Giant Heavyweights Always Could Have Ruled?

[HawkHogan]

The top marathon runners are typically tiny East Africans no more than 5'6" and below 130 lbs. No matter how hard and long a 200 lbs man trains, he will never be able to compete with world class runners over such a long distance.

But the difference between a marathon run and a "marathon" fight, is obviously that a running race isn't over, until the contestans cross the finish line - while a boxing match, scheduled for 45 rounds, can be over in a few rounds.

So can we think of any sub-200 lbs boxers today (or from the past), who would be able to hang in there with Fury, Joyce, Usyk, etc - until the big guys collapse from fatigue? Or would they likely be stopped, long before the endurance factor kicks in?

I don't think modern fighters are trained for it, but yes I think a guy from the past era who weighs nearly 100lbs less than Tyson could take Tyson. Certainly Joyce. Usyk's a bit light himself but if was coming into a 45 rounder at his current HW weight then yes. If I have to name then I'd assume the best guy to name is Ruby Rob, but honestly I don't think you need a great from the era with no scheduled end. I believe a competent boxer from that era has most of the advantage in that situation. They know how to go for hours and that's really all they need.

I'm not sure how to word this, we don't really know one another and I do not want to be disrespectful. So, I will be blunt while preambling as I am by telling you I respect you and until you make personal insults I will always respect you:

What you said to me in the second paragraph can be restated like this; giants have a puncher's chance. I don't think that's a very well thought out response. We usually say "puncher's chance" for a guy who is probably going to lose a fight but has slim chance of winning with their power alone. On top of this, when did giants not have a puncher's chance? It's a true enough statement but not a very solid counter-point in my opinion. I apologize if that upsets you.

[kara]

- - Niko was actually quite quick in his youth as Ice John related in our first exposure to his presence..

He retired for surgery needed to save him from further debilitating long term effects of his pituitary gland generated Giantism.

Same happened to Paul White from WWE. Andre The Giant died from it

[Bundana]

I don't think modern fighters are trained for it, but yes I think a guy from the past era who weighs nearly 100lbs less than Tyson could take Tyson. Certainly Joyce. Usyk's a bit light himself but if was coming into a 45 rounder at his current HW weight then yes. If I have to name then I'd assume the best guy to name is Ruby Rob, but honestly I don't think you need a great from the era with no scheduled end. I believe a competent boxer from that era has most of the advantage in that situation. They know how to go for hours and that's really all they need.

I'm not sure how to word this, we don't really know one another and I do not want to be disrespectful. So, I will be blunt while preambling as I am by telling you I respect you and until you make personal insults I will always respect you:

What you said to me in the second paragraph can be restated like this; giants have a puncher's chance. I don't think that's a very well thought out response. We usually say "puncher's chance" for a guy who is probably going to lose a fight but has slim chance of winning with their power alone. On top of this, when did giants not have a puncher's chance? It's a true enough statement but not a very solid counter-point in my opinion. I apologize if that upsets you.

I don't believe I have a reputation here, as someone throwing personal insults around! I know, certain posters like to engage in juvenile namecalling - but that's not really my "thing".

Also, everybody is entitled to their own opinions - so I'm not "upset", by anything you have to say on this subject.

That being said, I strongly question that someone like Fitz would be able to last very long against today's top HWs - some of whom would outweigh him by close to 100 lbs. I have a hard time even imagining Fitz going up against the likes of Fury and Joyce - much less that he would be able to outlast them, and finally bring them down, in a distance fight. Sorry, but I just can't see it!

And what is it, I'm saying in the second pararaph, that makes you respond with:

"What you said to me in the second paragraph can be restated like this; giants have a puncher's chance. I don't think that's a very well thought out response. We usually say "puncher's chance" for a guy who is probably going to lose a fight but has slim chance of winning with their power alone. On top of this, when did giants not have a puncher's chance? It's a true enough statement but not a very solid counter-point in my opinion. I apologize if that upsets you."

[The D3vil]

A PEDed out Foreman in 1974 would have been scary if not outright dangerous.

He was all of that without PEDs

With PEDs he would be deadly

[HawkHogan]

I don't believe I have a reputation here, as someone throwing personal insults around! I know, certain posters like to engage in juvenile namecalling - but that's not really my "thing".

Also, everybody is entitled to their own opinions - so I'm not "upset", by anything you have to say on this subject.

That being said, I strongly question that someone like Fitz would be able to last very long against today's top HWs - some of whom would outweigh him by close to 100 lbs. I have a hard time even imagining Fitz going up against the likes of Fury and Joyce - much less that he would be able to outlast them, and finally bring them down, in a distance fight. Sorry, but I just can't see it!

