Who had/has the ideal heavyweight physique?

Heavies as we know are different to other weights asthere is no limit with them. We have seen some big lumps in our time but who can you say had the overall best physique.

Ali was tall and quick and used both height and reach tremendously. Had problems with little Frazier tho.
Tyson was short but very powerfull and extreamly quick.
Marciano the same, short, stocky but dangerously powerful.
Mike Weaver was built like a house. Very well conditioned fighter.
Bruno was an adonis, very muscular but too tight and lost energy in fights which cost him.
Holyfeild was smaller for a heavy but still mixed it with the best.
Vitali is very tall and big and can control fights behind his jab better then any fighter I know.

For me Holmes combined the height, reach and speed that enabled him to dominate his division and an era of heavy weight boxing.

Evander Holyfield with a little help from mr Growth Hormone

Felix Savon

Agree with Sittingringside. Savon, 6 4" or 6 5", at times moved like a welterweight, great right hand. Overall, Awsome!

A fit Bowe and a young Lennox also.

alma wrote:Dustin Nichols. No question.

Hated Deontays Wilders showboating against Nichols. Proper play yard bully stuff. Sickening. The guys needs a good beating.

Golota had a pretty good physique for a heavyweight. Not too muscular, 6ft 4-odd & 240lbs. Frightened the life out of Bowe. Just didn't have the mental capabilities to capitalise on it. Smacked Riddick in the crown jewels several times (couldn't have happened to a nicer bloke) and rightfully got thrown out.

Lewis for me. Tall (6'5"), 3rd longest reach of any HW, athletic but not overly muscled, deceptively quick, brute strength and awesome power when he chose to let his hands go. It's his physicality (along with his boxing skill and KO power) that convince me he is capable of beating any HW from history at the peak of his game.

Ali, the physical phenomenon that he was at his best. Absolutely perfect balance, with agility, speed and sting. Totally off the wall in terms of technique and style but that made him even harder to beat.

The best looking (I'll stress that bit) physique I've seen on a Heavyweight was Norton, no question. The term "body beautiful" doesn't even come close to doing him justice.

Certainly was, Alma. Although he only 'lost' to Ali in their third fight on the official record. As much as I love Ali, he got away with murder that night.

I'll second that Chris.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Lewis for me. Tall (6'5"), 3rd longest reach of any HW, athletic but not overly muscled, deceptively quick, brute strength and awesome power when he chose to let his hands go. It's his physicality (along with his boxing skill and KO power) that convince me he is capable of beating any HW from history at the peak of his game.

agree on this without a shadow...Wlads also, tall, decent reach, strong, can show moments of being light on his feet...all the physical attributes there for me too. Looking forward, Price looks like he has all the physical attributes (except chin not tested yet, i know) and Ant Joshua, perfect size for me to make a dent in the division

Butterbean

Larry O.

David Price seems to have the best from the UK crop. All the others have lovehandleitus including that fat lemon Fury.

Viva la Price!!!

88Chris05 wrote:Certainly was, Alma. Although he only 'lost' to Ali in their third fight on the official record. As much as I love Ali, he got away with murder that night.

The fight was shown on ESPN Classic recently. I had Ali winning by a couple of rounds. He landed the cleaner punches more often. Kenny blocked many punches and made ALi miss often, but his offence was not as good as Ali's.

Disagreeing in the face of overwhelming popular opinion again, Az!?

Suffice to say I can't really make a case for Ali third time out. Watched the fight twice and both times have had Norton up by two or three points. That fight really highlights how immobile Ali had become by the mid seventies in comparison to his sixties reign - he just couldn't slip or time Norton's jabs, particularly when he doubled them up.

I'm not one of these people who thinks that Norton handed him his backside three times out of three by any means, but in my mind Norton deserved to be 2-1 up in that series based purely on performances, or at the very, very least level pegging at 1-1-1.

