Are Super heavyweights really Super?

This popped up for discussion on another thread. Size matters, brawn over brain, bigger is better you know the argument. To my knowledge, and dont hold me to this, the current heavyweight scene is as big as its ever been and spearheaded by a double headed monster known as Klitschko. The division has got bigger, this much is true. Is this boxing evolution? The proof of the mantra that bigger is better? That the increase in the average size in males over the decades is being reflected? There is the argument that that the sheer size of these larger heavyweights gives the a distinct advantage over their smaller counterparts and the future of the division lies with big, 250lb 6'6 plus "super heavyweights" for this reason.

My take. No no no NO! The best size for heavyweights are 200lb-220lb. They can take something from everything. They can blend speed, movement, power and agility much better than there bigger counterparts. Once above 220lb you see a steadily diminishing return on size. Loss of mobility and speed are sacrificied for size. History suggests that the greatest heavyweights with some exception have come from this bracket. I dont believe its because there werent supersized boxers around. I see it as evidence that the supersized boxers were not as successful when there was more heavyweight talent in abundance. And this brings me to the crux of the matter. Talent. Or lack of it. The division is dire in terms the actuals skills and talent on display. You may get the odd good rockem, sockem type clash but quality match ups and skills are rarer than hens teeth. Its the lack of talent coming through (possibly lost to other sports in this day and age) thats allowing oversized, and in many cases, overfed but almost always underskilled supersized heavyweight to lumber around the division like Frankenstein. The Klitschkos have stayed on top by pretty much using the basics well. ABC boxing. Jab, right hand, sound fundementals, staying in condition, using their experience. But the opposition has been rubbish.

somebody post on this from September.......or he'll keep moaning about my threads that get people actually bother with......

I prefer smaller heavies............ 

Almost 20,000 posts of absolute diarrhoea. Like a big fat ass spraying liquid crap all over a toilet bowl.

Catchweight hates the klitshckos because they are great and have been for years.

Shame really.

The Klitschkos are not great boxers. They have been the best in an extraordinarily poor era of heavyweights.

They are great. Simple.

great athleticism, great technique, power, speed.....chin lacks in Wladamir but Vitali could have stood with the very very best on his day.

They are not great. Simple. Next.

Great for their time but I have serious doubts about whether Wlad could have competed against the best. He was scared stiff of Povetkin, imagine what he'd be like against a Tyson or a Dempsey.

Best title for a thread I've seen in a while in fairness.

catchweight wrote:Like a big fat ass spraying liquid crap all over a toilet bowl.

Our inaugural v2 Metaphor of the Month winner.

Statistics and facts of life show they are, catchweight.

Next.

All it takes is Trussy..To get a party started........

They are good/great heavy listers moby...Just not very good fighters........

Like Louis born at the right time.

Statistics mean nothing without context, Foremans title wins over Moorer, Frazier and Norton mean more than the whole career of Wlad or Vitali.

I think Vitali is better than Wlad for obvious reasons and think his style would be well suited to that of the 60's through to the early 90's.

Wlad wouldn't have coped with say Fraizer, Foreman, Holmes.....but would have coped better with a "boxer".

Vitali on the other hand would have beat the above im sure of it.

Has the accumulative power, the ability, size and most importantly the chin.

Well he didn't beat an old Lewis so I don't see him beating Foreman or Holmes, not sure he has the one punch power to bother any of them to be honest. Holmes aside from Ali and Louis is probably the archetypal heavyweight boxer, everything came off of his jab. Size is all well and good but you still need the ability to go with it, Fitzsimmons stopped the 300lb Dunkhorst with one body punch, to be that into context he was Jeffries number one sparring partner whom he could not hurt.

Foreman vs Vito = Foreman vs Guido Trane all over again........

I'd pick a 44 year old George to pile through both of them.........

Pick bruno to beat both as well.......

Bruno? Really Truss?

Was a good fighter by all means and contained some decent power. Was very imposing.

Don't think he would beat Vitali though, but would push Wlad. I think.

Bruno would get KTFO by both Klit bros

Bruno's got a puncher's chance against Wladimir in fairness, but then again so too did Peter and Haye. Can't take advantage of that puncher's chance if you can't reach your target (albeit Peter did get through to the 'old' Wladimir, which ironically was the younger one!) and once that fails, Bruno hasn't got a great deal to fall back on against a bigger, quicker, more skilful foe like Wlad. Bruno didn't fight at that high, aggressive pace which Wladimir doesn't like either, but his out and out power combined with Wlad's vulnerabilities mean that Frank's a relatively live underdog and would be dangerous for Wlad.

