The Myth of bigger Heavyweights part 2

[them_apples]

I just think these big heavy weights are ruling because the competition is absolute ****ing garbage. I mean who is good in the division that is normal sized? There are no challenges. Why does Wlad get so much praise when its obvious there was no competition in the division. He was knocked out by saunders and Brewster. And now Joshua (who is mediocre btw). How is Stiverne even a contender? What is good about him? Hes flat footed, low power, not fast, not clever, doesnt work hard or have tons of heart. He walks forward with his hands up and takes his time because he doesn't trust his gas tank. People are tripping balls that wilder stopped him but let me tell you I can think of 250 other heavyweights that would have blown him out just as fast.

There is so much factual evidence that proves this yet people continue to be duped.

Didn't Larry Holmes school 6 ft 6 Gerry Cooney? Let me ask you who during Wladmirs reign was even half as good as Holmes?

Ali beat on Ernie Terrel and Chuck Wepner both 6 ft 6 and 6 ft 5. 2 of the easiest fights of his career.

Joe Louis beat 6 ft 7 Buddy Baer, 6 ft 5 Abe Simon (250+ lbs) and of course 6 ft 5 250 lb Carnera. Funny thing is, these were the easiest fights of his career. Who were the hardest? 190 lb Schmeling, former LHW Billy Conn and probably Braddock. This doesn't include the tough fights he had past prime with former LHWs Charles and Walcott. Lastly the man who finally koed him was one of the smallest Hws ever, Marciano.

Now let's look at Ali, he actually destroyed all the big dudes he fought, Foreman, Bugner, Terrel and Wepner. Toughest fights? Frazier (204 lbs 5 ft 11) and lets not forget 190 lb Cooper dropping him.

Who ended up ending Holmes reign? Lhw Spinks, barely 200 lbs and smooth. Later on 5 ft 10 217 lb Tyson.

Last but not least who sparked Wlad? 6 ft 2 Lamon Brewster.

Of course Wlad ruled this era. Who the **** was there to challenge him?

EDIT: here some more eye candy for you all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1DEKbJ5uVQ&t=1532s

we got Joe Louis the ref in this fight, the BIGGEST man in the ring by far in comparison to Frazier and Quarry. Training methods were different, heavyweights weren't smaller. If you run and train for stamina, and don't bulk up muscles you don't use in boxing (who needs a huge chest and belly for boxing) you wind up with 200-205 lb Heavyweights. It's all about the amount of weight you are carrying on your frame. Toney went from 160 lbs to 255 lbs, does this mean he was bigger than Joe Louis? If Joe Louis ate cheesburgers every day and lifted weights he could be 250 lbs no problem.

[The Old LefHook]

Watch out for the big 'uns.

[billeau2]

That would've been a better nickname for Holyfield to use during his career than The Real Deal haha. I'd love to see a boxer take on the nickname of The Bastard Maker. Would be a good movie title too.

Lol I always felt that way Anthony!

[Humean]

Bigger and heavier obviously doesn't always translate as better but it is usually an advantage. The super-heavyweights that Louis fought, namely Buddy Baer and Abe Simon, were not very good at all.

To criticize a dominant champion because his era was not stellar is a big mistake, a mistake made over and over again throughout history. Indeed, if you wanted to be consistent with that then Joe Louis might be about the first guy to criticize.

[them_apples]

Bigger and heavier obviously doesn't always translate as better but it is usually an advantage. The super-heavyweights that Louis fought, namely Buddy Baer and Abe Simon, were not very good at all.

To criticize a dominant champion because his era was not stellar is a big mistake, a mistake made over and over again throughout history. Indeed, if you wanted to be consistent with that then Joe Louis might be about the first guy to criticize.

I agree completely. But it doesn't mean it's a moot point. Additionally my point being is Wladmir lost to fighters in the past era and then went on to keep the weak competition thereafter at bay. This didn't happen to Louis. He wiped out his division and then had tough fights with the next era, most of which he still won. Which in my book is ok. Wladmir literally just stuck around until all the good fighters left.

I also want to say is, although Louis fought some technically lacking fighters, he did fight Braddock who was quite a good boxer with a good ring IQ. All these guys he fought had heart and went right after him, with conviction to take his title. They were "tough". The current era is a combination of no skills AND no heart. It's like they aren't even fighters.

Apart from that, I agree - Louis fought mainly tough guys that made his great punching power stand out. so H2H there are some tough calls to make with him.

[Humean]

I agree completely. But it doesn't mean it's a moot point. Additionally my point being is Wladmir lost to fighters in the past era and then went on to keep the weak competition thereafter at bay. This didn't happen to Louis. He wiped out his division and then had tough fights with the next era, most of which he still won. Which in my book is ok. Wladmir literally just stuck around until all the good fighters left.

