Greats of the past Vs Modern heavies.

[Rusty Tromboni]

This is completely false! Are you thinking of someone else?

Shavers, Foreman, Cooney.

It's wel known Ken was great when he could start fast. But when things didn't go his way he got flustered.

Do you know anyone who doesn't feel that way?

Lewis fought differently stylistically, but they were both big strong boxer-punchers who could look greAT when their opponent was out-matched, but when they couldn't bully the became pedestrian.

Are Mercer and Holyfield the best names on Lewis' ledger? Rahman and McCall definitely aren't.

I really can't believe the non-issues that are disputed around here.

[billeau2]

I've spent most of my life concerend with this matter.

Weight matters tremendously.

Look at how St. Pierre handled the otherwordly talent of Sean Sherk vs. how he handled the journeyman of journeymen Michael Bisping.

Look at how Sherk handled Nick Diaz vs. Frankie Edgar.

So it's also about how you use it. But it clearly matters.

Lets talk Newton. when grappling we can apply leverage uniformly right? If i grab you with one hand I automatically have two points of balance that I can track uniformly, through tactile q's, I do not even need to see you. Those points being the ground we stand on and my arm connected to your body. Hence with weight I can apply better levers, more force... and that is simply with two points of balance.

A punch does not give us such an advantage. I can generate all the leverage in the world, such as Joe Louis did when he threw his cross... But the force has to cross a barrier while in motion and make a dynamic connection to another body, for this leverage to translate as an affect on the other body. Weight is really a relatively small aspect of this reaction when considering timing, skill, speed, and technical skill in reaching the opponent.

Its like the difference between making a car faster and jet propulsion more powerful. A car is immanent: you eliminate friction, weight, resistance where the rubber meets the road, and deal with aerodynamics and torque...all physical, tangible characteristics that can be controlled for and walla!

But jet propulsion is...rocket science! You have a force within a force, a chemical reaction that facilitates movement, and you have a molecular medium (air), angles of trajectory that cause frictions, things that are harder to control in order to get your rocket to a point of propulsion... the control over the force vectors is just harder to maintain consistently.

Weight has to translate as a useful force that can be brought to bare consistently. A punch is harder to do such with because the leverage is harder to connect with no loss of power...hence it is not as useful as the leveraged force of weight applied in a grapple where there is a consistent connection maintained.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Lets talk Newton. when grappling we can apply leverage uniformly right? If i grab you with one hand I automatically have two points of balance that I can track uniformly, through tactile q's, I do not even need to see you. Those points being the ground we stand on and my arm connected to your body. Hence with weight I can apply better levers, more force... and that is simply with two points of balance.

A punch does not give us such an advantage. I can generate all the leverage in the world, such as Joe Louis did when he threw his cross... But the force has to cross a barrier while in motion and make a dynamic connection to another body, for this leverage to translate as an affect on the other body. Weight is really a relatively small aspect of this reaction when considering timing, skill, speed, and technical skill in reaching the opponent.

Its like the difference between making a car faster and jet propulsion more powerful. A car is immanent: you eliminate friction, weight, resistance where the rubber meets the road, and deal with aerodynamics and torque...all physical, tangible characteristics that can be controlled for and walla!

But jet propulsion is...rocket science! You have a force within a force, a chemical reaction that facilitates movement, and you have a molecular medium (air), angles of trajectory that cause frictions, things that are harder to control in order to get your rocket to a point of propulsion... the control over the force vectors is just harder to maintain consistently.

Weight has to translate as a useful force that can be brought to bare consistently. A punch is harder to do such with because the leverage is harder to connect with no loss of power...hence it is not as useful as the leveraged force of weight applied in a grapple where there is a consistent connection maintained.

Beautiful post.

Still, marciano being dense doesn't change the fact that he's closer in size to hagler than to ali.

And I agree, Marciano being a heavier fighter than Hagler means that his power goes further. Marciano could starch guys 20 pounds heavier than himself (or more) rather easily, while HAgler never dared fight a man 10 pounds bigger. Some of that comes down to balls (Marciano was far braver than Hagler, no doubt). But it's also physics.

In the case of Marciano and Saddler being more different in size than their heighth and reach suggest, OK. That's common sense.