Would fear for Bruno against Vitali though, big time. Vitali's chin is too good to be cracked with a single shot and that was basically all that Bruno threw at any one time - too slow and not enough killer instinct to really dazzle with combinations. I can see it being a typical Bruno loss; very plucky and bags some early rounds with that ramrod jab, but gets outlasted by the more resilient man and carved up as the fight progresses before the referee comes to his rescue near the end.

You say you can't take advantage if you can't reach the target but Bruno has a longer reach than Wlad and personally think for the first 4/5 rounds at least he has the better jab. Taking that into account it isn't beyond the realms he lands big early, unlike most of Wlads opponents he doesn't have all of the physical advantages. I don't see Bruno beating Vitali but against Wlad i'd make 60/40 in Wlads favour.

The Klitschkos stats dont actually amount to a great deal. It should be pretty obvious for anyone who has followed heavyweight boxing from a time pre the crappola Klitschko era that the Klitschkos arent actually all that good or talented. They are workmanlike, solid pro's that do the basics rigidly to a reasonable standard and paper over an awful defence in Vitalis case with a decent chin and in Wlads blatant cheating and that alone has allowed them to remain around the top against pretty awful competition. All the atats they have, what are they? Wlad has 0 defences as an actual undisputed champion. His fights have never displayed any greatness in ability. You can tell watching him against some of the fighters that pass for top heavyweights nowadays like Povetkin or Haye that he really isnt any great shakes. Vitali got beat by an old Lewis, held the title briefly after, retired and came back to hang around part time in his brothers shadow. His greatest achievement is managing to win a few rounds against Lewis.

I don't put much in Bruno having an inch longer reach, really. Wladimir can throw the jab effectively going forwards and backwards - Bruno in comparison fought as if he had a ball and chain attached to his ankle. Bruno had the harder jab, I agree, but Wlad's was quicker and a bit harder to pick up, the Haye fight being a good example. Agree wholeheartedly that Bruno has enough about him to keep Wladimir honest, but personally I'd make Wlad a bigger favourite than 60:40.

The reach could be quite significant when it comes to the battle of the jab, Wlad would for once have to be wary of his opponent landing first regardless of his being quicker. He's going to have to step in to land and i'm not sure he's going to want to do that against someone with the power of Bruno, to me anyone with power and size/speed is going to worry him.

A few round being the majority of all the rounds catchweight.

You really don't like them do you haha

I just dont think they are all that good. Nowhere near "great" boxers.

Fair enough but why do you continue to post tens of times on threads stating every time they are brought up.

I dont though. Maybe 3/4 threads when they have been discussed. Some people just dont like hearing it.

catchweight wrote:I dont though. Maybe 3/4 threads when they have been discussed. Some people just dont like hearing it.

you post it constantly

I dont though. You are just attracted to the comments like a fly on a turd because your head is stuck up Klitschkos arse.

Intellectual debate as always...

Scottrf wrote:Intellectual debate as always...

No need to explain his opinion, all he has to do is say they aren't great ad nauseam apparently.

catchweight wrote:I dont though. You are just attracted to the comments like a fly on a turd because your head is stuck up Klitschkos arse.

Probably 40% + of your comments are about the Klitschkos.

Then again 100% of your boxing posts are to do with the Klitschkos, those in glass houses.

catchweight wrote:My take. No no no NO! The best size for heavyweights are 200lb-220lb

200lbs!!! that is 90kilos. There is no way that 90kgs is the perfect weight for a HW. Mike Tyson weighed 106 kilos and even david haye who was a very light HW weighed about 98 kilos.

90 kilos is just way too light to be classed as the perfect weight for a hw.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:somebody post on this from September.......or he'll keep moaning about my threads that get people actually bother with......

I prefer smaller heavies............ 

I don't think anyone posted because people are probably bored of catchweight constantly saying the klitschkos are rubbish on every discussion. Also catchweight is hardly famous for intelligent debate for eg a good comment by mobilemaster gets a very dismissive and all too common response by catchweight.

mobilemaster8 wrote:They are great. Simple.

great athleticism, great technique, power, speed.....chin lacks in Wladamir but Vitali could have stood with the very very best on his day.

catchweight wrote:They are not great. Simple. Next.

Yeh it felt good having such a dismissive yet informative response .

Aa always, champagne, catchweight show himself up.

Shame really because behind the hatred of the brothers and mayweather, he appears knowledgeable.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

catchweight wrote:I dont though. You are just attracted to the comments like a fly on a turd because your head is stuck up Klitschkos arse.

Probably 40% + of your comments are about the Klitschkos.

Nah wrong again. Another stat pulled out of your arse. Or should that be Klitschkos arse, where your head is stuck?

