View Full Version : this whole "Size doesnt matter" thing has to stop.


Infern0
10-02-2009, 01:19 AM
It does guys, it just does. Anyone saying that Jack Dempsey or Rocky Marciano could beat Lewis or the klitschkos is a ****ing idiot. If those bigger guys were slow, immobile bums with no skill then yeah, the smaller guys have a shot but they aren't. All those guys are on a par ability wise, but the latter 3 have massive size advantages.

This is why we dont have Chad Dawson vs Vitali Klitschko guy.

Verstyle
10-02-2009, 01:24 AM
Size matters but doesn't always. Dawson vs Vitali? Bad comparison.Haha. At least get the weight close to the same.

RightCross94
10-02-2009, 01:35 AM
Size matters but can be overcome. Simple.

sonnyboyx2
10-02-2009, 04:02 AM
It does guys, it just does. Anyone saying that Jack Dempsey or Rocky Marciano could beat Lewis or the klitschkos is a ****ing idiot. If those bigger guys were slow, immobile bums with no skill then yeah, the smaller guys have a shot but they aren't. All those guys are on a par ability wise, but the latter 3 have massive size advantages.

This is why we dont have Chad Dawson vs Vitali Klitschko guy.
RIDICULOUS... you have posted this thread so as to try to imply that your idol Lennox Lewis is greater than any fighter who does not match-up to him in size which is laughable... you have failed in your attempts to try and prove Lewis had the chin, skills, ringcraft and other attributes to beat the greats of yester-year now your last resort is his size.... Yet Lewis biggest nemesis was fighters who was smaller than himself, Butler 5`11 went 5rds Tua 5`10 went the full 12rds, Ocassio 5`11 went the full distance, even a heavily sedated Tyson went 8rds with Lewis, both men who poleaxed Lewis with a single punch was only 6`2 and considerably lighter.. 99% of the great fighters of the past fall into the size bracket that cause Lewis huge problems.. so i claim that it is you who is the ******* idiot not the guys on here who tell you over and over again that size is a disadvantage and meaningless... if size and weight was huge factors then Nicolay Valuev would be champion for life at 7`2 and 330lbs, Ewart Potgieter who fought in the 50s would have been undisputed champion because he stood 7`3 and 290lbs, John Cully 6`8 , Mike White 7`0 the list of these big guys is endless through out history, they all get beat by the guy who is 6`2

mickey malone
10-02-2009, 05:24 AM
Well Valuev can't fight for ****, so how did he become a 40 odd fight world champ with only 1 narrow defeat?... Simple, because of his size...

Would Primo Carnera have been champ if he wasn't such a lump?... Er... No... And he was eventually bashed up by the smaller Max Baer, as was Jess Willard by the smaller Jack Dempsey.. Willard is another one who would never have been champ had it not been for his size...

To put things into perspective, throughout history the size argument nearly always favored the smaller guys.. That's where the saying, 'The bigger they are, the harder they fall' originated..

It was generally agreed that fighters over 16 stone were too slow and heavy to win the title..

The argument got turned on it's head, with the emergence of Lewis, Bowe and now, the Klits.. These were/are all 18 stoners who can fight and move..

So yes, times are changing & size is NOW becoming a big advantage... This isn't to say, that a guy like Tyson can't come along and turn it all on it's head, but he'd need to be at least 15 stone! So, history does suggest that Johnson, Dempsey, Marciano, Langford, Fitszimmons, Tunney etc & possibly even Joe Louis would have needed more bulk.. I'd conclude, that size does matter & Dempsey at 17 stone would have run through walls...

Spartacus Sully
10-02-2009, 05:38 AM
Would Primo Carnera have been champ if he wasn't such a lump?... Er... No... And he was eventually bashed up by the smaller Max Baer, as was Jess Willard by the smaller Jack Dempsey.. Willard is another one who would never have been champ had it not been for his size...

Well in primos defense it seems like during that fight they forgot the whole after a knock down go to the opposite corner of the ring. Or was baer trying to wrestle carnera?

