Vitali VS Sonny Liston

[Humean]

1.There are many metrics that show relative weakness and they all point out that the heavyweight division is really lacking. Louis fought Bums but he fought guys who were excellent as well.

2. Ok

3. No you can't. Film has changed substantially. In fact you have to be looking for certain things, the speed of the film make a lot of fighters look ******ed! Its like a microscope Humean. I can tell you that there are cells and other such Protozoa but unless you know what you are looking at it will all look like nothing to the untrained eye. A great example of this is a guy who did an analysis of Marciano on Utube (try to find it if you can I can't find it anymore or I would link it). Boy, when you start to see what Marciano was doing....he hardly looks like the unscientific brawler. The guy used angles, kept just out of range, set his punches up...BUT you have to know what to look for or it looks like a Kimbo fight!!

4. The Klitschkos have poor endurance, I doubt they could last in a real punchout, they are not particularly strong... A strong heavyweight would be a guy like Mccall, prime Tyson, Bowe for example. What makes them so strong? Muscle is not the Be-all and end-all of being a strong fighter. Heck I can tell you from experience....I had a reputation for fighting very strong as a karate Black Belt and i was a twerp (back then ha ha). Muscle had nothing to do with it, some guys just are aggressive and controlling in the ring and cannot be backed off. Jermaine Taylor...Strong. The Klits hold, maybe Vitali but not really. Muscle boundness and size are qualities that fluctuate more so in some populations than others....a boxer has never desired excessive musclulator for its own sake....Look at heavywieght who were of great physique...Frank Bruno, Mike Weaver, shannon briggs...none of them were even strong in the ring. As a matter of fact: when Tony fought Rahman Rahman, a strong fighter, was solid as a rock at around 240 and Toney was fat as a pig....and Toney threw more punches than Rahman! Vitali is big and has benefitted at times from being in better shape than his opponent, but there is no strength calculus that the Klits are on top of....

5. Perhaps, but this decision to come in at that weight was based on strategy, any one of those guys could have come in at a greater weight, built more size if it was an advantage...it wasn't and indeed, it isn't. There are times like when a fighter that is not a heavy weight, like James Toney, or JOnes (for example) simply are too small. But these guys would never fight as heavyweights. This is the misconception. Toney only came up to expose a weakness, he simply is not a heavyweight. Jones beat Ruiz who was considered skilled but flawed and ripe for the taking. Billy COnn did the same thing when he challenged Louis BTW and he almost won but he was not really a heavyweight.

6.Ok just be aware that all things are seldom equal. Arty Donovan ate bolognia sandwiches and was a bit jiggly. A defensive back who issolid muscle, trained as an elite athlete, chemically enhanced will be BIGGer. But thats kind of a red herring when considering the other differences between a ballplayer today and in the 50's....Its kind of like saying "well, I brought my knife to the gunfight and ate lead...damn blade jammed on me!" there were prolly other factors at work! The Klitschkos are very foible laden. They may be bigger than a lot of guys but they are not the equal of a fighter like Liston. Liston was "strong" in the fighting sense of the word....if you hurt his shoulder he would not quit (for example...it actually happened!). Liston had great lateral movement, a great jab, a granite chin and a lot of experience against hard hitters like Cleveland. Regardless of who won size would not be the reason Humean! Thats my point.
7. Wrong, flat out wrong. And you cannot prove that size was a determining factor in Haye's loss. This point is where you are truly misguided. You simply do not understand that as Ray says the heavyweight division is an open division. The guys in the 70's walked around as big as the guys today and were all around just north of 200 which is the average size for a heavyweight. Heres more proof of this point: When I trained MMA guys the heavyweights look small. They actually weigh like 230 and up but the way they are built is small compared to boxers. I could not even tell you why it just has to do with the way they train. Some flabby guys look big but they are an exception. Thing is....these MMA guys? some of them are like 5% body fat! Its the way the body takes form with the demands placed upon it....there is no advantage, strength gain, or otherwise for one of these guys to be bigger, if anything the opposite holds true and lo and behold there was a lot more inside game in the old ways of boxing as well.

There are certain intangables that make some guys heavyweights and muscle mass is not on that list. Tyson was always a heavyweight...Mormeck looks a bit like Tyson but was always a cruiser. Some aspects of size are only reflected in the averages....200 to 240 is the average size for a red blooded legitimate heavyweight.

1: You can alter the film speed. Yes the footage at times is very poor indeed but do you seriously think someone like Willard, who was 6'6", was both in as great a shape as either of the Klitschko's commonly are as well as possess their athleticism?