88Chris05 wrote:Disagreeing in the face of overwhelming popular opinion again, Az!?
Suffice to say I can't really make a case for Ali third time out. Watched the fight twice and both times have had Norton up by two or three points. That fight really highlights how immobile Ali had become by the mid seventies in comparison to his sixties reign - he just couldn't slip or time Norton's jabs, particularly when he doubled them up.

I'm not one of these people who thinks that Norton handed him his backside three times out of three by any means, but in my mind Norton deserved to be 2-1 up in that series based purely on performances, or at the very, very least level pegging at 1-1-1.

Would I ever?????

That was the first time I had seen the fight in years and I was of the opinion that Kenny was shafted.....until I saw it again. The cleaner work was done by Ali. The fight itself was scrappy and the spoiling tactics employed by Kenny probably (justifiably?) counted against him.

You never know, maybe I'll see things differently if / when I see the fight again. Not exactly the type of bout you'd rush to view for another time, though!

Anyway, my time's being taken up by the little'uns right now; I've done the Light-Heavies and the Welters, and next up it's the Flyweights in my little 'Ten title fights you must see in your lifetime' series. Was worried about the Flyweights, but it's actually been great - more top class fights there than I first remembered, as well as discovering some more obscure gems. Trying to cut the list down to ten at the moment, but it's been a real labour of love, which has surprised me.

Kenny was good. But his trilogy with a faded Ali made him. Had he been around today he would be a contender but does not beet K2. I cant help but think of him with his eyeballs rolling back against Cooney and being pulverised by Foreman (no shame in that). When he met a big puncher, he fell short badly.

You could argue that he might have had a more worthwhile reign as 'champion' had he come about a few years previously or afterwards, but I'd agree with Az, insofar as I think that Norton and his standing / reputation benefitted from the era he competed in, really.

He was a fairly hard man to outbox, but wilted in the face of heavy artillery - so it was lucky for him that of the three best Heavies he fought (Ali, Holmes, Foreman), only one of them was a serious banger.

From the outset, for example, the mid to late thirties seems a much weaker era for the Heavies, but I feel that Norton, in fact, would have fared worse there - punchers of Louis' and Baer's capabilities would have meant big trouble for him.

Would probably be the nearest rival to the Klitschkos today, but plays second fiddle to both of them over the course of a career, I'd think.

I kind of think that in different circumstances Foreman could have beaten Ali but the way Foreman beat Frazier (twice) is about as conclusive as it gets at heavyweight. Something Ive never been sold on for Ali/Foreman.

Having said that. Given the context I think Alis win has to be seen as greater.

True, very few could or would have predicted someone could survive against Foreman by essentially lying on the ropes and soaking up punishment.

I ust feel there was a touch of Murphys Law about the fight from Foremans perspective. Every little kind of advantage there could be be seemed to fall Alis way. From being written off in the press, the rapport Ali had with the locals compared to Foremans unpopularity, the cut delaying the fight making it impossible for Foreman to spar and keeping him couped up in a military style compound to the ring being set up to early on fight day which meant the ropes had began to sag in the humidity. Even Foremans pet dog was a German Sherpherd which turned out to be a symbol of colonial oppression in Zaire. Nothing went right for him!

Has to be Ali stopping Foreman for me, regardless of any odd circumstances (I'm not as sold on others on the idea that lady luck was incredibly biased towards Ali that night in Zaire, but that's another story).

As highly regarded as Frazier was by 1973, he had shown his frailties to the world; it had taken a fantastic late surge in the 'Fight of the Centiry' to hold off Ali, while Bonavena, having come incredibly close to stopping Frazier, had demonstrated how vulnerable he could be in the early stages - in retrospect, it's amazing that so few considered a genuinely murderous puncher such as Foreman a threat to Joe, given how long it took his engine to get going.

On the other hand, the Foreman who went to Zaire seemed totally invincible, omnipotent. There existed game plans on how to beat all other Heavyweights, but nobody could even begin to fathom one which would result in Foreman losing. Hugh McIllvaney summed it up well when he was asked how you beat Foreman: "First, you shell him for three days. Then you send in the infantry."