Any ways size dosnt matter as im pretty sure marciano and dempsey would have both pwned lewis. probaly on a stoppage as their punches would have been breaking facial bones, cracking ribs, and tearing flesh. where as lennox might have rung their bells once or twice but nothing that actually inflicted lasting damage.

big guys these days lack top speed in their punches.

Bigmacpoper
10-02-2009, 08:18 AM
RIDICULOUS... you have posted this thread so as to try to imply that your idol Lennox Lewis is greater than any fighter who does not match-up to him in size which is laughable... you have failed in your attempts to try and prove Lewis had the chin.

Simple question,how many times was Lewis knocked down compared to how many times Joe Frazier was knocked down?

mickey malone
10-02-2009, 08:42 AM
Well in primos defense it seems like during that fight they forgot the whole after a knock down go to the opposite corner of the ring. Or was baer trying to wrestle carnera?

Any ways size dosnt matter as im pretty sure marciano and dempsey would have both pwned lewis. probaly on a stoppage as their punches would have been breaking facial bones, cracking ribs, and tearing flesh. where as lennox might have rung their bells once or twice but nothing that actually inflicted lasting damage.

big guys these days lack top speed in their punches.
Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd & Buster Keeton were a lot faster than the cast of Friends to...

To say that Lewis was too slow to hold off 13-14 stone fighters is fantasy..

TheGreatA
10-02-2009, 09:17 AM
I tend to think that the 180-190 pound heavyweights can't really deal with modern great super heavyweights (Lewis, Klitschko brothers, maybe Bowe) but I don't see any reason why the 200-220 pound heavyweights such as Ali, Foreman and Holmes couldn't.

Dempsey and Marciano would still beat down a Jameel McCline/Chris Arreola though in my opinion. And they wouldn't be overmatched against the likes of Ali and Holmes in size.

Kid McCoy
10-02-2009, 11:38 AM
For those who think size is not a factor I would ask this: when was the last time a Rocky Marciano-sized heavyweight dominated the division?

The heavyweight division has changed in recent years. The days of the typical 6'1" 190lb heavyweight are gone. If Jack Dempsey came along in the past decade, there'd be no Gibbons and Carpentiers to fight (even Firpo would be smallish by today's standards). He'd be up against men substantially larger than himself in most every outing, unless he stayed at cruiser, and men a lot better than Jess Willard. That it's been decades since anyone Dempsey's size tore through the heavyweight division the way he did in his prime tells me he'd be up against it. Not saying he couldn't do it, but it would be that much harder.

Size is obviously not the only issue, as throughout history smaller fighters have overcome bigger ones, but it is a factor. A good big man generally beats a good little man in the lower divisions, yet once they get past 200lbs that golden rule seems to be disregarded. The Lewis, Bowes, Klitschkos etc are not mere lumbering oafs, but actually have good skills, know how to use their assets and are a grade above most previous superheavies in the division. At their best they'd be difficult for anyone to beat, let alone a guy conceding 50lbs in weight and 5-6" in height, which is why it's been so long since anyone that size ripped up the division.

MANGLER
10-02-2009, 11:43 AM
Size ain't the be all end all in boxing, but it does matter.

BTW, where Tuggers?

Ziggy Stardust
10-02-2009, 12:24 PM
The problem as I see it is too many posters want to make these comparisons in a vacuum. My point is: If you aren't going to compare Heavyweights without making adjustments for the eras in which they fought then THERE'S NO POINT IN MAKING THE COMPARISONS AT ALL!!!!! You're comparing apples to oranges and being academicaly dishonest. It's like that idiot who wants to prove Rommel was a better general than Napoleon by pitting Rommel's Panzers and machine guns against Napoleon's calvalry and muskets. It's absurd and doesn't prove anything. If the point is to see who the better fighter was than either account for the era or don't bother: You're simply setting up a strawman and wasting everybody's time because there isn't any knowledge to gleen from it.

