Why do the largest HWs in history lose to relatively small HWs?

[them_apples]

Tokyo Douglas would beat most of them in history, but only on that single night. Or was Tyson easier than we fathom that night? Maybe some of both.

He just wasnt scared of Tyson. Tyson was snorting a few 8 balls a night at that point, not training and was always a bit overated

[Bronson66]

White guys may like Douglas but that is only because they don't like Mike Tyson, Which is funny in itself. They will say Tyson r@ped that woman so he is a bad person and then praise Jake LaMotta for sleeping with a 14 year old girl.

Also no white guy calls Buster Douglas a ATG for beating a undefeated prime Mike Tyson but Usyk beats Joshua after he got knocked out by Ruiz and then beats crack head Tyson Fury and he is ATG. You know it is because Usyk is white. It Usyk was black none of these white guys would be praising him. They would be calling him racial slurs and saying he is trash.

Lamotta was convicted of aiding the seduction of a minor in his club he was never accused of having *** with one.

Nobody on here has ever praised Lamotta for his well known faults.

Likewise I have never seen a post here which describes AJ as an ATG.

Nor have I seen posters describing black fighters with racial slurs.

The only poster here who incessantly brings race and colour into his every post is YOU.

Either you are a racial bigot ,or a pathetic troll,either way you are a moron ,whose shtick is very reminiscent of Moneytheman who gets banned, returns , gets banned, and returns ,ad nauseum like Ground Hog Day.

[Bundana]

Heâs not beating braddock or Corbett no way

So there's "no way" Usyk would beat these guys?

I honestly don't understand, why it's fun for you to say silly things like that! You're not just a total idiot, who knows nothing about boxing - on the contrary, you have shown that you have at least some historical knowledge. So what on earth do you get out of this constant belittling of modern fighters? It's a mystery!

Yes, yes I know... in your opinion today's boxers suck and all that! But I refuse to believe, that you seriously think, that someone like Corbett would beat Usyk. So what's the background for your often very strange opinions?

[billeau2]

Isn't size the biggest advantage of them all? At least at HW?

Willard - Dempsey 245 vs 187

Primo - Baer 263 to 209

Valuev lost to Haye giving up 100 pounds

Vitali lost to Byrd giving up 35 pounds

Now Fury at 281 losing to a man only 226 pounds ... despite having the single most important advantage in the sport.






i'm just ****ing with youse. We can all make childish besides the points threads that assure we get the answer we want. Doesn't change anything.

The problem as I see it? People tend to isolate categories which does two things: It misrepresents them and does not consider the relationship between categories as primary, as opposed to each separate category.

Weight has to do with the relationship of the fighter to the training to the style used... For preclassical boxing size could be a hinderance. Mobility was, for this style, more prized. Then when fighters started focusing on punching, it was assumed an advantage to come in as light as possible. This meant that big men with more frame size, reach, etc could really use weight as an advantage... For example, Liston used his reach and size expertly. But even Liston and his ilk came in light as they could for fights...

In later times weight was isolated as a "reason" for superiority, without ever being established as such. When we look at "weight" as it affected the Klitskos and Lewis, for example, it is different than how it affected a fighter like Fury, who really was too heavy in his last fights.

So weight is not absolute. It can be an advantage, like reach, or it can be a bane... For Usyk he manages to hold his weight well despite not really having the frame of a fighter like Foreman, or Liston... Does it become an advantage? Or was it just a way for him to get into the benchmark stats to be a heavyweight? rhetorical question really...

Point is: Weight is part of a complex relationship between many training variables, not an absolute of any sort.

[billeau2]

So there's "no way" Usyk would beat these guys?

I honestly don't understand, why it's fun for you to say silly things like that! You're not just a total idiot, who knows nothing about boxing - on the contrary, you have shown that you have at least some historical knowledge. So what on earth do you get out of this constant belittling of modern fighters? It's a mystery!

Yes, yes I know... in your opinion today's boxers suck and all that! But I refuse to believe, that you seriously think, that someone like Corbett would beat Usyk. So what's the background for your often very strange opinions?

