Greats of the past Vs Modern heavies.

[TonyGe]

It's about Ken Norton - the guy who bailed out anytime he faced someone with a punch.

The guy who was used as a punching bag w/ legs by Quarry in sparring. But willing took a fight w/ Quarry, and went wild when he faced that faded hero many years after he should have retired.

The guy who gave up whenever someone pushed back.

Living proof that steroids shrink your balls.

He was the prototype for Lennox Lewis.

Look him up. Very famous fighter. Had some epic, epic matches.

I'm fairly familiar with Norton. I've watched numerous fights of his live on TV when the networks were broadcasting live fights. Lewis and Norton's styles are completely different. You must be referring to the fact that they both suffered stoppages which hardly makes him a prototype. Sparring is not an official fight and Quarry was younger than Norton when he was stopped. So how was Quarry faded?? How does getting knocked out or being badly hurt by a big puncher make a fighter someone who just gives up.

[them_apples]

The same could be said of them when comparing them to those that came before.

So many people want to compare Marciano to Ali, forgetting that Marciano was closer in size to Hagler than to Ali. Obviously, it's Maricano's nut-huggers (the worst in sports?) who often initiate.

But how do you compare Dempsey of the Willard fight (closer in size to Robinson) to Norton?

Because they're Heavyweights there's parity. I actually don't doubt that Dempsey puts Ken* away quicker than Wlad does. But Wlad probably has about as much difficulty with Dempsey as he had with Byrd - if that. Even though, if they were the same size and from the same era, Dempsey would starch him in the first round.


Going strictly off hard evidence, the division hasn't seen a greater natural talent than fit and focused Dempsey, and there hasn't been anyone who can beat fit and focused Fury. Filling in the dots from there is challenging; whether you see challenges as fun or as a chore is up to you.



*Interesting thing about Ken Norton: most people assume "Ken" is short for "Kenneth" as is the case 99.9999999% of the time. But in Mr. Norton's case it's short for "KenIFinallyQuitNow?". Clearly his parents doomed him from the start.

lol man, Rocky was a small heavyweight, even back then - but he's not close to Haglers size lol. when he retired he was over 250 lbs. Rocky had a thick bone structure, thicker wrists than just about any heavyweight ever. Being 188 lvs and running 12 miles in boots every day is different than being 240 but running 1 mile every day. Marciano's strength was his stamina, he even said it - he never wanted to get tired and he knew he was never gonna be the fastest or slickest guy, but he could work the hardest. In his book his trainers said this guy would start packing on muscle so fast they limited his strength training to mostly just a heavy bag and wood chopping.

If you actually followed his career he knocked out quite a few heavyweights, just his best comp at the time happened to be high level light heavies.

[TonyGe]

Ji

lol man, Rocky was a small heavyweight, even back then - but he's not close to Haglers size lol. when he retired he was over 250 lbs. Rocky had a thick bone structure, thicker wrists than just about any heavyweight ever. Being 188 lvs and running 12 miles in boots every day is different than being 240 but running 1 mile every day. Marciano's strength was his stamina, he even said it - he never wanted to get tired and he knew he was never gonna be the fastest or slickest guy, but he could work the hardest. In his book his trainers said this guy would start packing on muscle so fast they limited his strength training to mostly just a heavy bag and wood chopping.

If you actually followed his career he knocked out quite a few heavyweights, just his best comp at the time happened to be high level light heavies.

Good post. Noticed you mentioned the size of Rocky's wrists. In those days the Tale Of The Tape actually provided a lot of interesting information. Measurements onWrist, calf, ankle, chest, neck, reach etc.. They should bring it back.

[billeau2]

Ji

Good post. Noticed you mentioned the size of Rocky's wrists. In those days the Tale Of The Tape actually provided a lot of interesting information. Measurements onWrist, calf, ankle, chest, neck, reach etc.. They should bring it back.

yeah people will never look outside their epistemological mansion and see this point. I try to give examples that are unfamiliar, but I might as well be using Shirley temple as an example...

If we look at an ape, it can weigh anywhere from 90 to 200 pounds. But we all know that Apes are stronger than human beings. If we look at a pit bull it can be relatively small and, in fact, pit bulls do not have the bite strength of a lot of other breeds like shephards, but the size is in the neck, the jaws, etc.

If we further look at a fighter from the past like Fitzzimons, Who had a great punch when the emphasis in fighting was not in having one punch power, he was built like a heavyweight from the waist up, with two pencils as legs...He weighed in for his fights around 160-70 pounds.