2: I have seen the video you are talking about, strangely I watched it only about three days ago and I actually agree that Marciano was deceptively better than people think, especially in defence but I don't think he was particularly special in his skillset. What set him apart was his tremendous power, great strength and stamina, strong will and sturdy chin. All these are very important factors but from a skill point of view he was quite limited. He'd be far too small for a Klitschko.

3: The Klitschko's have poor endurance compared to who? If the comparison is with smaller heavyweights of the past then of course they do. Smaller men have greater stamina, something to do with surface area and heat dissipation.

4: Why are you so resistant to admitting that the Klitschko's are strong? Of course physical strength involves a lot of different factors. However it is a plausible conjecture that the Klitschko's are amongst the physically strongest heavyweight champions in history when you consider their relative size and condition. As I said I think Wlad Klitschko may be the strongest.

5: It is also for strategic reasons that so many current heavyweights weigh heavier.

6: I know things are never equal, the important of that concept is to help with thinking.

7: Of course size was a determining factor in Haye's loss, I doubt you even really dispute that because I'm sure you would concede that the elements of size that you consider relevant were very much in play in this fight, such as height and arm length. When Haye got close to Wlad Klitschko the same thing happened that happens to everyone who has fought Wlad Klitschko in recent years and that is they are completely locked up. He can do that because he is so strong, has long arms and uses his height and weight advantage to his benefit by leaning on his opponents. Now leaving aside whether referees should or should not be allowing him to get away with this all the time there is really no doubt that they are very important elements to Wlad Klitshcko's success. The conclusion to be drawn then is surely that size and weight can be vitally important.

8: Now Vitali Klitschko doesn't use his size and weight to his advantage to quite the extent that Wlad does but they are certainly still major advantages that Vitali has over almost all his rivals and that advantage would likely be quite pronounced against Liston.

9: I think you and some others have things the wrong way round in respect to the important of size and weight in the heavyweight division. You guys seem to think it has less significance than in the other weight classes because of the unlimited nature of the division but actually having no upper weight limit makes size and weight more significant in the heavyweight division than the other divisions. It allows for greater possibilities for bigger men to take advantage of their size to win.

[billeau2]

1: You can alter the film speed. Yes the footage at times is very poor indeed but do you seriously think someone like Willard, who was 6'6", was both in as great a shape as either of the Klitschko's commonly are as well as possess their athleticism?

2: I have seen the video you are talking about, strangely I watched it only about three days ago and I actually agree that Marciano was deceptively better than people think, especially in defence but I don't think he was particularly special in his skillset. What set him apart was his tremendous power, great strength and stamina, strong will and sturdy chin. All these are very important factors but from a skill point of view he was quite limited. He'd be far too small for a Klitschko.

3: The Klitschko's have poor endurance compared to who? If the comparison is with smaller heavyweights of the past then of course they do. Smaller men have greater stamina, something to do with surface area and heat dissipation.

4: Why are you so resistant to admitting that the Klitschko's are strong? Of course physical strength involves a lot of different factors. However it is a plausible conjecture that the Klitschko's are amongst the physically strongest heavyweight champions in history when you consider their relative size and condition. As I said I think Wlad Klitschko may be the strongest.

5: It is also for strategic reasons that so many current heavyweights weigh heavier.

6: I know things are never equal, the important of that concept is to help with thinking.

7: Of course size was a determining factor in Haye's loss, I doubt you even really dispute that because I'm sure you would concede that the elements of size that you consider relevant were very much in play in this fight, such as height and arm length. When Haye got close to Wlad Klitschko the same thing happened that happens to everyone who has fought Wlad Klitschko in recent years and that is they are completely locked up. He can do that because he is so strong, has long arms and uses his height and weight advantage to his benefit by leaning on his opponents. Now leaving aside whether referees should or should not be allowing him to get away with this all the time there is really no doubt that they are very important elements to Wlad Klitshcko's success. The conclusion to be drawn then is surely that size and weight can be vitally important.

8: Now Vitali Klitschko doesn't use his size and weight to his advantage to quite the extent that Wlad does but they are certainly still major advantages that Vitali has over almost all his rivals and that advantage would likely be quite pronounced against Liston.

9: I think you and some others have things the wrong way round in respect to the important of size and weight in the heavyweight division. You guys seem to think it has less significance than in the other weight classes because of the unlimited nature of the division but actually having no upper weight limit makes size and weight more significant in the heavyweight division than the other divisions. It allows for greater possibilities for bigger men to take advantage of their size to win.