I also want to say is, although Louis fought some technically lacking fighters, he did fight Braddock who was quite a good boxer with a good ring IQ. All these guys he fought had heart and went right after him, with conviction to take his title. They were "tough". The current era is a combination of no skills AND no heart. It's like they aren't even fighters.

Apart from that, I agree - Louis fought mainly tough guys that made his great punching power stand out. so H2H there are some tough calls to make with him.

I think that is unfair on Wlad Klitschko, he started to dominate 2006 onwards because he improved as a fighter not because the opposition declined. Brewster and Sanders were hardly superior to the best guys that Klitschko defeated thereafter, such as Povetkin, Haye, Chagaev, Peter, Byrd, etc. Indeed he defeated Brewster the second time around. I do agree that it was to Louis' credit that he didn't have the early problems in his career that Klitschko did, outside the Schmeling defeat but that was a higher quality defeat anyway as Schmeling was one of the very best at that time.

Braddock was better than his record would suggest but he was not particularly good, even relative to size, the top heavyweights that Klitschko defeated were superior to him. Louis' opponents were of a lower quality than Klitschko's, the similarity with both is that they were the very best around so they defeated the best that was on offer (outside of Vitali of course but that is a special case) and you can't do more than that. Fighters from other weight classes have the opportunity to fight above their weight to find good competition but heavyweights are stuck with what they've got.

The quality of heavyweights during the Klitschko era really wasn't as bad as people make out, it wasn't great but also not terrible, the fights were just mostly tedious to watch. Massive super-heavyweights necessarily fight at a slower pace and if you have the skill, power and inclination to keep opponents at a distance and clinch and smother when they do get close like Klitschko did then you have the makings of a dull fight. Klitschko was a cautious figher who was able to force his style on his opponents, Louis was an aggressive stalking fighter who was also able to force his style on his opponents


Also in regards to Louis' power, people mention it all the time without due regard to the size and type of gloves he was wearing. If you put todays biggest punching cruiserweights (such as Kudryashov and Gassiev) in the 6 ounce horsehair gloves of the 1930s and 40s their power would magnify even greater.

[billeau2]

I think that is unfair on Wlad Klitschko, he started to dominate 2006 onwards because he improved as a fighter not because the opposition declined. Brewster and Sanders were hardly superior to the best guys that Klitschko defeated thereafter, such as Povetkin, Haye, Chagaev, Peter, Byrd, etc. Indeed he defeated Brewster the second time around. I do agree that it was to Louis' credit that he didn't have the early problems in his career that Klitschko did, outside the Schmeling defeat but that was a higher quality defeat anyway as Schmeling was one of the very best at that time.

Braddock was better than his record would suggest but he was not particularly good, even relative to size, the top heavyweights that Klitschko defeated were superior to him. Louis' opponents were of a lower quality than Klitschko's, the similarity with both is that they were the very best around so they defeated the best that was on offer (outside of Vitali of course but that is a special case) and you can't do more than that. Fighters from other weight classes have the opportunity to fight above their weight to find good competition but heavyweights are stuck with what they've got.

The quality of heavyweights during the Klitschko era really wasn't as bad as people make out, it wasn't great but also not terrible, the fights were just mostly tedious to watch. Massive super-heavyweights necessarily fight at a slower pace and if you have the skill, power and inclination to keep opponents at a distance and clinch and smother when they do get close like Klitschko did then you have the makings of a dull fight. Klitschko was a cautious figher who was able to force his style on his opponents, Louis was an aggressive stalking fighter who was also able to force his style on his opponents


Also in regards to Louis' power, people mention it all the time without due regard to the size and type of gloves he was wearing. If you put todays biggest punching cruiserweights (such as Kudryashov and Gassiev) in the 6 ounce horsehair gloves of the 1930s and 40s their power would magnify even greater.

Good to see you back Humean. The glove thing is a myth, actually power transfers very differently in different gloves and other factors come into play like the tolerances on the hands, wrists, the transfer of power from the body through to the opponent...so for example, a lead can work with a smaller glove, but will not transfer with a bigger glove, hence the jab where the arm is pronated, comes back etc...the older leads thrown were aimed at the chin point and the arm hardly moves because in small gloves, and hands the body weight transfers into the opponent.

Your analysis of Klitsko is credible. I think there are other things that could make Louis conceivably appear stronger when emphasized, but it is a point that has merit on both sides. braddock was indeed a skilled fighter but not necessarily exceptional, he learned to use his left hand is what happened lol so he became a two handed fighter.