Poet

Infern0
10-02-2009, 05:14 PM
The problem as I see it is too many posters want to make these comparisons in a vacuum. My point is: If you aren't going to compare Heavyweights without making adjustments for the eras in which they fought then THERE'S NO POINT IN MAKING THE COMPARISONS AT ALL!!!!! You're comparing apples to oranges and being academicaly dishonest. It's like that idiot who wants to prove Rommel was a better general than Napoleon by pitting Rommel's Panzers and machine guns against Napoleon's calvalry and muskets. It's absurd and doesn't prove anything. If the point is to see who the better fighter was than either account for the era or don't bother: You're simply setting up a strawman and wasting everybody's time because there isn't any knowledge to gleen from it.

Poet

You can compare Pound For Pound though, and in that respect a guy like Dempsey or Marciano suddenly becomes easily a match for the modern super heavyweights.

This thread was a response to the one saying Dempsey would easily ko lewis

Ziggy Stardust
10-03-2009, 12:14 AM
You can compare Pound For Pound though, and in that respect a guy like Dempsey or Marciano suddenly becomes easily a match for the modern super heavyweights.

This thread was a response to the one saying Dempsey would easily ko lewis

That wasn't directed at you my friend! It was more a general venting over what I see going on in a number of threads when ehse types of discussions come up.

Poet

sonnyboyx2
10-03-2009, 07:01 AM
Simple question,how many times was Lewis knocked down compared to how many times Joe Frazier was knocked down?

simply question which merits a simply answer, Frazier was knocked down 10 times in his career yet regained his feet every time before the count reached 6 whereas Lennox Lewis was decked 2 times in his career, the first time he fell around the ring with glassy eyes and was still on unstead legs 10 minutes after the fight was stopped ( i know because i was there ) and the 2nd time he was floored the referee could have counted to 100 and Lewis would not have beaten the count

Spartacus Sully
10-03-2009, 07:21 AM
Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd & Buster Keeton were a lot faster than the cast of Friends to...

To say that Lewis was too slow to hold off 13-14 stone fighters is fantasy..

not that he was too slow but that the top speed his fist reaches is not enough to do the same kind of damage as the top speed of the likes of marciano louis and dempsey.

rip off the flap from a cardboard box. now have some one hold it with both hands and try to poke through it with 1 or 2 fingers. not to hard right. now you hold it with one hand and try to poke through it with the other. no amount of power will let you poke through that card board flap. what you requie is top speed. dempsey marciano louis had that top speed, lewis on the other hand would never be able to poke through the flap because he was lacking the top speed.

so what im saying is that dempsey marciano and louis had the speed to tear flesh and stop fights from bleeding and bones shattering though at the time th fights would cointinue. where as lewis had the power to keep some one at bay but not stop a fight after 5 rounds due to cuts especially agaisnt the likes of people who would pickle their face and hands to make them tougher.

Simialr to the kind of punishment jeffries took against fitsimmons cept dempsey marciano and louis would have had no problem lasting 12 rounds

also due to size diffrence it would be like poking through the card board held by some one else with 2 hands for louis dempsey and marciano. where as lewis would be poking through the cardboard held by one hand against dempsey and marciano.

Mersey
10-03-2009, 08:56 AM
simply question which merits a simply answer, Frazier was knocked down 10 times in his career yet regained his feet every time before the count reached 6 whereas Lennox Lewis was decked 2 times in his career, the first time he fell around the ring with glassy eyes and was still on unstead legs 10 minutes after the fight was stopped ( i know because i was there ) and the 2nd time he was floored the referee could have counted to 100 and Lewis would not have beaten the count

Do you ever make a non-hating Lennox Lewis post?

I think in every thread I've seen you post in, you say "Lewis was poleaxed" :dunno:

Spartacus Sully
10-03-2009, 09:13 AM
in reality it often would take multiple swings to knock out a cow even with a pole axe back in they day we would bet quarters own how many swings it would take.

mickey malone
10-03-2009, 09:13 AM
not that he was too slow but that the top speed his fist reaches is not enough to do the same kind of damage as the top speed of the likes of marciano louis and dempsey.

rip off the flap from a cardboard box. now have some one hold it with both hands and try to poke through it with 1 or 2 fingers. not to hard right. now you hold it with one hand and try to poke through it with the other. no amount of power will let you poke through that card board flap. what you requie is top speed. dempsey marciano louis had that top speed, lewis on the other hand would never be able to poke through the flap because he was lacking the top speed.

so what im saying is that dempsey marciano and louis had the speed to tear flesh and stop fights from bleeding and bones shattering though at the time th fights would cointinue. where as lewis had the power to keep some one at bay but not stop a fight after 5 rounds due to cuts especially agaisnt the likes of people who would pickle their face and hands to make them tougher.