Heat dissopation? are you nuts?

I will address #9 because you are just rehashing info that is suspect at best...like Vlad's strength.

Regarding weight diffences....there is no thought involved...its a fact that at higher weights the differences in weight become smaller and not larger. A 130 pounder is a little bigger than my wife. a 160 pounder is at a considerable advantage. Meanwhile a 210 pounder against a 240 pounder is not such a difference and is a routine difference in the heavyweight division.

Did it ever occur to you while you are constantly trying to reinvent the wheel...that this is the reason why there are weight differnces and why the heavyweight division is open? or as a modern man do you know something through the evolution of your brain mass that the naive guys who invented weight classes don't?

[low blows]

1.If calling you a numbskull is psychologizing (is that a word?) you then I am guilty as charged.

2. I take responsability for that, now why don't you not use my writing as an excuse for being so dense? I sort of understand I will never be poster of the month if you catch my drift?

3. The "Weight and Size issue" as you call it is not a matter of the physics of how mass via size affect punching, once again you fail to see my point.

4. The weigh and size issue has to do with decisions big men make regarding how to be ready to go on fight night versus how they walk around. George Foreman in his prime was a big man and was not dwarfed by Vitali Klitschko. Fighters were traditionally taught to come in lean as possible for a fight....that does not hold today and this is a possible reason for bigger fighters along with so called superior training and nutrition (which is imo nonsense).

So when did the average heavyweight become marginally taller? was it during Tyson's reign? Evander's? Fraziers reign? Do you understand the difference between general averages and the averages concerning a characteristic affecting performance in a select group? The general average height of people may have increased due to nutrition, but how has this had an impact on the height of an elite heavyweight contender? Have we had a succession of ten years of champions that average a greater height when compared to all heavyweight champs of the past? No I didn't think so....As a matter of fact I mentioned above a few champs who were kind of on the short side.

In fact: [B]While height has perhaps increased in the general population, there has been no evidence that this superior height is necessary to attain elite status as a fighter in modern times[B] Most people assume that because Lewis and the Klits happened to be on the large size that the average size of a heavyweight has gotten larger and taller.

Top heavyweights have gotten larger. Bowe, Lewis, the two K brothers dwarf even a prime Ali who was the classic 210 pound heavyweight. Liston had a relatively high body fat at around 210 pounds both K brothers are lean at 240+. I just don't see Liston at 210 manhandling Vitali. Vitali's unique kickboxing defense would cause problems for Liston and he would be hitting air while reaching for Vitali. Only Lewis has been able to touch Vitali. When he fought Byrd it was a sparring session until Vitali had to quit because the pain in his shoulder was causing him to swoon. I didn't notice one significant blow that Byrd landed in that fight.

[Humean]

Heat dissopation? are you nuts?

I will address #9 because you are just rehashing info that is suspect at best...like Vlad's strength.

Regarding weight diffences....there is no thought involved...its a fact that at higher weights the differences in weight become smaller and not larger. A 130 pounder is a little bigger than my wife. a 160 pounder is at a considerable advantage. Meanwhile a 210 pounder against a 240 pounder is not such a difference and is a routine difference in the heavyweight division.

Did it ever occur to you while you are constantly trying to reinvent the wheel...that this is the reason why there are weight differnces and why the heavyweight division is open? or as a modern man do you know something through the evolution of your brain mass that the naive guys who invented weight classes don't?

Am I nuts for saying something that is scientifically true? No.

If you read back to one of my earlier posts I compared the weight difference as a percentage of the smaller mans own weight, therefore I have not been suggesting that the 30 pound difference between a 130 and 160 pounder is equivalent to the 30 pounds between a 210 pounder and a 240 pounder. However in both cases the 30 pound weight difference is susbstantial. Only in the heavyweight division can you routinely see a man fight another man who is 14% of his own weight heavier than him.

In 1920 the minimum for a heavyweight was set at 175, since the introduction of the cruiserweight division that minimum weight essentially rose to 190 and then again to 200. Changes in the size of heavyweights as well as other elements have produced change before. Anyway the heavyweight division is an anomaly in boxing, by lacking an upper limit it allows for the major discrepancies in weight that the other weight divisions were created to prevent. Perhaps that has been part of its enduring appeal. However to think that these discrepancies cnanot be vitally important to the outcome of the fight makes little sense.