I will leave with this comment: We might be looking at apples and oranges: For example, Louis fighting Billy Conn, a very skillful opponent, but not very big, while Klitsko fighting guys who had more power but I can't think of a fighter he fought as skilled as Conn, not off the top of my head.

[Humean]

Good to see you back Humean. The glove thing is a myth, actually power transfers very differently in different gloves and other factors come into play like the tolerances on the hands, wrists, the transfer of power from the body through to the opponent...so for example, a lead can work with a smaller glove, but will not transfer with a bigger glove, hence the jab where the arm is pronated, comes back etc...the older leads thrown were aimed at the chin point and the arm hardly moves because in small gloves, and hands the body weight transfers into the opponent.

Your analysis of Klitsko is credible. I think there are other things that could make Louis conceivably appear stronger when emphasized, but it is a point that has merit on both sides. braddock was indeed a skilled fighter but not necessarily exceptional, he learned to use his left hand is what happened lol so he became a two handed fighter.

I will leave with this comment: We might be looking at apples and oranges: For example, Louis fighting Billy Conn, a very skillful opponent, but not very big, while Klitsko fighting guys who had more power but I can't think of a fighter he fought as skilled as Conn, not off the top of my head.

Obviously there are a load of factors behind punching power but it is clear that more force will be generated from 6 ounce gloves compared to 10 ounce ones. Added to that is the quality of gloves, those 1930s and 40s gloves did not keep their structural integrity for the duration of the fight like todays gloves do so the cushioning-effect diminished as the fight progressed. Louis had awesome power for his day but I wouldn't be surprised if he was using one of the variety of todays 10 ounce gloves that his power wouldn't appear quite so impressive. Of course this is hard to know with any certainty.

I think a few of Klitschko's opponents might have been more talented than Conn. Conn was good though, he moved very well and was certainly one of Louis' best opponents and one of the finest of the era.

[them_apples]

I think that is unfair on Wlad Klitschko, he started to dominate 2006 onwards because he improved as a fighter not because the opposition declined. Brewster and Sanders were hardly superior to the best guys that Klitschko defeated thereafter, such as Povetkin, Haye, Chagaev, Peter, Byrd, etc. Indeed he defeated Brewster the second time around. I do agree that it was to Louis' credit that he didn't have the early problems in his career that Klitschko did, outside the Schmeling defeat but that was a higher quality defeat anyway as Schmeling was one of the very best at that time.

Braddock was better than his record would suggest but he was not particularly good, even relative to size, the top heavyweights that Klitschko defeated were superior to him. Louis' opponents were of a lower quality than Klitschko's, the similarity with both is that they were the very best around so they defeated the best that was on offer (outside of Vitali of course but that is a special case) and you can't do more than that. Fighters from other weight classes have the opportunity to fight above their weight to find good competition but heavyweights are stuck with what they've got.

The quality of heavyweights during the Klitschko era really wasn't as bad as people make out, it wasn't great but also not terrible, the fights were just mostly tedious to watch. Massive super-heavyweights necessarily fight at a slower pace and if you have the skill, power and inclination to keep opponents at a distance and clinch and smother when they do get close like Klitschko did then you have the makings of a dull fight. Klitschko was a cautious figher who was able to force his style on his opponents, Louis was an aggressive stalking fighter who was also able to force his style on his opponents


Also in regards to Louis' power, people mention it all the time without due regard to the size and type of gloves he was wearing. If you put todays biggest punching cruiserweights (such as Kudryashov and Gassiev) in the 6 ounce horsehair gloves of the 1930s and 40s their power would magnify even greater.

they didn't wear 6 oz horse hair gloves in Louis' era. They wore 8 oz all the way up untill the 70's and swapped them for 10's in the 80's. I believe you can still wear Horsehair gloves as well.

the era before Louis had 6 oz gloves. An 8 oz cleto reyes glove would like almost identical in size and feel to an 8 oz glove from Louis day, apart from small factors like an attached thumb and always a brand new pair (which I am sure in title fights they didn't reuse gloves).

I own a pair of 8 oz reyes and there is really no way to make a statement that the padding in those gloves on a heavyweight does anything aside from lower cutting chances and help with defense. These aren't foam filled gloves, you can feel your knuckle right through them like a pair of hot paws winter mittens.

the gloves that Jack Dempsey wore are another story, but in regards to a knockout the only benefit I see to his gloves were your could cut an opponent, possibly break your own hand and also sneak shots in because they were smaller.