Simialr to the kind of punishment jeffries took against fitsimmons cept dempsey marciano and louis would have had no problem lasting 12 rounds

also due to size diffrence it would be like poking through the card board held by some one else with 2 hands for louis dempsey and marciano. where as lewis would be poking through the cardboard held by one hand against dempsey and marciano.
I fully understand your train of thought.. 'You can't hurt what you can't hit' and that's very true, but seriously...... The only way any of these guy's under 200lbs can make a dent in Lewis is if they caught him on 1 of his 2 off nights, so yes, it is possible, but highly unlikely.. You'd probably get 10/1 at the bookies..

For example, the injuries inflicted on Willard.. It doesn't take much working out..
The rules allowed Dempsey to hit Willard on the way up.. Credit to Jack for putting him down in the 1st place, but even with this HUGE advantage STILL took him, was it 7? barrages to finish the big farmer..

Can you imagine how many people Lewis would have killed, had the rules been the same today?

What I'm saying is, 'You can hit, but it won't hurt'... And shortly, you're gonna get nicked for speeding...

Marciano never fought anyone near as big and mobile as Lewis, & would have been stopped on cuts a couple of times had it not been in the day.. He to, after having limited success & hurting his hands, would be stretched around 6..

Joe Louis would be the only old school fighter to stand a good chance of beating Lennox, but I wouldn't put my house on it..

Spartacus Sully
10-03-2009, 09:25 AM
I disagree as far as damages and getting back up. I thought one of the more damaging blows would be the standing one that shattered willards cheekbone.

i dont think their gonna rattle lennox's head around but theres gonna be blood and broken bones. where as the smaller fighters will be shaken but not cut.

lennox has a high chance and knocking them out, though id like to think they all could take more then a few hits from lewis, assuming their not fast enough or cant take the hits then lewis will win but thats the only way. more so i see a stoppage mainly some time after the 5th round or if it does go the distance i belive the smaller person will have been busier along with inflicted more visual damage giving him the decision.

mickey malone
10-03-2009, 09:55 AM
I disagree as far as damages and getting back up. I thought one of the more damaging blows would be the standing one that shattered willards cheekbone.

i dont think their gonna rattle lennox's head around but theres gonna be blood and broken bones. where as the smaller fighters will be shaken but not cut.

lennox has a high chance and knocking them out, though id like to think they all could take more then a few hits from lewis, assuming their not fast enough or cant take the hits then lewis will win but thats the only way. more so i see a stoppage mainly some time after the 5th round or if it does go the distance i belive the smaller person will have been busier along with inflicted more visual damage giving him the decision.
To go the distance would me a miracle in itself, but yes, If it did, you would have to favour someone in the calibre of Marciano or Dempsey..

Spray_resistant
10-03-2009, 10:17 AM
Size matters, its very important especially when skills are on an even playing field between fighters of various size. No way the HWs of the past who would be small CWs today could compete with Lennox, Wlad, or Vitali.......Valuev and Olge yeah because they are ****, I would pick Dawson to beat both of them since he was mentioned in this thread.

Bigmacpoper
10-03-2009, 11:42 AM
simply question which merits a simply answer, Frazier was knocked down 10 times in his career yet regained his feet every time before the count reached 6 whereas Lennox Lewis was decked 2 times in his career, the first time he fell around the ring with glassy eyes and was still on unstead legs 10 minutes after the fight was stopped ( i know because i was there ) and the 2nd time he was floored the referee could have counted to 100 and Lewis would not have beaten the count

frazier was knocked down 11 times in his career,a similar amount to how many times Wladimir Klitschko was knocked down.

Knocked down six times(they counted five but it was six) against foreman in just two rounds,knocked down twice by oscar bonavena,took an eight count in just his third pro bout and two times in the 5th - one short left and one short right which planted frazier on his backside in the corner.