[billeau2]

Top heavyweights have gotten larger. Bowe, Lewis, the two K brothers dwarf even a prime Ali who was the classic 210 pound heavyweight. Liston had a relatively high body fat at around 210 pounds both K brothers are lean at 240+. I just don't see Liston at 210 manhandling Vitali. Vitali's unique kickboxing defense would cause problems for Liston and he would be hitting air while reaching for Vitali. Only Lewis has been able to touch Vitali. When he fought Byrd it was a sparring session until Vitali had to quit because the pain in his shoulder was causing him to swoon. I didn't notice one significant blow that Byrd landed in that fight.

You mentioned perhaps 5% of the heavyweight contenders around do you realize that? Liston had a reach equal to Liston's read up on the stats. And you use the word "Dwarf" a real exxageration.

[billeau2]

Am I nuts for saying something that is scientifically true? No.

If you read back to one of my earlier posts I compared the weight difference as a percentage of the smaller mans own weight, therefore I have not been suggesting that the 30 pound difference between a 130 and 160 pounder is equivalent to the 30 pounds between a 210 pounder and a 240 pounder. However in both cases the 30 pound weight difference is susbstantial. Only in the heavyweight division can you routinely see a man fight another man who is 14% of his own weight heavier than him.

In 1920 the minimum for a heavyweight was set at 175, since the introduction of the cruiserweight division that minimum weight essentially rose to 190 and then again to 200. Changes in the size of heavyweights as well as other elements have produced change before. Anyway the heavyweight division is an anomaly in boxing, by lacking an upper limit it allows for the major discrepancies in weight that the other weight divisions were created to prevent. Perhaps that has been part of its enduring appeal. However to think that these discrepancies cnanot be vitally important to the outcome of the fight makes little sense.

It only makes little sense to you. There is no correlation between the size and success of a heavyweight champ Humean...what does that tell you? Tyson had guys 250 plus pissing in their pants.

[Humean]

It only makes little sense to you. There is no correlation between the size and success of a heavyweight champ Humean...what does that tell you? Tyson had guys 250 plus pissing in their pants.

I cannot convince you if you continue to misunderstand. Believe what you want, it makes little difference.

[soul_survivor]

Just think of the stare down!

That would have been epic!

Don't see how Liston can win.

Vitali has a great jab, can throw punches from odd angles, terrific power and a better chin. I think Vitali would put point Liston or possibly stop him late.

[billeau2]

I cannot convince you if you continue to misunderstand. Believe what you want, it makes little difference.

I would expect to see a graph which shows a solid trend of succesful heavyweights being increasingly bigger and bigger. It would have to be a situation where for example, Patterson was bigger than louis and Liston was bigger than patterson and ali was bigger than liston and so fourth and so fourth.
Then one would expect to see smaller heavyweights being unsuccesful and progressively so, with perhaps an anomolie or so....

neither of these trends exist. We have guys who are hovering around the 200-215 mark who are champs, and who continue to be succesful as heavyweights. We have large guys who are both: very good and not so good.

If we have this conversation 10 years from now and the average size of a heavyweight success becomes greater than around the 200-215 mark then it becomes a trend. However, the size difference could be because of the smaller rounds, the bigger gloves etc. So we still have to be careful about understanding the weight a big man walks around at and the weight this man chooses to fight at.

A guy like Jack Johnson probably could walk around at about anywhere from around 180- to just under 200. If he was training for a 12 round fight he could try to carry a bit more weight but he would be a relatively small heavyweight. A guy like any of the seventies fighters could come into the ring at anywhere from 200-230 depending on what they wanted to train for. This is a choice, these guys were not dwarfed by guys the size of the Klitschkos...A guy like Sam Peter weighed too much and was around 240....does this make him a bigger heavyweight? Peter should have fought at around 210!

The point is the range of weights a big man has. yes the Klitschkos are built so that they do not carry extra weight at a 240 weight, but even Lennox Lewis, as a big heavyweight, should not have come in moe than around 230. And again, Joe Louis when he got older and slower fought at over 200 pounds.

This is the best I can do to explain the logic of why we have to be careful when assuming that heavyweights are getting bigger in the ring. Yes they may train to come in with more pounds as a choice because of a percieved advantage....but actually many fighters choose not come in so heavy for the same advantage. For every Klitschko there is a John Ruiz. For every Sam peter a Mike Tyson.

[creekrat77]

Vitali is underrated by a lot. He is a smart technical fighter and would be able to dictate the fight. Even if Vitali began to lose on the score cards in the final rounds I would think he'd land some bombs and I don't know if Liston can take those kind of shots that far down the stretch. Really don't think Liston can KO Vitali. Vitali 12th round tko.