And what is it, I'm saying in the second pararaph, that makes you respond with:

"What you said to me in the second paragraph can be restated like this; giants have a puncher's chance. I don't think that's a very well thought out response. We usually say "puncher's chance" for a guy who is probably going to lose a fight but has slim chance of winning with their power alone. On top of this, when did giants not have a puncher's chance? It's a true enough statement but not a very solid counter-point in my opinion. I apologize if that upsets you."

Noted, I won't worry about you taking disagreement personally anymore.

scheduled for 45 rounds, can be over in a few rounds.

That's the puncher's chance.


Without an end in sight a smaller fighter can refuse to engage for 20 rounds and safely secure a victory. To my knowledge this is exactly what happened. Every form of boxing prior to modernized sanctioned boxing features stalling in heaps. As the sport changes so does the size of men able to compete at a high level. It's really no different than runners believing they're faster. They run on paved tracks while older generations ran on sand, so, it is pretty assured modern runners have faster times.

I'll word it like this; the idea that men in general have magic modern muscles, reflexes, speed, etc. sounds sillier to me than the idea that big men of the past would be effective in modern rules and big men of today would be equally ineffective in any ruleset they were ineffective in, in the past.

We, as a species, have not evolved. The ancient boxers, the war of the fists mostre performers, the unarmed duelists, the prize fighters, and the modern boxer are all just humans with human limitations.

Finally, the skills people talk about, are you sure they're more skilled or are they fighting under a rule set more applicable to them being able to show their skills?



I'm not always in the corner of old-time fighters it's just in this particular case I see no reason to believe modern boxers would do any better than fighters in the past in situations similar to the past. Mayweather, imo, is the goat, but Money doesn't have the skills needed to fight a guy in cleats.

[Bundana]

Noted, I won't worry about you taking disagreement personally anymore.




That's the puncher's chance.


Without an end in sight a smaller fighter can refuse to engage for 20 rounds and safely secure a victory. To my knowledge this is exactly what happened. Every form of boxing prior to modernized sanctioned boxing features stalling in heaps. As the sport changes so does the size of men able to compete at a high level. It's really no different than runners believing they're faster. They run on paved tracks while older generations ran on sand, so, it is pretty assured modern runners have faster times.

I'll word it like this; the idea that men in general have magic modern muscles, reflexes, speed, etc. sounds sillier to me than the idea that big men of the past would be effective in modern rules and big men of today would be equally ineffective in any ruleset they were ineffective in, in the past.

We, as a species, have not evolved. The ancient boxers, the war of the fists mostre performers, the unarmed duelists, the prize fighters, and the modern boxer are all just humans with human limitations.

Finally, the skills people talk about, are you sure they're more skilled or are they fighting under a rule set more applicable to them being able to show their skills?



I'm not always in the corner of old-time fighters it's just in this particular case I see no reason to believe modern boxers would do any better than fighters in the past in situations similar to the past. Mayweather, imo, is the goat, but Money doesn't have the skills needed to fight a guy in cleats.

So the way you see it, someone like Fitz would just have to dance out of range for 20 rounds against today's SHWs - thus safely securing victory, when the big guys collapse from fatigue? Ok, if you say so.

[Willow The Wisp]

Interesting text in this thread. All is good to consider so long as we avoid the hubris of talking in absolutes. Suffice to say that skills and effort being equal; both size and lack thereof each provide advantages which can be harnessed by style and strategy. I'm unclear what more can be rung out of the discourse. I would call to mind a quote by the character played by Humphrey Bogart in "The Harder they Fall", when he says "To big. Uncoordinated" as the prospect bumps his head on the ceiling hung lightshade.

[DeeMoney]

Noted, I won't worry about you taking disagreement personally anymore.




That's the puncher's chance.


Without an end in sight a smaller fighter can refuse to engage for 20 rounds and safely secure a victory. To my knowledge this is exactly what happened. Every form of boxing prior to modernized sanctioned boxing features stalling in heaps. As the sport changes so does the size of men able to compete at a high level. It's really no different than runners believing they're faster. They run on paved tracks while older generations ran on sand, so, it is pretty assured modern runners have faster times.

I'll word it like this; the idea that men in general have magic modern muscles, reflexes, speed, etc. sounds sillier to me than the idea that big men of the past would be effective in modern rules and big men of today would be equally ineffective in any ruleset they were ineffective in, in the past.

We, as a species, have not evolved. The ancient boxers, the war of the fists mostre performers, the unarmed duelists, the prize fighters, and the modern boxer are all just humans with human limitations.

Finally, the skills people talk about, are you sure they're more skilled or are they fighting under a rule set more applicable to them being able to show their skills?



