Does size matter in HW boxing?

Vitali still has to prove himself, but no I don't see Marciano whiping the floor with Lewis.

People say the all time greats were not by far as good as todays big, the could mean that they are worse just because they are smaller, go too lower classes and youl see faster and better enduranced fighters. That boxing is a lot more beautiful but it doesent mean they are btter than the heavies, 250cant fight like 200 men but it doesent men the big boys are worse it means boxing has changed. Do you realy see Marciano whiping the floor with Vit? ps i love them both.

Like some of the other people said, size is an advantage if your a certain height, but punching power + speed is far more important.

Some big guys have a lot of power. Some big guys are just slow and easy to hit. i think size is important, maybe not as important as heart, power, talent, chin... i think about my favorite boxers and none of them is just because they're big

Michael Spinks also had success at HW. There aren't insane numbers but the real deal HW's are all between 210-220 in general.

There are a good number of boxers that are coming up and having success (not dominating but having success) Holyfield Moorer Byrd Toney (hopefully still hasn't proven anything really) Braithewaite (I think big truck can make the jump and be successful...his skills are a bit underrated IMO) I'll give you the first three. I agree with you about Toney, and I am undecided about Braithewaite. So that's basically 3 over the past twenty years. And then there are all of the failed attempts like Juan Carlos Gomez and Jirov. All in all the percent of fighters from lower divisions who succussfully make the jump to heavyweight is not very good at all.

If it didn't then the more skilled boxers at lower division like LHW and CW would come up and dominate it much more often. There are a good number of boxers that are coming up and having success (not dominating but having success) Holyfield Moorer Byrd Toney (hopefully still hasn't proven anything really) Braithewaite (I think big truck can make the jump and be successful...his skills are a bit underrated IMO)

If it didn't then the more skilled boxers at lower division like LHW and CW would come up and dominate it much more often.

Oldgringo and dempseyfire are right on. The only great, super-sized heavyweight has been Lennox Lewis, and he's not even in my top five. Foreman and Holmes were not huge - well, Foreman was tall and strong, but he was only 225 at his peak, much like Holmes - but they were larger than most of the great heavyweights. Of course, Foreman in his second career was pretty heavy, but we're not talking about a rock-solied fighter at that point, and Holmes in his over the hill days was pretty damn heavy, but those weren't their physical peaks. Anyway, we're still right.

And Foreman and Holmes at their peak were 210-220, which would be considered 'a small HW' nowadays . . . . . even though Foreman's stamina, considered lacking when he was fighting, would top any HW of today save maybe Byrd . . . .

With the exception of LL, Foreman and Holmes, the greatest HW's were relatively small and quick. Size is only effective when the fighter can utilize his size and can use other resources outside of his size advantage.

Panzerboy gets banned...and now we have to deal with Panzergirl. Both equally retarded. Both equally blind when it comes to boxing. Neither can talk about anything besides non-American HW boxing...hmmm very interesting.

Yes, size matters. But size is like the spunginess of the canvas, it's only important if the fighters make it important. It can be as much of a disadvatnage as an advantage. If you need proof look at Dempsey knocking out Willard, or Louis knocking out Baer. Then look at Dempsey versus Tunney and Louis versus Farr. They had far more trouble with guys their own size than they did with really big fighters. I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again, the best heavyweights have almost all been about 215 or less. As for Valuev, I won't bother arguing with you Panzergirl, but I will say this: He's not that good. This isn't basketball, and being 7'2" does not make you a great fighter. It seems to have made him slow and clumsy though.

great! you can have some snot too! I already figured that was part of the package. I don't picture you having much control over ANY of your bodily functions/fluids.

thanks, ill get my nurse to go put it in your water supply.. Considering that stupidity is not contagious, just genetic & environmental, that really wouldn't worry me.

weheheell..! then its my pleasure to inform you that the recent calculations about him is due to new trainers and methods, something easily reflected in his later showings.. now tell that to your wife.. Your drool-cup is overflowing, spaz.

well, im not into anatomy. i just cant stand people talking down on valuev, i like him. Valuev.... Gotta wonder why this guy has been in the "prospect" stage since mid-1997, don't you ?

Wow, you reall dissected my points well. Good job . . . .

Size matters but there is such thing as ''too big'-when you get as big as the McCline and Klitschko, your overall stamina and coordination suffers. Look at Valuev, the guy is a truck but he goes the distance with bums who were KO'd by other bums. One thing people mis-intepret is the coreelation between weight and punching power. Just b/c someone weighs more does not mean they are a harder hitter. Being a knockout puncher has as much to do with body movement and speed as much as weight. If you weigh too much, your speed and movement suffer. That's why none of these guys around nowadays are fighting like Louis or Tyson did-when you get over 220 or 225, you will not produce the torque of a leaner fighter.

absolutely size is an advantage and like what cple mentioned skill, talent, style & intangibles are more important..... I also have to add punching power definetly is a factor and the equalizer to any kind of a disadvantage....