Easier times, a smaller competitive pool and the amatuer game are some of the deciding factors that have lowered the quality of professional fighters. The last one being a HUGE factor. If you train as an amateur (which is now drastically different than pro fighting) due to appease upset mothers of a softer generation to keep it in the olympics you won't learn how to fight as a professional. theres more too it than just sitting down on your shots. You need to make a fight style/plan revolve around the fact that one well place shot can end the fight or at least set you up to end it. Defense is different, attacking is different. Lots of fighters today are really just experienced amateurs with a few tricks. They throw point scoring combos, not consecutive planned out punches. They were raised on the hand pads where your coach does half the work for you. When they do end up stopping the fight the other guy has just checked out mentally or isn't even finished. Originally it was the 10 count, which barely even get's used. everyone in Louis' day attempted to beat the 10 count and try again.

If Foreman vs Lyle or Holmes vs Shavers happened today, they may not have even been allowed to continue.

[Humean]

they didn't wear 6 oz horse hair gloves in Louis' era. They wore 8 oz all the way up untill the 70's and swapped them for 10's in the 80's. I believe you can still wear Horsehair gloves as well.

the era before Louis had 6 oz gloves. An 8 oz cleto reyes glove would like almost identical in size and feel to an 8 oz glove from Louis day, apart from small factors like an attached thumb and always a brand new pair (which I am sure in title fights they didn't reuse gloves).

I own a pair of 8 oz reyes and there is really no way to make a statement that the padding in those gloves on a heavyweight does anything aside from lower cutting chances and help with defense. These aren't foam filled gloves, you can feel your knuckle right through them like a pair of hot paws winter mittens.

the gloves that Jack Dempsey wore are another story, but in regards to a knockout the only benefit I see to his gloves were your could cut an opponent, possibly break your own hand and also sneak shots in because they were smaller.

Easier times, a smaller competitive pool and the amatuer game are some of the deciding factors that have lowered the quality of professional fighters. The last one being a HUGE factor. If you train as an amateur (which is now drastically different than pro fighting) due to appease upset mothers of a softer generation to keep it in the olympics you won't learn how to fight as a professional. theres more too it than just sitting down on your shots. You need to make a fight style/plan revolve around the fact that one well place shot can end the fight or at least set you up to end it. Defense is different, attacking is different. Lots of fighters today are really just experienced amateurs with a few tricks. They throw point scoring combos, not consecutive planned out punches. They were raised on the hand pads where your coach does half the work for you. When they do end up stopping the fight the other guy has just checked out mentally or isn't even finished. Originally it was the 10 count, which barely even get's used. everyone in Louis' day attempted to beat the 10 count and try again.

If Foreman vs Lyle or Holmes vs Shavers happened today, they may not have even been allowed to continue.

1) As I understand it you are incorrect about the gloves Joe Louis wore during his title reign, it was mostly 6 ounce gloves. I asked joeandthebums about this a couple of years ago here:

https://www.boxingscene.com/forums/s...30&postcount=8

He seems to know his stuff as when i've checked out other things he's written he has been correct.
This newspaper article mentions both Louis-Conn title fights using 6 oz gloves.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?n...g=4017,4187870

Now it is possible that Louis only wore 6 oz gloves for the fights joeandthebums mentioned and wore 8 oz for all the rest but i'm not sure there is any reason to think that unless you have evidence for that.

2) Again as I understand it the gloves of today that are horsehair are not purely horsehair but a mix with foam, including the Reyes gloves you have. So those 8 oz Reyes gloves you own are going to be quite a bit different to the 8 oz horsehair gloves of the 1930s and 40s.

3) Also it is not just the use of horsehair that is relevant but the quality of the gloves. The gloves of the 1930s did not sustain their structure as the fight progressed in the way that later manufactured gloves have. Essentially the manufactured gloves of today are of a higher standard.

4) Let me be clear about what i'm not saying, i'm not saying that Louis didn't possess a lot of power, the difference between punching someone with 10 oz modern day foam gloves and punching someone with 6 oz horsehair gloves of the 1930s is not the difference between being Paulie Malignaggi versus being Julian Jackson, however it is still a big difference nevertheless.

5) Why should easier times lower the quality? Fighting sometimes multiple times a month out of economic necessity and with constant injuries does not make you a better fighter and that was what plenty of fighters from the first half of the century were dealing with.

6) The competitive pool may never have been higher than it is currently, or at least recently.

7) The differences between amateur and pro boxing are no where near as large as I often see people claim, I mean do you watch amateur boxing at the highest level, Olympics, World Championships etc? People who say that often say that the amateur style is just a style to land one punch and then run away as if every prominent amateur boxer of recent years fought like Zou Shiming as amateurs.

8) The Olympics is a big deal and for most boxers from around the world the prospect of winning an Olympic Gold medal is a far bigger deal than becoming a pro-world champion.