But don't mistake either fact, like Them_Apples does, to suggest that Maricano wasn't really closer in size to hagler than Ali even though all the numbers show that to be the case.

You don't have to cite Rocket Science to see it.

[QueensburyRules]

Beautiful post.

Still, marciano being dense doesn't change the fact that he's closer in size to hagler than to ali.

And I agree, Marciano being a heavier fighter than Hagler means that his power goes further. Marciano could starch guys 20 pounds heavier than himself (or more) rather easily, while HAgler never dared fight a man 10 pounds bigger. Some of that comes down to balls (Marciano was far braver than Hagler, no doubt). But it's also physics.

In the case of Marciano and Saddler being more different in size than their heighth and reach suggest, OK. That's common sense.

But don't mistake either fact, like Them_Apples does, to suggest that Maricano wasn't really closer in size to hagler than Ali even though all the numbers show that to be the case.

You don't have to cite Rocket Science to see it.

- -U the new Peewee Herman?

[TonyGe]

Hmmm


I'll give you a hint.... his name rhymes with PonyDee.

Second hint... it's not Curtis Harper (at least this time, but it looked like the kinda post he'd make).

Third hint... YOU know him.


Probably you'll need some time to figure it out. But you know where to find me if you need more hints.

LOL .. You really have a thin skin.

[billeau2]

Beautiful post.

Still, marciano being dense doesn't change the fact that he's closer in size to hagler than to ali.

And I agree, Marciano being a heavier fighter than Hagler means that his power goes further. Marciano could starch guys 20 pounds heavier than himself (or more) rather easily, while HAgler never dared fight a man 10 pounds bigger. Some of that comes down to balls (Marciano was far braver than Hagler, no doubt). But it's also physics.

In the case of Marciano and Saddler being more different in size than their heighth and reach suggest, OK. That's common sense.

But don't mistake either fact, like Them_Apples does, to suggest that Maricano wasn't really closer in size to hagler than Ali even though all the numbers show that to be the case.

You don't have to cite Rocket Science to see it.

I never looked at that comparison.

[Rusty Tromboni]

- -U the new Peewee Herman?

No, but you'll always be my Miss Yvonne.

[chirorickyp]

Shavers, Foreman, Cooney.

It's wel known Ken was great when he could start fast. But when things didn't go his way he got flustered.

Do you know anyone who doesn't feel that way?

Lewis fought differently stylistically, but they were both big strong boxer-punchers who could look greAT when their opponent was out-matched, but when they couldn't bully the became pedestrian.

Are Mercer and Holyfield the best names on Lewis' ledger? Rahman and McCall definitely aren't.

I really can't believe the non-issues that are disputed around here.

Now that makes more sense. However he didn't quit against Foreman, he was destroyed he had no choice to get up, he didn't know he was in Venezuela. Foreman at his best and his peak. Shavers is one of the most devastating punchers ever if he lands. He landed early end of story whoever it is except for Ali or Holmes. Norton should not have been in the ring with Cooney and at that time was handled by Scott Ledoux.
Norton in his prime had one devastating loss to Foreman. As with all of Foremans opponents. He gave the greatest fighter ever all sorts of problems and he basically could have been given the decision in an epic war against one of the best Heavweights ever in Larry Holmes at Holmes's peak. Pretty impressive if you ask me. I think Norton deserves more credit.

As far as the Mercer fight that fight was a draw.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Now that makes more sense. However he didn't quit against Foreman, he was destroyed he had no choice to get up, he didn't know he was in Venezuela. Foreman at his best and his peak. Shavers is one of the most devastating punchers ever if he lands. He landed early end of story whoever it is except for Ali or Holmes. Norton should not have been in the ring with Cooney and at that time was handled by Scott Ledoux.
Norton in his prime had one devastating loss to Foreman. As with all of Foremans opponents. He gave the greatest fighter ever all sorts of problems and he basically could have been given the decision in an epic war against one of the best Heavweights ever in Larry Holmes at Holmes's peak. Pretty impressive if you ask me. I think Norton deserves more credit.

As far as the Mercer fight that fight was a draw.

1) Norton struggled against big punchers because he LET them get to him. Others, less talented/physically impressive than he, made them work harder. Norton was beat before entering the ring. And this is just discussing those who KO'd him.