I'm not always in the corner of old-time fighters it's just in this particular case I see no reason to believe modern boxers would do any better than fighters in the past in situations similar to the past. Mayweather, imo, is the goat, but Money doesn't have the skills needed to fight a guy in cleats.

I agree with most of your premise, but I think you miss the mark somewhat with the noted part. Nobody is arguing any sort of evolution that leads to naturally better muscles; but there are a couple of factors at play that do point to modern athletes being better athletes than those of over a century ago.

One is better living conditions in general. A population with better diets and health care will on average produce bigger, stronger, and more athletic people (speaking in the macro sense of the term, certainly there will be those that fall outside the norm in all instances). Ergo, a healthier populous in general will produce better athletes. And while the rise of junk/fast food has taken a toll on most western nations; people in general are a lot healthier now than they were during the 2nd Industrial Revolution (roughly the era when fighters who fought 45 round fights were born).

Additionally, modern athletic training HAS improved modern athletes this isn't evolution, this is just building upon the great minds who came before. Now I am not just writing weight training (though smart strength training does play a role in it), and I am not implying steroids (though modern legal medicine and diets are part of it). The fact is strong athletes today are stronger, endurance athletes today have better stamina, and sprint athletes today are faster, relative to where they were over a century ago.

And while you are correct that changes in equipment have benefitted modern athletes (and I am waiting for the obligatory Jim Thorpe ran in mismatched shoes ergo he must've been faster comment) it isn't to the extent that makes them superior to modern athletes. David Epstein's Ted Talk from a few years back did a good job addressing this, where they accounted for the amount of force absorbed by the old gravel tracks, and then utilized that information (along with stride length and frequency) to compare Jesse Owens world record time with that of Usain Bolt's in a recent Olympics. And while Owens time moves up from not in the final group, to second overall, when accounting for equipment, it was still second. In essence, modern training DOES make athletes better than they once were, just not to the extent it may appear when not isolating the variables of equipment.

[QueensburyRules]

I agree with most of your premise, but I think you miss the mark somewhat with the noted part. Nobody is arguing any sort of evolution that leads to naturally better muscles; but there are a couple of factors at play that do point to modern athletes being better athletes than those of over a century ago.

One is better living conditions in general. A population with better diets and health care will on average produce bigger, stronger, and more athletic people (speaking in the macro sense of the term, certainly there will be those that fall outside the norm in all instances). Ergo, a healthier populous in general will produce better athletes. And while the rise of junk/fast food has taken a toll on most western nations; people in general are a lot healthier now than they were during the 2nd Industrial Revolution (roughly the era when fighters who fought 45 round fights were born).

Additionally, modern athletic training HAS improved modern athletes this isn't evolution, this is just building upon the great minds who came before. Now I am not just writing weight training (though smart strength training does play a role in it), and I am not implying steroids (though modern legal medicine and diets are part of it). The fact is strong athletes today are stronger, endurance athletes today have better stamina, and sprint athletes today are faster, relative to where they were over a century ago.

And while you are correct that changes in equipment have benefitted modern athletes (and I am waiting for the obligatory Jim Thorpe ran in mismatched shoes ergo he must've been faster comment) it isn't to the extent that makes them superior to modern athletes. David Epstein's Ted Talk from a few years back did a good job addressing this, where they accounted for the amount of force absorbed by the old gravel tracks, and then utilized that information (along with stride length and frequency) to compare Jesse Owens world record time with that of Usain Bolt's in a recent Olympics. And while Owens time moves up from not in the final group, to second overall, when accounting for equipment, it was still second. In essence, modern training DOES make athletes better than they once were, just not to the extent it may appear when not isolating the variables of equipment.

- - In general terms, Western nations, or more specifically the US have become more sedentary complimented by easy drive by junk food access to fuel endless computer gaming that has led to spikes in obesity and diabetes and death rates.

More knowledgeable training and medical care does not equate to better athletes, athleticism being a genetic trait rather than something that training creates. Hence in Baseball, the Dominican Republic having in proportion of it's tiny population the best players by far. They were long an untapped source of talent, yet still cannot surpass Babe, Lou Gehrig, and Ted Williams in the Pantheon, nor pitchers like Cy Young or Walter Johnson. Turn of the Century Chief Wilson still holds the single season record for triples, 36.

Future HOFer Albert Pujols is the best player of his era, yet has less than half that total for his career in spite of massive training and medical care assigned to him that was not even conceived of in Chief's day.

[Slugfester]

Big Baby Miller is on the loose again. His latest suspension must be up so he is prowling for opponents. This sad blob of meat should have been banned a long time ago, ideally.