It's also worth noting that Yank Durham, Eddie Futch and Ken Norton, his sparring partner at the time, stated that there was a decline in Frazier's intensity and training load after he'd scaled his own personal Everest by beating Ali, so it's not impossible that the Frazier who Foreman hammered may not have been in the correct shape, be it mentally or physically, to take on a young and brutal up and comer like Big George.

88Chris05 wrote:

On the other hand, the Foreman who went to Zaire seemed totally invincible, omnipotent. There existed game plans on how to beat all other Heavyweights, but nobody could even begin to fathom one which would result in Foreman losing.

Colin Hart could, has he not mentioned it.

rowley wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:

On the other hand, the Foreman who went to Zaire seemed totally invincible, omnipotent. There existed game plans on how to beat all other Heavyweights, but nobody could even begin to fathom one which would result in Foreman losing.

Colin Hart could, has he not mentioned it.

Yes, but I was talking about mere mortals, Jeff.

As Hart bears a striking resemblance to "Hawk" from "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century", that assessment of Colin isn't a disparaging as you may think

I'm going with Liston. Massive reach and power, big broad shoulders and a good chin and quicker than given credit for.

When devasting puncher get on a roll like Foreman was on, yes they can look omnipotent, but once they lose it becomes suddely much easier to see the faults- in Georges case a lack of speed, average to poor defence, the arching nature of his punches, poor stamina. As I have previously stated I think that George gets an easy ride when we rank and rate- yes he did have a handful of kayos over top oppostion, but Norton could not handle punchers, Chavelo was tough but not top class which really only leaves Frazier as a top notch win. He lost to a past his best Ali, looking clueless in the process, and a few fights later got beaten by Jimmy Young - and that surely must count as a very poor result for man rated in the top 5 by most. As for his second reign , without wishing to open a debate about the existence of lucky punches, became about as a result of him wining about 11 seconds of his fight with Moorer, and that includes the count! he ended up with 5 win against 3 loses in titles fights, which is one or the poorer records in the elite rankings.
Anyway-ideal physic, probably Ali- well proportioned but not overly muscled, not too heavy, not so tall as to have to punch down too much

horizontalhero wrote:When devasting puncher get on a roll like Foreman was on, yes they can look omnipotent, but once they lose it becomes suddely much easier to see the faults- in Georges case a lack of speed, average to poor defence, the arching nature of his punches, poor stamina. As I have previously stated I think that George gets an easy ride when we rank and rate- yes he did have a handful of kayos over top oppostion, but Norton could not handle punchers, Chavelo was tough but not top class which really only leaves Frazier as a top notch win. He lost to a past his best Ali, looking clueless in the process, and a few fights later got beaten by Jimmy Young - and that surely must count as a very poor result for man rated in the top 5 by most. As for his second reign , without wishing to open a debate about the existence of lucky punches, became about as a result of him wining about 11 seconds of his fight with Moorer, and that includes the count! he ended up with 5 win against 3 loses in titles fights, which is one or the poorer records in the elite rankings.
Anyway-ideal physic, probably Ali- well proportioned but not overly muscled, not too heavy, not so tall as to have to punch down too much

Its a fair point regarding Foreman. Although invariably anyone outside the top two can be subjected to a pretty strong case as to why they dont belong in the top 5 (although I think Holmes deserves to be a certain top 5). I would say Foreman is pretty nailed on for top 10 but as you point out there is a reason to argue his top 5 merits. But whoever replaces him is almost certainly going to have a case equally strong against them. His lack of title reign is a major hole in his case but I do think his wins over Frazier and Norton are better than pretty much any heavyweight outside Ali and Louis can boast and his second coming to capture a title was an impressive acheivement in its own right, even if it was against a fairly mediocre champion. Combined with devastating power and the feeling he does well in head to heads I do think gives him a strong case for top 5 considering the candidates he is up against. Overall I have in my top 5 but I would agree with you that he seems to get an easier ride than the other candidates vying for that spot.

