It's not too long ago when a lot of people believed that today's HW's would be too big for the past Boxing greats to handle. But a smaller man in Ibragimov is starting to prove that skill>steroid lard. I know he has yet to prove a lot, but we're seeing a strong skilled fighter take on the Superheavyweights without showing disadvantages in size. I feel like he is proof that at a surtain point in weights, it really won't matter. The likes of Ali, Holmes, Liston , Louis etc, would still be superior imo. Do you agree?

Well Valuev lost to a guy a foot shorter and near 100lbs lighter... fights like that and the Ibragimov - Briggs fight prove that size is overated.

It's not too long ago when a lot of people believed that today's HW's would be too big for the past Boxing greats to handle. But a smaller man in Ibragimov is starting to prove that skill>steroid lard. I know he has yet to prove a lot, but we're seeing a strong skilled fighter take on the Superheavyweights without showing disadvantages in size. I feel like he is proof that at a surtain point in weights, it really won't matter. The likes of Ali, Holmes, Liston , Louis etc, would still be superior imo. Do you agree?

Agreed but I have been called a granny Historical nuthugger before. I totally Agree the great you mention would clean up today, Hell Mike Weaver would beat half the guys on the scene imo.

The Chagaev Valuev fight was a much better example of that myth being put to bed.

Ibragimov-Briggs was a low standard fight IMO, whereas Valuev-Chagaev was a good fight - Valuev isn't awful and Chagaev fought very well.

i think the top 15 heavy's of the early 70's to mid mop the floor with the 4 belts of today...

Chagaev Valuev wasn't a destruction though. I had Chagaev winning but not by much. That was a pretty close fight, that could have gone either way.

Good points. The others like Toney, Chagaev etc have also contributed for the evidence. But i just feel like Ibragimov will continue to give a good account of himself against big men. Most of the top Heavyweights are bigger than him, and if he keeps this up we will have more and more cases where we can say ''look at Sultan'' when we're in one of those ''Weight advantage'', ''Too big'' debates.

Size dont come into play that much if you got the skills and heart. Marciano would beat the champs about today and he was small by todays standards.
Theres always been massively big heavyweights none of them are all time greats IMO. Valuev is big but could anyone honestly see him doing anything with a prime Dempsey,Louis,Marciano,Frazier,Holyfield or Tyson???

You fellas mention guys who are bums.

If you ever boxed with someone of equal skill and much greater size youd know that it does mater.

WTF can you do against a man whose 5 or 4 inches taller then you sticking his jab in your face all day.

If you are big and know how to use your size then the other guy is in trouble.

There are exceptions to any rule, but in general terms the bigger guy has the advantage.

However some guys like Valuev are just big punching bags.


Briggs whose a complete ****ing bum still went the distance just because of his size, the fight was a bore because the massive briggs used his size to keep Sultan off his ass....This is someone with the most limited skills I have seen since i started watching the sport.

The only Valuev reason got anywhere was because of his SIZE. So quit trying to say size means **** all.

Who would ever hear of Valuev if he wasnt a giant?

Sultan is 6.2

He is hardly a midget.

when i think of a big heavyweight, i think of guys who are naturally of that bulk. briggs is a product of heavy weight lifting and roids, seeing that the guy started his HW days in the low 200's range, he's not what i consider a NATURAL super-heavy. guys like lennox lewis, the klits, etc., all carry their weight very well.

It's not too long ago when a lot of people believed that today's HW's would be too big for the past Boxing greats to handle. But a smaller man in Ibragimov is starting to prove that skill>steroid lard. I know he has yet to prove a lot, but we're seeing a strong skilled fighter take on the Superheavyweights without showing disadvantages in size. I feel like he is proof that at a surtain point in weights, it really won't matter. The likes of Ali, Holmes, Liston , Louis etc, would still be superior imo. Do you agree?




Most of the modern super-heavies aren't naturally that heavy. The vast majority of them have too much fat and/or muscle. Briggs, for example, started his career about 70 pounds lighter. If he actually went back to proper training all that extra bulk will just disappear. These days there is a neurotic preoccupation with size, but little corroborating evidence that it is of any significant advantage.

