Where do you rank Wlad all-time?

[billeau2]

1. You missed my point. If this were 1992 and you said, let's wait and see if the future champions are Bowe's size, there would be some validity. 30 years later the best one are all Bowe's size or better. You can bring up Holyfield, okay he's 1-2 vs Bowe and 0-2 vs Lewis on fair score cards. 1-4 over all vs skilled big men, which underscores my point as he was the best 215-220 point man for the past 30 years.

2. There are quite a few heavyweight under 50% Ko that have made world champion. Usually they are smaller. Chris Byrd for example ( 46.81% ). Under 70%? Easy, Tyson Fury. The point I was trying to make is super heavies with skills don't lose points decisions and are seldom outboxed by smaller heavies. There is a clear correlation

3. You mention Parker, well he''s 6"4" tall isn't he? Yes he is. Like I said short heavyweights are pretty much out if business these days. This goes double for the amateurs stars ( Medal winners in the World Amateur boxing champions or Olympics ) , who are the mostly likely pro stars. Give me your list of top heavies under 6'2" tall active today? And then since 1990. See my point?

4. Comparing Fury to Liston? No on styles, Liston was confrontational, Fury much more of a strategic boxer who's quicker on his feet. On power its Liston all the way. On height, Fury has about 8" in him. Fury has a very long reach. I agree. So did Liston. My point, these days anything less than 78" is short, hence super heavyweights who can box are going to have many advantages over the historic 6 foot 200 pound heavyweight with a 75" reach. He's giving up roughly 5'6" in height, 30-50 pounds in weight and about 6" in reach. Billeau, that's 2-3 additional weight classes to be conservative which is why there aren't ANY small heavyweights today and they have been rare at the top for the past 30 years. The best big men today are not skilled like Jess Willard,Buddy Baer, or Abe Simon. Not even close. They are much better. That tape does not lie.

The elephant in the room, is this. Some might say, Dempsey tore up Willard, or Joe Louis whipped B Bear, so sure they can whip 240 pounds a skilled big guy today. UNPROVEN. Willard was a bipedal punching bag and old, and B Baer though he floored Joe Louis would look like a hack next to Wlad or Lennox Lewis. The films do not lie. The problem is the emotional attachment to smaller past champions who do care to admit how the game has changed / won't use 30 years of data for a good example.

If your a heavyweight toddy who's short, with limited reach and giving up 30+ pounds your brining a knife to a sword fight.

1. Didn't miss your point just don't agree that a trend has been established.

2.Aside from byrd and a few? We might have to disagree on what "quite a few" means.

3. I don't know how you determine this point, but I concede it... I don't know when smaller heavies ever outboxed bigger men but so be it. yes smaller men are usually punchers, has that really changed? I don't know, will take your word for it.

4. At the end of the post I qualify that statement. Again: was referring to reach as the primarily vehicle for success and not size per se, there is a difference. Fitzimmons had the legs of a lightweight and the reach, trunk of a heavyweight.

And since when are heavyweights historically 200 and below? If we average it out, its more like 220ish give or take ten pounds... meaning that as a preference a lot of guys could come in around that weight. If you took a fighter like marciano or Dempsey they chose to come in light... Fighters like Ali, Liston, Frazier were all around that range. A lot of the heavier fighters could come in around that weignt...which is why a fighter like parker is in that range btw.

The best big men today have some skills, yes better than Simon, willard, Baer, but there were also fighters like jeffries and Carnera to some, has skills (im on the fence on that one).

Short heavies were always a minority. Patterson was small... even he had average reach. Can you name me a short heavyweight champ not named Marciano who was short reached? Ill give you the black fighters like McVey, Jeanette, may have had short reach, but they fought each other a lot... great fighters, just saying we have to evaluate them a bit different.

Reach and not size is the golden child of assets that help a heavyweight have a major advantage.