For what it’s worth Marciano at that point in time could probably beat Ali then, Marciano was all muscle while Ali was fat and out of shape due to his ban.
I mean ur right, there’s so many factors that go into making a top guy. I’m always impressed by any decent shorter heavyweight. But to be a lot shorter u must be bringing a lot of other attributes to the table. A lot of real tall guys are lacking in areas too. But yeah any HW whose been near the mountain top regardless of his height I’m prolly underestimating. Shavers had a sneaky chopping right hand that could hurt anyone. Smoking Cooper was just a plain tough strong fighter. These guys were still not champs though. I’ve seen Tua blow people away, was sure he was next champ. Missed barely on Lennox a few times, but then Lennox painted him with a right. Tua just couldn’t rush in after that. I don’t know who the shortest best HW is right now. I’d love to see a sub 6ft guy come along. But as of right now all the guys are pretty tall.
Ruiz is probably under 6 feet in actuality.
Today you have to be 200+. Does not mean a 190er can't beat the **** out of Fury, Wilder, and Ruiz while weighing 190. It means he's not allowed. Find me an era when they were allowed but failed. Doesn't exist. What does exist is an era where they were allowed and dominated....that's pretty powerful and there's a loooot of history on it.
A 190 lber can easily put on water weight, weigh in with clothes/costume, not take a dump and weigh in above the 200 pound minimum at the weigh-in
The man who began the domination of the big men and created the concept of a good big ‘un beats a good little ‘un - John L Sullivan, the first heavyweight, was 190 pounds in his prime so maybe 190 pounds is a big man.
I’ve said it before, we watch fighters on the scale but nobody ever sees anyone measured for height or reach. Sometimes the numbers aren’t even consistent. Sum people still say Mike was 5’9” or 5’10”. Even at a lot of face offs the numbers don’t seem to add up. Nobody actually knows the height of anyone past or present because they never saw them measured under scrutiny. I was laser measured at a c hair over 5’10” but everyone shorter than me will tell me I must be 6ft.
But what about a guy over the 190 pound mark. Will he really be at a disadvantage ?
That was Dempsey19’s quote not mine. He responded to my talk of tall ( superheavyweights ) fighters having an advantage like u said. When they are all great they all have something to offer though. But like I posted I just imagine how good a 5’10” fighter would have to be to beat an elite tall and long fighter like Lennox consistently.
He was responding to my post asking about 5’10” fighters with superheavyweight-esque reaches like Shavers and Cooper.
That's a whole lot of steps, even if they're simple, that Fitzs did not have to take. While this 190 has tummy cramps because he's holding a **** Bob's sipping sherry and feeling good.
During Sully's era the name that most often regarded as the man he should have fought but didn't is Godfrey, the colored champion, who was not a big'un. Corbett and Fitzs are your next champions, hardly big dudes....maybe I missed your point but Sullivan's dominance alone does not equate to big men trouncing small men, it equates to Sullivan being dominant in his era. Small men surrounded him and took over after him.
:lol1: I could be wrong but wasn't that the same time p4p was first used?
Before the 190s were forced out you didn't see many 160s or 170s after Burns. That makes sense given the minimal for HW was 175 since 1920. And of course a 160 lber would never be allowed to try again. So is Willard really that good or did he get protected by the smaller pool of fighters?
from Dempsey until the 60s the 185ers did just fine and are well represented. The minimal becomes 190 and like magic the new good small end of the division is 190s.
190 lingered but probably had the roughest time. I'd say when the 200+ was edging out the 190s is probably the strongest argument for good big men...because who do boxing fans have to rep the 190s in the 70s or 80s? Lucky to have Spinks I reckon...by memory. One could argue being big was cool in that era, it's the Arnold era in film and the explosion of things like Strong Man come from that era, but, I'm just saying you could make that argument not actually suggesting that's why Spinks is so lonely for sure.
Then the new min becomes 200+ and several small men grab titles including a MW who made weight.
Now here we are with 201 as the min and a champion who debuted at 207 and fights often at 215.
The smaller end of the division's always done fine. It's been moved loads and forced the smaller end to be larger over time but I really don't see much argument for one demographic displacing the other without sanction bodies making it happen.
It wasn't that long ago Haye gave up 99lbs to whoop Valuev ... because in all honesty being huge doesn't make you good and a whole demographic of huge and good is unheard of. Wlad was huge and good and smashed Haye. Nikolai was never very good, just huge, and got whooped.
Could you imagine Wilder weighing in at 215 and fighting a 116? Haye took Valuev's belt though.
Fun talk buds.
