the myth that todays fat HW's are bigger and stronger

[them_apples]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_z3XIKeKjg

Mathis 245, 6'5 and is quite skilled.

Frazier in the 210 range, 5'11.

Mathis is Areollas size only more skilled and at least you can see his back muscles. I bet Arreolla is even smaller if he was lean.

Frazier walks him down and finishes him.

[Scott9945]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_z3XIKeKjg

Mathis 245, 6'5 and is quite skilled.

Frazier in the 210 range, 5'11.

Mathis is Areollas size only more skilled and at least you can see his back muscles. I bet Arreolla is even smaller if he was lean.

Frazier walks him down and finishes him.

Mathis was a very skilled boxer, but he couldn't punch at all. All his KO wins were over stiffs. Arreola isn't as skilled, but he hits a lot harder. Not that I'm saying that Arreola would beat Frazier.

[VIPrice]

cant say ive heard people say the fat heavies of today are bigger, faster or stronger. you only hear that when it comes to the klits.

either way, ******ed. the klitschko assertion slightly less so.

[JAB5239]

So suddenly one heavyweight from the past being bigger than one modern heavyweight is some kind of proof? It's the same kind of proof like:
"Eddie Chambers is more skilled than Oscar Bonavena so heavyweights from the 60's were not more skilled at all!"

Heavyweights of the past regularly trained down to their best weight for both stamina and speed instead of eating their way up to what they think is a better weight and sucking wind in less than 12 rounds. There are other large heavyweights of note from the past, I think apples was just pointing out today's fighters aren't as dedicated to their craft.

[New England]

i'll take it a step further and say that men in general are bigger and stronger.

you only have to look at the two best HW on the planet to see that men are getting bigger. they're over six and a half feet tall and 245 lbs in dog shape. go back to the great HW that preceded them, and lennox lewis was 6'5" and 235-245.

then you have to look back:
in 1910 jack johnson was considered a giant man at 6', 205 lbs with a 74" reach during his championship reign. when he racked up all of his wins over other great black fighters (they werent getting shots at his world championship,) he was 185-190.

and they called him a giant. they called him the galveston giant... his size was the most important factor in any of his fights. it's what allowed him to be defensive while winning rounds, tie men up, get leverage on his uppercuts and short shots, block shots with such ease. it wasn't everything, but it was the most important aspect of his style. he was a giant at 185-205 lbs.

i was 185 when i was in 16-17 years old... men are getting bigger.

HW boxers are fat, but giant athletes in other sports aren't universally fat, and they're bigger than they've ever been. faster too. if these great giant athletes aren't going to box it's not going to matter.


in boxing sense i dont consder the fat plodders stronger. maybe in a clinch they are stronger, but that's not how most HW fights are fought. boxing strength at HW is about dealing out and sustaining damage over 12-15 rounds at range. i'll take a 190 man in dog shape throwing twice as many punches over a 240 lb plodder who is lucky to throw fifty punches in his most active round. i'll take him to beat that ass, and i think he's stronger in boxing terms. this is a 12-15 round boxing match and not a weight room or a wrestling match.

now, put a 190 lb HW in there with wladimir klitschko, and his going to be at a disadvantage in terms of physical strength. boxing terms, weight room terms, i dont care. a 245 lb man who is in 12 round shape will always be stronger than a 190 lb man in the exact same shape. the smaller man will have to move to other aspects of fighting than simply imposing one's strength, which is honestly one of the most basic aspects of fighting and will rarely win you a fight against a solid boxer anyway.


is it really any surprise that the three best HW in the world (wladimir, vitali, haye,) are in the best shape? or that they're the only truly gifted athletes in the division?
the issues with the division is the level of conditioning and the level of talent, in that order. these guys are literally fat. arreola is a fat piece of sh#t. if you saw him on the street you would not think he's a pro athlete. they can get away with it because it's the norm, and nobody is beating them on conditiong.

[New England]

Heavyweights from the past were more ripped for sure generally, but it's not like every heavyweight is fat. It's not myth, those guys right now are bigger, there's much more giants nowadays. Of course there was a lot of big heavyweights in the past as you're looking at a time of hundred years, but just today you can look at a ratings and see:
6'6 - 250 Wlad
6'7 - 245 Vitaly
6'5 - 240 Pulev
6'9 - 245 Fury
6'5 - 245 Thompson
6'8 - 250 Price
6'7 - 240 Helenius
6'8 - 300 Ustinov
6'7 - 250 Wach
6'7 - 250 Dimitrenko
And more, now give me a single year before 80's with so many giants fighting at hw.

men are getting bigger

you want to know what i think is driving it chiefly? this is new england speculation, but i'm pretty confident that it's valid

sexual evolution. women like tall men with big shoulders. men like tall women with long legs. some men like a little junk in the trunk. want to know why? the ass is the largest collection of muscle on the body by a long shot. a long shot. your glutes are your biggest muscle.

it doesnt take long at all for a species to evolve if it breeds so selectively. natural selection, and lineages dying off because of environmental hardships, probabably tkaes very long

if you breed selectively you can completely change the genepool in only a few generations
see a breed of dog

this

and this


are the same species.

[Cardinal Buck]

Wait...if Frazier walked through Buster Mathis that proves that yesterday's fat HW's weren't bigger or stronger. I don't see what that proves about today's fighters.

I like Mathis as a fighter. He had pretty skills. But he also was featherfisted and weak for his size.

[SCtrojansbaby]

Frazier would be a cruiserweight today he's probable smaller than Haye and Adamek.

[New England]

Frazier would be a cruiserweight today he's probable smaller than Haye and Adamek.

joe frazier would beat the dogsh#t out of haye and adamek

and wlad klitschko. and current vitali, too. i think he'd stop both. just look at the trouble old vitali had with derek chisora. if there's a fighter that derek chisora wishes he was, it's joe frazier. chisroa is frazier on welfare.


he would be a HW. he was an incredibly hard worker in the gym and he weighed in the low 200's in his prime. that's not a cruiserweight even if he tried. he weighed 197 at his lowest and he was barely 20 years old.

when he was in his prime he was a steady 205ish. dog shape.

you are a lot of fun to have in the history section, though, and i want you to stay around. you are ceaselessly amusing to most of us.

[KO'er]

Weight isn't the final sayer in power IMO. Earnie Shavers never weighed 249lbs like Wladimir the other night, but I can put my money down that Shavers can hit way harder than Wladimir. Same with Foreman, who never weighed that much in his first career.

With Frazier, rare is a fighter with his much heart and will. (plus a left hook like his) Look at Holyfield-Bowe. I think that could be similar to Frazier-A Klitschko.