How is Ali "tall" and Holyfield "smaller"? There's only half an inch in it.

Ali and Holyfield are both small-ish heavyweights by today's standards. But I'd take a fast, athletic 6'3 guy over a slow lumering 6'6 guy.

Well Ali is six foot plus, and at his best a natural 215 pounds, Holyfield is shorter than that and natural around 195 to 200 pounds, also when compared to his peers Like Bowe and Lewis he was definitely small, whereas Ali was as tall or taller than most of his.

No, Holyfield is also well over 6ft. There's only half an inch in it, according to Wikipedia.

Was Ali naturally a lot heavier? A little maybe, but not a lot. If the cruiserweight division had existed back then, Ali probably would have been able to succesfully campaign at 190 in his younger days, before stepping up.

I say they had fairly similar physiques... athletic (rather than bulky) fighters of almost the same height.

Holyfield was small for his era, Ali wasn't, and their physiques aren't similar, Ali never looked like he used weight training, Holyfield looked a bodybuilder in comparison, but as I said the tale of the tape is irrelevant here, compare them to their peers.

Yeah I get what you're saying... different eras, heavyweights were smaller back then. But my comment was in the context of the original post...

smashingstormcrow wrote:Yeah I get what you're saying... different eras, heavyweights were smaller back then. But my comment was in the context of the original post...

Good point. I'll shut up

You can't really say Evander was small in height for his era when the only people that he fought who were significantly bigger than him were...Bowe, Lewis, Douglas, Savarese and Valuev.

Everyone else was either smaller than him.... or within about half an inch.

I guess the perception that he was small is that he had to bulk up a lot to become a HW, he was after all a natural cruiserweight, and whilst he may not have been small per say, he certainly looked small when compared with Bowe, Foreman, Lewis, the Klitchkos etc. Perhaps we should settle on him being an average sized heavyweight

No doubt his frame was small and he bulked up (legally or otherwise) but yeah, height wise.... average.

I've got an old copy of Ring magazine which has a preview of the Ali Foreman fight in 1974 and of all the "experts" making predictions only Ken Norton said Ali would win. I remember sitting down to watch it in front of my black and white TV when the farmer from across the road invited me to come and watch it on his new big coloured one {22 inch I think}. He spoilt the fight for me making inane comments throughout the fight like most non boxing fans,and I would have bet my house on big George winning that one.

Interesting that it's Norton that went for Ali- usually when fighters are asked to comment on those they have lost to they tend to big them up a bit to make their loss look bettter. What reasons did he give for backing Ali?
I imagine most went for Foreman on the grounds that Ali was getting easier to nail, and that George had so much power, and so no one foresaw Ali being able to absorb those blows in the incredible manner in which he did.

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:Lewis for me. Tall (6'5"), 3rd longest reach of any HW, athletic but not overly muscled, deceptively quick, brute strength and awesome power when he chose to let his hands go. It's his physicality (along with his boxing skill and KO power) that convince me he is capable of beating any HW from history at the peak of his game.

i agree.
the perfect heavyweight is tall, quick, skilled, able to go 12 rounds with the ability to end a fight with one punch. that sums up lewis.

but it's a funny one, put ali in the body of lewis and is it still ali? ali's body shaped the technique and style of the fighter - he wouldn't have fought like ali if he was inside the body of say.....vitali.

horizontalhero wrote:Interesting that it's Norton that went for Ali- usually when fighters are asked to comment on those they have lost to they tend to big them up a bit to make their loss look bettter. What reasons did he give for backing Ali?
I imagine most went for Foreman on the grounds that Ali was getting easier to nail, and that George had so much power, and so no one foresaw Ali being able to absorb those blows in the incredible manner in which he did.

Also, something that often gets forgotten about Foreman is that at his best he cut the ring off quick and got the job done.

I wouldn't back the K's over Kenny quite so quickly as some are. So he got blasted by Foreman, as if they wouldn't?