Funny thing is: If you told Usyk and Corbett they would be fighting each other and nothing else... It would look comical. They would not have any concept of what the opponent was trying to do. Depending on the gloves worn, the rules, the fight might have advantages for either man. I do think Usyk is talented beyond Corbett for what it is worth, but in a head to head? it would be a mystifying experience!

[BKM-]

So there's "no way" Usyk would beat these guys?

I honestly don't understand, why it's fun for you to say silly things like that! You're not just a total idiot, who knows nothing about boxing - on the contrary, you have shown that you have at least some historical knowledge. So what on earth do you get out of this constant belittling of modern fighters? It's a mystery!

Yes, yes I know... in your opinion today's boxers suck and all that! But I refuse to believe, that you seriously think, that someone like Corbett would beat Usyk. So what's the background for your often very strange opinions?

If I may interject, I had figured Apples out years ago. I found out he is a below average sized male, one who likes boxing and wants to feel strong(nothing wrong with that, in fact it's respectable that he laces them up).

His whole shtick where every small past fighter beats the big modern fighters is directly tied to his own insecurities about his size. In short: the small HW's destroying the giants makes him feel better about himself. It's based on emotion and not really in a sense of being realistic. You agree right Them Apples?

[Willie Pep 229]

If I may interject, I had figured Apples out years ago. I found out he is a below average sized male, one who likes boxing and wants to feel strong(nothing wrong with that, in fact it's respectable that he laces them up).

His whole shtick where every small past fighter beats the big modern fighters is directly tied to his own insecurities about his size. In short: the small HW's destroying the giants makes him feel better about himself. It's based on emotion and not really in a sense of being realistic. You agree right Them Apples?

That's much character analysis, drawn from mere boxing opinions posted in a forum.

Let me try one.

I think Apple has spent much time learning the art of boxing and in his time of study and training he has learned that technique dominates.

To Apple, it is technique, conditioning, and then size, in that order, he finds nost important.

See, I just made that up from his posts like you did.

My analysis is as probable as yours. Neither of know this kid's motivations.

[Bronson66]

If I may interject, I had figured Apples out years ago. I found out he is a below average sized male, one who likes boxing and wants to feel strong(nothing wrong with that, in fact it's respectable that he laces them up).

His whole shtick where every small past fighter beats the big modern fighters is directly tied to his own insecurities about his size. In short: the small HW's destroying the giants makes him feel better about himself. It's based on emotion and not really in a sense of being realistic. You agree right Them Apples?

I certainly think it makes him feel better about Rocky Marciano ,and his chances against super heavies!

[Marchegiano]

The problem as I see it? People tend to isolate categories which does two things: It misrepresents them and does not consider the relationship between categories as primary, as opposed to each separate category.

Weight has to do with the relationship of the fighter to the training to the style used... For preclassical boxing size could be a hinderance. Mobility was, for this style, more prized. Then when fighters started focusing on punching, it was assumed an advantage to come in as light as possible. This meant that big men with more frame size, reach, etc could really use weight as an advantage... For example, Liston used his reach and size expertly. But even Liston and his ilk came in light as they could for fights...

In later times weight was isolated as a "reason" for superiority, without ever being established as such. When we look at "weight" as it affected the Klitskos and Lewis, for example, it is different than how it affected a fighter like Fury, who really was too heavy in his last fights.

So weight is not absolute. It can be an advantage, like reach, or it can be a bane... For Usyk he manages to hold his weight well despite not really having the frame of a fighter like Foreman, or Liston... Does it become an advantage? Or was it just a way for him to get into the benchmark stats to be a heavyweight? rhetorical question really...

Point is: Weight is part of a complex relationship between many training variables, not an absolute of any sort.

Nutshelled it perfectly.

[them_apples]

So there's "no way" Usyk would beat these guys?

I honestly don't understand, why it's fun for you to say silly things like that! You're not just a total idiot, who knows nothing about boxing - on the contrary, you have shown that you have at least some historical knowledge. So what on earth do you get out of this constant belittling of modern fighters? It's a mystery!

Yes, yes I know... in your opinion today's boxers suck and all that! But I refuse to believe, that you seriously think, that someone like Corbett would beat Usyk. So what's the background for your often very strange opinions?

Because I’m not trolling and I’m not joking

Braddock is a better fighter than Usyk

Don’t confuse style with ability or skill