My point is actually that 190 is plenty big.
I do see where you are coming from.
In his prime Billy Conn was the finest fighting machine on the planet.
Andre Ward beat Clemente Russo who had no trouble beating both Usyk and Wilder.
If Fitz had been prime when he fought Jeffries...
I’ve talked about it before, I can’t believe how fighters are not measured for height by a commission in front of everyone each fight. We make so much of weight. But I’ve seen different listed heights for the same fighter at various times. I didn’t think Ruiz was 6’3” when I saw him at the first presser v AJ. But I haven’t seen AJ measured either. There’s so much money at stake ud think fans and bettors would have a right to get an accurate height. I saw Ruiz on YouTube today doing a pizza taste test. I don’t think he looked 6’3” but I don’t know if he’s sub 6ft though. We should know these things for sure. I will say he didn’t look to be overly heavy.
We live in a great time if world class athletes are doing pizza taste tests !
Before the fight of the century, Frazier prayed to God to let him kill Ali.
Do you want Frazier removed from the Hall of Fame ?
This is the very nature of the sport for better or for worse.
Taller fighter still has the advantage because if he were to pull from a punch he can travel more distance. Same can be true for throwing forward and covering distance
Look at wilder. It's tough to evade that right because when he hop steps and extends he can cover almost half the ring.
That doesn’t seem like that huge an advantage.
But what's the average size for the last 50 years?
6’1”, 76”, 213 pounds, hardly much bigger.
And the weight is only really inflated by Bowe and Tyson being abnormally heavy when he won the title (221.5)
But what about a guy over the 190 pound mark. Will he really be at a disadvantage ?
But what about a 5’10” man with a long reach like Bert Cooper or Earnie Shavers ? (Both have about the same reach as Vitali)
You seem to be the type of fan that favours punchers/ brawlers over boxers. That’s a very subjective list, fair play for posting it, buts it’s heavy on that type of fighter.
Tunney was Dempsey’s bogeyman, he only lost once I think, his defeat to Dempsey, which he avenged more than once. Sounds like Tunney was better than Dempsey to me, although not as big a star.
I’ve not seen La Motta in many top 10 of all time lists, excellent fighter though he undoubtedly was.
Perhaps I do favour brawlers over out-boxers.
Tunney narrowly missed out on the list. Mostly because I think he struggled against a version of Dempsey that was past his best. I just don't seem him beating a prime Dempsey.
I thought he was well short of one listing I saw of 6’3”. But he looked taller than I expected in ring. I assume most boxing shoes have about the same sole height. I’m surprised there isn’t actual video footage of these guys getting measured. Weight is so important. It’s also a sport that is bet on so ud think there’d be official stats. I’ve heard commentators say Tyson is 5’9”. I heard merchant say he saw Tyson measure at 5’11.5” with his own eyes. I’m sure mike has since shrunk. But has anyone asked him? Asked Ruiz? Hollywood actors like mark wahlberg pretend to be 5’10” to sell a fake fight, so do fighters do the same to sell to fans?
I think Tyson was measured in boxing shoes.
Wlad has always said he's an inch shorter than his listed 6'6". Ali has always said he's 6'2.5" and Tyson claims 5'10". But they could all be even shorter and claiming heights only slightly lower than their listed heights to seem truthful.
Fury was listed as 6'7" in his early 20s and seemed the same height as 6'6" Cooney when he interviewed him before the Wilder fight. Perhaps he could even be 6'6". Evander was listed as 6'1" as a cruiserweight. Foreman was listed as 6'3" in his first career.
No because they'd say he's an over-sized freakish cruiserweight who's beating up smaller men. Wilder should be given a lot of credit for fighting BIGGER guys at heavyweight who outweigh him by 30 lbs. or even 50 lbs. Hell, if he fought Big Baby Miller that's like an 80 lbs. weight advantage for Big Baby??
Wilder is seen as a villain or a thug, so he's always in a no-win situation. Everyone wants him to lose, but he keeps winning...
When he becomes undisputed, he's just a bum who ducked the Klitschkos. :lol1:
He could very easily give up 3 figures against Miller.
Where was your espn classic growing up ? S*** I use to watch the old fights all the time. At Times still do. Reason why my personal list changes at times and normally don’t answer threads like these
ESPN classic Dempsey vs Willard was what made me fall in love with boxing. The sheer speed and ferocity and downright superhuman power of Dempsey... Jesus it still sends a chill down my spine !
I checked and Tunney was actually 2 - 0 against Dempsey. His only loss was to Grebb, who he went on to beat three times and draw with once. It sounds like Tunney was Dempsey's bogeyman to me, like Holyfield was to Tyson. I don't know if it was the best Dempsey but Tunney's record was superb.