 Sure likes those Klitschko's backsides..

I know you must yeah. Funny how you two guys accusing me of only posting about Klitschko seem to only show up when Klitschko is being discussed and dedicate most of their boxing posts to Klitschko. Seems to me its actually you guys that have the Klitschko obsessions and just dont like it when people dont follow your hero worship of them.

Klitschko is one of my favorite boxer's, I'm not an avid boxing fan so don't have as deep a knowledge as most of the guy's here, so don't bother in areas I'm not well honed in the sport. That's why I post, I have no idea why you do though? Is it a surprise to you that people post about boxer's they like as opposed to ones they hate?

Nice comeback by the way  

monty junior wrote:Klitschko is one of my favorite boxer's, I'm not an avid boxing fan so don't have as deep a knowledge as most of the guy's here, so don't bother in areas I'm not well honed in the sport. That's why I post, I have no idea why you do though? Is it a surprise to you that people post about boxer's they like as opposed to ones they hate?

Nice comeback by the way  

yeh I never understand why people post so often about boxers they don't like.

monty junior wrote:Klitschko is one of my favorite boxer's, I'm not an avid boxing fan so don't have as deep a knowledge as most of the guy's here, so don't bother in areas I'm not well honed in the sport. That's why I post, I have no idea why you do though? Is it a surprise to you that people post about boxer's they like as opposed to ones they hate?

Nice comeback by the way  

Not a surprise no. But I think you are just a Klitschko fanboy who cant hack that not everyone thinks they are fantastic and has a different opinion to yours on them.

You can have whatever opinion you want of them and me, I just think you must be a complete sad act to post 50% of your comment on here talking about someone you don't like. It's not healthy, what ever's good for you though.

Yeah keep pulling random stats out of your arse. You will go far.

Because you deal in fact's of course, everyone's crap at everything, I stand corrected.

No, just you and Champagne Klitschko Arse Kisser. Just like they great fighters who dont think the Klitschkos are great are nothing more than "bitter old men" because they dont happen to follow your fanboy worship or can remember a time when heavyweights were more talented.

What is it with your fetish for Klitschko's arse? You can have an opinion, why can I not, the thing is I don't shove it down everyone's throat thread after thread. Not once have I ever said Wlad was the greatest, exciting etc.., doesn't mean I can't defend him though does it? In boxing, delusion in old fighter's is a common theme compared to old great's from other sports, Frazier, Tyson were always respectful of current fighter's. Guys like Holmes, well, how can you deny he's not a bitter old man, great fighter, doesn't not make him bitter, not just about Wlad but about Lewis.

monty junior wrote:What is it with your fetish for Klitschko's arse? You can have an opinion, why can I not, the thing is I don't shove it down everyone's throat thread after thread. Not once have I ever said Wlad was the greatest, exciting etc.., doesn't mean I can't defend him though does it? In boxing, delusion in old fighter's is a common theme compared to old great's from other sports, Frazier, Tyson were always respectful of current fighter's. Guys like Holmes, well, how can you deny he's not a bitter old man, great fighter, doesn't not make him bitter, not just about Wlad but about Lewis.

Probably best to just ignore catchweight, he doesn't seem like the kind of guy you can have a grown up debate with.

Champagne_Socialist wrote:

monty junior wrote:What is it with your fetish for Klitschko's arse? You can have an opinion, why can I not, the thing is I don't shove it down everyone's throat thread after thread. Not once have I ever said Wlad was the greatest, exciting etc.., doesn't mean I can't defend him though does it? In boxing, delusion in old fighter's is a common theme compared to old great's from other sports, Frazier, Tyson were always respectful of current fighter's. Guys like Holmes, well, how can you deny he's not a bitter old man, great fighter, doesn't not make him bitter, not just about Wlad but about Lewis.

Probably best to just ignore catchweight, he doesn't seem like the kind of guy you can have a grown up debate with.

If only that were true. But I look forward to your next post defending your man Klitschkos honour whenever they are mentioned. Whisper his name and you shall appear.

monty junior wrote:What is it with your fetish for Klitschko's arse? You can have an opinion, why can I not, the thing is I don't shove it down everyone's throat thread after thread. Not once have I ever said Wlad was the greatest, exciting etc.., doesn't mean I can't defend him though does it? In boxing, delusion in old fighter's is a common theme compared to old great's from other sports, Frazier, Tyson were always respectful of current fighter's. Guys like Holmes, well, how can you deny he's not a bitter old man, great fighter, doesn't not make him bitter, not just about Wlad but about Lewis.

Its a fetish with your place of residence. Whats the view like?