have no hesitation saying that Mike beats all them by KO..

I wouldn’t disagree but depends on what point of his career you meet him at. I think a lot of the reason he looks to have wasted more peal time than other boxers is because his peak time started way younger. Having him looking like he was on the wane before he could use age as an excuse.

normanoffside

A timely video just popped up in my news feed. A few people might enjoy this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsuhRz3cpiI

BDI

Just watching the Tyson v Berrick fight now. That second knockdown where he is out on his feet and needs to be nudged over then the next one he tries to get up three times and falls back down.

Even knockouts had character back then

He really was a wrecking machine, to think wilder is this generations wrecking machine and peak Tyson could probably take wilders best on the chin while he ate his breakfast.

I know I exaggerate but Tyson would probably eat wilder and Joshua for his breakfast.

walshb

BDI wrote: »

I know I exaggerate but Tyson would probably eat wilder and Joshua for his breakfast.

I would be very confident he’d KO both...

90-100 times he beats them by clear KO..

squinn2912

Gotta think that his work to the body would be far too much for either

squinn2912

Would Fury have anything different to trouble him? He’d have a bit of footwork and huge reach but he only looks fast with guys on treacle

BDI

squinn2912 wrote: »

Would Fury have anything different to trouble him? He’d have a bit of footwork and huge reach but he only looks fast with guys on treacle

I’m not a fan of fury’s style but I’m not sure fury could deal with the relentless pressure Tyson at his peak brings. It’s non stop plus he can hit after he is jabbed. Can furys light jab as he circles out of the way be enough to knock Tyson out of is stride? Maybe once or twice but not over a couple of rounds.

What I noticed tonight looking at Tyson too he is close to being both handed. In orthodox stance he can knock you out with his right or left. Even if you have your guard up. Frightening at his peak.
Against Lewis the explosiveness was gone it’s night and day.

squinn2912

BDI wrote: »

I’m not a fan of fury’s style but I’m not sure fury could deal with the relentless pressure Tyson at his peak brings. It’s non stop plus he can hit after he is jabbed. Can furys light jab as he circles out of the way be enough to knock Tyson out of is stride? Maybe once or twice but not over a couple of rounds.

What I noticed tonight looking at Tyson too he is close to being both handed. In orthodox stance he can knock you out with his right or left. Even if you have your guard up. Frightening at his peak.
Against Lewis the explosiveness was gone it’s night and day.

Great point well made about Tyson.

There are things Fury (or the other lads) could do and I’m not so sure it would be a cake walk for mike but I think he gets through and if he gets through once at that peak standard it’s game over

normanoffside

What i Noticed about the Tyson Douglas highlights was the sheer pace of it. Douglas was still fighting like a lightweight in the 10th.
It's not like that any more. Modern day heavies are bigger but definitely not as fit.

BDI

normanoffside wrote: »

What i Noticed about the Tyson Douglas highlights was the sheer pace of it. Douglas was still fighting like a lightweight in the 10th.
It's not like that any more. Modern day heavies are bigger but definitely not as fit.

If you watch all of Tyson’s fights you will see he is relentless going forward, up until around Douglas where in the first round he goes forward in bursts then gets hit when he backs off. It’s nothing genius by Douglas I think he knows something. There is a point when they are both in the ring in the build up and it zooms to Tyson and you can see around his eyes are red, his corner all seem placid, the head movement and footwork is still there at the start but the bit of extra level is gone.

Fair play to Douglas and his corner for spotting it and capitalizing. Factor in as well Douglas is coming off a ten rounder and Tyson hasn’t had to fight more than a round or two in a few years as far as I remember.

normanoffside

BDI wrote: »

Fair play to Douglas and his corner for spotting it and capitalizing. Factor in as well Douglas is coming off a ten rounder and Tyson hasn’t had to fight more than a round or two in a few years as far as I remember.

Yep, the commentary on the video I posted referred to Tyson spitting from Rooney because he didn't see the point of training for 12 round fights when he was blowing everyone away in 2 rounds.

That was probably the difference, but Douglas' pace in the 9th and 10th was still impressive.

BDI

Seen in a stat the odds were something like 40-1 for a Douglas win. Add don King into the mix and we could be only scratching what really went on. Who knows.

Mantis Toboggan

squinn2912 wrote: »

Great point well made about Tyson.

There are things Fury (or the other lads) could do and I’m not so sure it would be a cake walk for mike but I think he gets through and if he gets through once at that peak standard it’s game over

Plus there's proper drug testing these days.

BDI

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Plus there's proper drug testing these days.

In fairness I’d say both would have to be tested and there is not proper drug testing these days there is a drug test, which specialists and steroid dealers call an idiot test.

walshb

Mantis Toboggan wrote: »

Plus there's proper drug testing these days.

Fury must have missed this, so!

squinn2912

walshb wrote: »

Fury must have missed this, so!

I think drug cheating is possibly worse now than At any other time

normanoffside

squinn2912 wrote: »

I think drug cheating is possibly worse now than At any other time

I think we are only getting positives now as they are testing them for the first time.
I have seen several comments from Champion boxers retired about 10 years ago saying they were never tested once in the careers.

walshb

squinn2912 wrote: »

I think drug cheating is possibly worse now than At any other time

May be, but back when there was next to no testing, a case could be made.....

walshb

You take even the great Ali and Frazier...in Manila you would wonder if maybe there was some kind of “help” there to enable what they showed..

normanoffside

walshb wrote: »

You take even the great Ali and Frazier...in Manila you would wonder if maybe there was some kind of “help” there to enable what they showed..

I don't think doping was even illegal back then, it certainly wasn't tested.

You could say even if they ere taking stuff it was fair game as there were no rules against it.