Not only are the "super-heavies" not naturally of that size, they are also very sluggish, and their skill is obviously lacking. Look at Rahman, who was cut like a brick wall when he was on the rise, and had good boxing ability. He was tooling Tua for an entire fight before an after-the-bell shot put him out on his feet. Now, he's 40+ pounds heavier and he looks like garbage.

Fat + roids make for slow, bloated punching bags.

Ibragimov is 6'2" 220 lbs., so he's hardly small by traditional heavyweight standards. Ali was 6'3" 215, Foreman, considered by many to be a "monster," was 6'3" 220 in his fight with Ali, Tyson was 5'11" 218, Marciano was under 200, etc. What you don't see anymore is crisp, clean punching, stamina, or any sign of motivation. Fighters today want to work hard until they start making a bunch of money, and then they don't care. There's a post on this site somewhere containing an interview with Larry Holmes who actually made a decent analytical conclusion about the state of today's heavyweights.

Size does matter, however, if the larger fighter is skilled. Lennox Lewis, and both Klitschko brothers would probably fare pretty well in the division, historically speaking. I can't imagine it would be easy for guys like Marciano or Frazier to take Klitschko or Lewis down.

Great Avatar man.

Brassangel is right, skill should beat size if the guy with size has inferior skill. Size can give added power, if the guy can punch in the first place, so sometimes a bigger boxer can give a more skilled opponent a hiding if he has the power and feels he can walk through the other guy.

What Ukr_Alex is saying is true, it's a hard day at the office if a guy is bigger and just as skilled or more skilled, especially if they have good power then you're on the back foot constantly.
EliteSoldier, cool avatar!

i think the top 15 heavy's of the early 70's to mid mop the floor with the 4 belts of today...

This is a ridiclous myth that the people in this secton of the forum buy into.

If you think the likes of Ellis, Young, Quarry etc. could beat Wlad Klitschko you're nuts.

The same goes for Chagaev and Vitali.

Sultan's win over Briggs was not so spectacular. And between Sultan and Ryslan the latter is far superior

This is a ridiclous myth that the people in this secton of the forum buy into.

If you think the likes of Ellis, Young, Quarry etc. could beat Wlad Klitschko you're nuts.

The same goes for Chagaev and Vitali.

Quarry would still have the same problem he had then Size, same goes for Ellis. Young my have faired better ala Chris Byrd and had the best chance. I am starting to see it may not be as wide a gap as I originally saw, The guys you mentioned were still better skilled than most guys with size being their limits. Outside of the top they would still have problems. But Bell and Mormeck wouldn't be champs ever.

Ok, i am aware that there are special cases where a big man is very skilled for his size ie Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, the Klitchko's etc. But the majority of the newest generation is NOT, and there are MANY people who love to claim that the this generation is superior to the old. Back in the day every good fighter had the skills, wich is the most important. How many great skilled big men are there today? And can make their size really become an advantage? Not many, especially because their steroid lard is not natural.

Look at how Chris Byrd whiped the floor with these unskilled, slow big men. And then met his match against the natural sized fighters like the Klitchkos, and still gave a good account of himself. I can easily see the older lean fighters doing the same.

Also, you might have had experience fighting or sparring with bigger guys. But we are talking about the Legends that would have found a way to overcome that. No offense, but what might be a disadvantage to you, might be nothing to an Ali, Louis, Dempsey etc.

Ok, i am aware that there are special cases where a big man is very skilled for his size ie Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe, the Klitchko's etc. But the majority of the newest generation is NOT, and there are MANY people who love to claim that the this generation is superior to the old. Back in the day every good fighter had the skills, wich is the most important. How many great skilled big men are there today? And can make their size really become an advantage? Not many, especially because their steroid lard is not natural.

Look at how Chris Byrd whiped the floor with these unskilled, slow big men. And then met his match against the natural sized fighters like the Klitchkos, and still gave a good account of himself. I can easily see the older lean fighters doing the same.

Also, you might have had experience fighting or sparring with bigger guys. But we are talking about the Legends that would have found a way to overcome that. No offense, but what might be a disadvantage to you, might be nothing to an Ali, Louis, Dempsey etc.

Holyfield was 205 fighting, Foreman, Bowe and many others early on. So I agree with you about the skills. Quarry being under 200 would still be problematic for the most part was my point. Look at the activity level of the Older guys, who now could honestly match their punch rates. Boxers of the past where more skilled for the most part.