2) Ali and Holmes weren't big punchers. Neither could put Shavers away easily. Holmes did, through attrition, when Shavers was basically so expired he was growing fungus. Plus, again, Norton had an angle to work in each fight. When things went his way he looked great.

3) It was close, but Mercer pulled it out. Either way, neither Mercer nor Holyfield should have been competitive with the bigger and harder hitting Lewis. But because they wouldn't acquiece, Lewis became less confident.

People cite his destruction of Golota and his Boxing clinic on Tua when describing how capable and versatile Lewis was. If you're a Boxing fan you see right through that: those were men who had no chance of winning. They were D.O.A. Lewis took confidence in that and fought smart.

Mercer and Holyfield didn't stick to the script and things got hairy for Lewis.

Vitali should have been a clinic, too. He was completely unprepared for that fight (and not yet the champion he's now remembered as), but he came with every intention of winning. And almost spoiled Lewis' night, until his Fairy Godmother (referee Lou Moret) interceded.

these guys are the antithesis of Quarry: who was undersized and out-gunned, but regularly defined the odds in the most violent and spectacular ways possible. Even in losing he was a winner, his performances were that heroic.

It seems cruel that history robbed Norton of his 3 wins vs. Ali, but when you look at how the rest of his career went, it feels like a wash.

[chirorickyp]

1) Norton struggled against big punchers because he LET them get to him. Others, less talented/physically impressive than he, made them work harder. Norton was beat before entering the ring. And this is just discussing those who KO'd him.

2) Ali and Holmes weren't big punchers. Neither could put Shavers away easily. Holmes did, through attrition, when Shavers was basically so expired he was growing fungus. Plus, again, Norton had an angle to work in each fight. When things went his way he looked great.

3) It was close, but Mercer pulled it out. Either way, neither Mercer nor Holyfield should have been competitive with the bigger and harder hitting Lewis. But because they wouldn't acquiece, Lewis became less confident.

People cite his destruction of Golota and his Boxing clinic on Tua when describing how capable and versatile Lewis was. If you're a Boxing fan you see right through that: those were men who had no chance of winning. They were D.O.A. Lewis took confidence in that and fought smart.

Mercer and Holyfield didn't stick to the script and things got hairy for Lewis.

Vitali should have been a clinic, too. He was completely unprepared for that fight (and not yet the champion he's now remembered as), but he came with every intention of winning. And almost spoiled Lewis' night, until his Fairy Godmother (referee Lou Moret) interceded.

these guys are the antithesis of Quarry: who was undersized and out-gunned, but regularly defined the odds in the most violent and spectacular ways possible. Even in losing he was a winner, his performances were that heroic.

It seems cruel that history robbed Norton of his 3 wins vs. Ali, but when you look at how the rest of his career went, it feels like a wash.

Yes Norton had problems against big punchers, as labeled by many commentaters. Foreman fight yes. Put all his stoppages together when looked upon on the surface it appears that way, however when you look closer at the man's career when it mattered from 1972 to 1978 it's a different story. Washed up against Shavers, he left it in the ring against Holmes. Prime Norton who fought Ali and Holmes could have stopped Shavers, NOT the Scott LeDoux version.
Against any puncher a shot Norton loses for the reasons you mentioned.

Holmes hit hard in my opinion, his right hand was game changer. His jab one of the best ever. Norton went 15rds with that man in a fight that proved he had more mettle than any heavyweight since then other than the very man he fought. That fight alone proved the cahones he had. If the prime version of Norton was cowardly when hurt he would have been stopped at least twice in the classic Holmes fight. Instead he came back in the 14th and 15th rounds. Nobody today would be able to go 14 and 15 rds period let alone take those shots. To this day I still watch those rounds and it gives me goosebumps. As you know Sly and Duran in their taking polyester suits stood up from their seats many times. He didn't back down. Most would have. He should have kept the title had Don King not been involved.
I thought Ali had him hurt twice in the rematch. He made that a close fight.

I'm on board totally with the Lewis analysis.

Norton analysis is not off at all. He had trouble against aggressive punchers. I just see things differently when examining his talent his heart and his career, with a closer examination based on his prime and considering the times he rose to the occasion against 2 of the best ever. Other than Foreman nobody kicked Norton's butt.