Like I said, I definitely can't agree to Hearns being chosen instead of Leonard though. I don't see how that can objectively be the case.
I know I should put my list up after voicing my opinion on yours, I was trying to think though and I don't think I could even narrow it to 10. Maybe a 20 in no particular order.
Dempsey put Tunney down for 14 seconds in the 2nd fight. The only reason it wasn’t a KO was Dempsey’s silly mistake. I guess it could be argued that Tunney got to his senses before 10 but he seemed to be in dreamland until 9 and I’m not sure he had enough time to stand up and resume his fighting pose. And even if he did he may have been vulnerable to being finished off. I’m not really undermining Tunney’s victory. It takes courage to get off the canvas after a beating like that and win a fight. But the fact that all of this was with a shot Dempsey makes me think he would definitely lose to a prime Dempsey.
A personally think that Hearns won the rematch with Leonard and that Hagler beat both (though Leonard was coming from a lay-off). They had 2 very close fights. (The first fight was the epitome of a come behind victory). Hearns has the better record and fought longer. He also demolished Duran in dominant fashion. He was the first 5 division champ- etc.
So you're telling me he's the 2nd biggest active pro boxer in India like its a bad thing?
To be fair I do think he's gonna need some Zou Shiming type run up to a title to have the influence I'm talking about, but I believe its doable. From my understanding pro boxing in India is barely a thing so it gots a long way to go & it is possible Vijender is already too old to have the upside for his country admittedly.
Pro-boxing is a thing in India.
It’s just people know Vijender isn’t exactly a superstar and so people have less respect for him than they have for some foreign fighters.
I don't fully agree with it but I have seen worst lists (special call-out to those hipsters who always have Sam Langford at the top)
Here's my Top 10 (Based purely on eye test except No. 1 because he was a super welterweight who became heavyweight champ of the world)
1. Bob Fitzsimmoms
2. SRR
3. Dempsey
4. Monzon
5. Holyfield
6. Hagler
7. LaMotta
8. Louis
9. Ali (I put certain heavyweights above Ali because I think they were better P4P not better proper)
10. Tossup between Hearns and SRL.
Its a FACT its barely a thing. Idk wtf you are even going back n forth with me if you don't know that.
There's over a billion people in India & France, 66M population, had over 250 boxing events last year. India had 14.
I meant watching it.
that Vijender India guy. Those guys are nearly one man armies for their countries in boxing & in the next 10-20 years I bet we see a slew of Chinese & Indians in pro boxing that will all be saying those two guys influenced them to get into boxing.
As an Indian I assure you that this is definitely not the case. No one gives 2 ****s about that guy.
Mary Kom, Canelo and Tyson are the most admired boxers in India. To a lesser extent Fury because he, as a gypsy is somewhat Indian ethnically.
The rematch was when they were both well past their best.
I don’t even think of it as being relevant in either of their careers - it was too long after the first one.
They fought when they were both in their primes and Leonard won by TKO.
He was the best of that era imo - he made Duran quit, pushed him in a tough 15 round war in the first fight, and also beat Hagler.
Hagler stopped Hearns in three.
Leonard was the only one with a win over each of the other three. That puts him above Hearns for me.
Leonard won by TKO when he was behind on all the cards, it was a very hard fought victory, not a one-sided steamrolling.
I think we disagree on Leonard v Hagler, you think Leonard deserved the nod, I think Hagler did, that probably gives us different opinions on Leonard's ranking.
Great comparison example.
I'm not a big fan of non-combat sports these days, but I've even heard of all these 6'9 cats shooting 3's now which was never much of a thing when I was coming up & still watching the NBA. Sh^t they might bench you if you shooting 3's as a big man back then lol.
Curry ain't 6'9". He's 6'2" (and he has a long neck and head). Short wingspan/reach too. Only 180 pounds
Does anyone see some of Mike Tyson in Andy Ruiz?
(It wasn't until other people mentioned Micheal Jordan in comparison to Kawhi Leonard in these recent NBA Playoffs, that I actually saw some of Jordan in Kawhi; similar kind of bounce to his game, soft jumpers, very nuanced)
He’s more measured than Tyson and uses his jab for more than getting into closer range IMO. But again I have only seen his AJ fight. But I generally get the feeling he isn’t as destructive as Tyson was.
New York, thick crust with extra pepperoni.
If I were to define Ruiz in a pizza, It would probably be some kind of dessert pizza with peanuts and chocolate. :)