Throughout boxing's recorded history, fighters have been going up and/or down in weight to mixed results--some, spectacularly successful (e.g., Michael Spinks and, I won't mind if you include the victor last Saturday who went up to 130), others, disastrous (e.g., Roy Jones after the Ruiz fight), and many, shades in between.

Which is tougher: going down to a lower division or going up to a higher one? :)

I would say going down because a fighter could weaken himself and his punch. Alot of people will say a fighter going down in weight would make him a bigger fighter fighting a smaller fighter but if the bigger fighter is too weak it really wouldn't matter would it. Going up could make a fighter stronger and make his punch stronger as well. If done properly a fighter could retain most of his speed also.

I would say going down because a fighter could weaken himself and his punch. Alot of people will say a fighter going down in weight would make him a bigger fighter fighting a smaller fighter but if the bigger fighter is too weak it really wouldn't matter would it. Going up could make a fighter stronger and make his punch stronger as well. If done properly a fighter could retain most of his speed also.Got your point, pal. Thanks! :)

I would say going down if you are naturally bigger. I think in a case like Roy Jones when he went down from heavyweight back to light heavyweight it's not such a problem if it is done right.

It's worse to go down, unless you're a fat guy.

Seriously, you don't see fighters do it very often, & rarely successfully.

Look at when LaLonde fought Leonard....he fought at 7lbs below his peak weight, & he looked like he had the life sucked out of him.

I'd rather face a bigger stronger guy, after putting on a few lbs......than face a small one, after I have depleted myself.

Yeah, but Lalonde sucked..

Yeah, but Lalonde sucked..


How would you know ? You were even younger & dumber then, than you are now.