How much does that 50lbs of muscle matter between HW of the 80s and now?

[juggernaut666]

To be fair, both Klitschko's had great stamina in their primes. If you look at Anthony Joshua, you have the prime example of the modern day superheavy and if you go back, you'd only have freak examples like Carnera to compare remotely. Lennox Lewis probably set the precedent for the modern day superheavy introduced say, 20 yrs ago.

Fight mechanics are just different ..imagine Carnera being athletic like Joshua back then? As stated todays super heavy weights are much better ,they also haveo to fight like SHw's it is what it is. Joshua jumped from going 2 rnds on average to a 7 rounder...that's huge in leaps if you actually fought before you would know this...some ppl just don't get it,even legendary junior Olympics coaches...ha ha!

[AlexKid]

fight mechanics are just different ..imagine carnera being athletic like joshua back then? As stated todays super heavy weights are much better ,they also haveo to fight like shw's it is what it is. Joshua jumped from going 2 rnds on average to a 7 rounder...that's huge in leaps if you actually fought before you would know this...some ppl just don't get it,even legendary junior olympics coaches...ha ha!

juggs makes a great point, its not the size that matters its big guys that are explosive that the small explosive guys of the past cant compete with

[ShoulderRoll]

Fight mechanics are just different ..imagine Carnera being athletic like Joshua back then? As stated todays super heavy weights are much better ,they also haveo to fight like SHw's it is what it is. Joshua jumped from going 2 rnds on average to a 7 rounder...that's huge in leaps if you actually fought before you would know this...some ppl just don't get it,even legendary junior Olympics coaches...ha ha!

Carnera was plenty athletic. He was a circus strongman who could snatch and hold large amounts of weight over his head and also became a competent wrestler, often having to face 10 to 12 men a day.

He was fairly mobile too despite being so big. Certainly not as much of a clod as Valuev. And he had great conditioning as well, having the endurance to go 15 rounds several times.

But fighting skills will always be more important than mere size and athletic ability alone.

[Ray Corso]

There is no heavy that ever had or has 50lbs. of "muscle" over another heavyweight.
Paterson comes to my mind as a small heavy but at 185-90lbs the 60 pounds that Fury has on him certainly isn't 50lbs of muscle.
If you could measure muscle to fat ratio's Paterson would certainly show less fat content and more muscle via percentage over Fury.

Silly thread!

Ray

[The Old LefHook]

There is no heavy that ever had or has 50lbs. of "muscle" over another heavyweight.
Paterson comes to my mind as a small heavy but at 185-90lbs the 60 pounds that Fury has on him certainly isn't 50lbs of muscle.
If you could measure muscle to fat ratio's Paterson would certainly show less fat content and more muscle via percentage over Fury.

Silly thread!

Ray

Angus McKaslill had 50 lbs. of muscle over Willie Shoemaker.

[billeau2]

Angus McKaslill had 50 lbs. of muscle over Willie Shoemaker.

You fail to mention that Angus was a goat!

[Ray Corso]

THE Shoe was a "super fly" and I'm not talking Curtis Mayfield (R.I.P.)


Possibly Carnera (245) vs Paterson (188) is close because Carnera was a powerhouse strongman and a tough bastard to keep getting up against Baer.
Paterson was a well conditioned athlete with a huge heart and competitiveness.

Both men were muscled with a small percentage of fat, I'd guess 7-9%!

Ray

[juggernaut666]

Carnera was plenty athletic. He was a circus strongman who could snatch and hold large amounts of weight over his head and also became a competent wrestler, often having to face 10 to 12 men a day.

He was fairly mobile too despite being so big. Certainly not as much of a clod as Valuev. And he had great conditioning as well, having the endurance to go 15 rounds several times.

But fighting skills will always be more important than mere size and athletic ability alone.

fOR HIS TIME MAYBE,,,HES STILL VERY OFF BALANCE AND NOT SUITABLE TO FIGHT LIKE A BIG MAN FOR HIS TIME IF YOU COMPARE HIM TO HOW "BIG ' GUYS ARE TRAINED TODAY...THIS IS CLEAR IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT.

[juggernaut666]

There is no heavy that ever had or has 50lbs. of "muscle" over another heavyweight.
Paterson comes to my mind as a small heavy but at 185-90lbs the 60 pounds that Fury has on him certainly isn't 50lbs of muscle.
If you could measure muscle to fat ratio's Paterson would certainly show less fat content and more muscle via percentage over Fury.

Silly thread!

Ray

Great WAY TO COMPARE THE LEAST ATHLETIC BODY OF THE TOP hw'S ..HA .Would YOU LIKE ME TO LIST all THE hw'S FROM FOREMAN TO Bruno TO KLITCHKO?EXPERIANCED BOXING HISTORY YOU ARE CORRECT RAY?ALSO IGNORING A SUB 200 POUNDER WILL HAVE ALMOST LESS BODY FAT THAN A REAL LIFE HW

[BennyST]

Why doesnt this debate ever die? Wlad Klit just got outclassed by a guy that lost some of his useless excess weight and he was able to use that advantage in added speed, significantly better footwork, movement, sharpness and basic boxing to embarrass the supposedly better boxer. Fury's height helped, but it was basic boxing, good conditioning and cutting the excess baggage off his fat ass that won him that fight.

Most 'super' heavies of today would reap major benefits from losing 20-50 pounds. If you're a properly big guy, in proportion and weigh in around the 240+ mark, like the Klits, that's fine. However, most just aren't that big and are just adding excess baggage that is not only redundant, but in most cases hurts the fighter. Guys are coming in with 20 or 30 extra pounds when they should be losing it and gaining the added benefits of more stamina, more speed, sharper movement, quicker, lighter footwork etc etc.

The benefits of losing those extra pounds and reaping the rewards that being lighter brings far, far outweighs any small benefits that an extra 20 to 30 pounds of mostly fat brings.

Think of someone like Haye. He's a typical sized heavy of the golden age. A bit over 6, around 220ish, and he has the speed, lightness and sharpness that his size naturally gives him. What possible benefits would he gain by adding an extra 30 pounds? All of his advantages would actually disappear and he's been the second best heavy of this last period until Fury became champ. Even Fury was only able to truly benefit by losing as much weight as he could and getting down towards the 240 range to show his potential.

This whole absurd debate of added weight = better boxer is one of the most embarrassing cases of deluded madness I've ever come across. Nearly all of the contenders these guys talk about are literally just fat.

They are 6'2" to 6'4" for the most part and are weighing in around the 240-260 mark when it's clear to anyone with a brain, and backed up by sporting statistics, that losing that weight would give them advantages so far beyond what they get by weighing in so heavy, it's just bizarre.

I think it's as much a sign of the times/era as it is anything. The fact that such poorly trained athletes are able to have a greater degree of success than they normally would have in a stronger, harder era simply means they aren't pushed to lose it. It isn't necessary for them to gain those benefits by training like professionals because they have enough success to be considered 'world class' today when once upon a time they would have had no choice but to lose those extra pounds if they wanted any hope of scratching the top ten.

Holyfield, at 394 years old, fought the biggest ever world champion and should have won. A former cruiserweight of the size that all these strange kids say is impossible to have success based on his size used his basic boxing skill, and advantages in speed, footwork, combination punching, and movement at a very advanced age to beat the bigger, younger champion.

This is a guy that all these super sized advocates would argue black and blue that he would have no success in his prime because he'd simply be too small. There's enough crossover from the old era to the new to show that is indisputably false.