When we look at mass we are looking at things like bone density as well as muscle mass. And fighters were taught to come in light and agile.

So weight may have some importance, but it always has to be qualified against these and other considerations. We also have to qualify the actual skills we see fighters show, on tape, when we can.

[cfang]

Heavys of today are bigger no question and they have been getting bigger and bigger ever since boxing started. However, its fair to say that heavys of the past were natural heavys. Take David Haye as an example. He weighed like 220-225 in his heavy era but it was all put on weight and he walks around today looking much slimmer. Look at joe louis and he looks skinny, really skinny but he weighed 200. If he was around today theres no doubt hed be like 230 something like that.

I suppose the thing is, that the best heavys over the last 30 years have been huge and the number of smaller guys like evander or tyson seems to be getting less.

Its very hard to say. Id like to think that guys from the past would have been able to compete with todays guys but I think on the whole they'd be at a big disadvantage

Someone on here posted that whomever adapted to the others style would do well in these sort of match ups and i think thats true. A cant see ruiz beating Ali like he did joshua for example. Then again I cant realistically see marciano being able to take down huge heavys of later years. The size difference is just too great. So it depends i think. How would todays guys get on facing say jack johnson back in 1908 with those tiny little gloves they had? It depends on the match up and the circumstances, the adaptability and of course mental toughness too.

So I don't have a clear view lol.

[TonyGe]

yeah people will never look outside their epistemological mansion and see this point. I try to give examples that are unfamiliar, but I might as well be using Shirley temple as an example...

If we look at an ape, it can weigh anywhere from 90 to 200 pounds. But we all know that Apes are stronger than human beings. If we look at a pit bull it can be relatively small and, in fact, pit bulls do not have the bite strength of a lot of other breeds like shephards, but the size is in the neck, the jaws, etc.

If we further look at a fighter from the past like Fitzzimons, Who had a great punch when the emphasis in fighting was not in having one punch power, he was built like a heavyweight from the waist up, with two pencils as legs...He weighed in for his fights around 160-70 pounds.

When we look at mass we are looking at things like bone density as well as muscle mass. And fighters were taught to come in light and agile.

So weight may have some importance, but it always has to be qualified against these and other considerations. We also have to qualify the actual skills we see fighters show, on tape, when we can.

Good points. I did however have to look up epistemological.

[QueensburyRules]

*Interesting thing about Ken Norton: most people assume "Ken" is short for "Kenneth" as is the case 99.9999999% of the time. But in Mr. Norton's case it's short for "KenIFinallyQuitNow?". Clearly his parents doomed him from the start.

- -"What's the frequency Kenneth."

[Rusty Tromboni]

...and Quarry was younger than Norton when he was stopped. So how was Quarry faded??

At first I was going to throw you a bone and provide some meaningful insight. But once I got to this part I knew I'd be wasting my breath.


It made me laugh, at least. Really hard, actually.

[them_apples]

Heavys of today are bigger no question and they have been getting bigger and bigger ever since boxing started. However, its fair to say that heavys of the past were natural heavys. Take David Haye as an example. He weighed like 220-225 in his heavy era but it was all put on weight and he walks around today looking much slimmer. Look at joe louis and he looks skinny, really skinny but he weighed 200. If he was around today theres no doubt hed be like 230 something like that.

I suppose the thing is, that the best heavys over the last 30 years have been huge and the number of smaller guys like evander or tyson seems to be getting less.

Its very hard to say. Id like to think that guys from the past would have been able to compete with todays guys but I think on the whole they'd be at a big disadvantage

Someone on here posted that whomever adapted to the others style would do well in these sort of match ups and i think thats true. A cant see ruiz beating Ali like he did joshua for example. Then again I cant realistically see marciano being able to take down huge heavys of later years. The size difference is just too great. So it depends i think. How would todays guys get on facing say jack johnson back in 1908 with those tiny little gloves they had? It depends on the match up and the circumstances, the adaptability and of course mental toughness too.

So I don't have a clear view lol.

except Ruiz, He's gotta be at least only 6 ft, he certainly looked shorter than Holyfield in sparring, and the same height as Jimmy kimmel who is listed as 5 ft11.

The dudes fat, if he was slim he would be 200 lbs if even.

honestly though, 99 percent of this forum doesnt know **** about boxing. that's the funny thing.

[TonyGe]

At first I was going to throw you a bone and provide some meaningful insight. But once I got to this part I knew I'd be wasting my breath.


It made me laugh, at least. Really hard, actually.

Kind of a rude remark don't you think??