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

[BennyST]

One last note: on the actual topic title, it is rarely ever 50 pounds of added muscle. 50 pounds of added weight yes, but it is rarely, if ever, 50 pounds of practical, sport specific muscle.

There are probably only a few guys today that have that amount of size and muscle which has no excess. Probably the same amount of guys back in the golden age. The rest have added weight, but it is rarely practical, useful muscle and mostly just added weight, fat and excess baggage that has no use and would detract from their athletic performance rather than add to it.

Those majority of today's fighters, if we're talking relative to other eras, are all of a similar size, it's just that today there are a lot more people getting by being a lot less than they need to be. There are many fighters getting by with poor fitness and conditioning and because of the top heavy nature of the division, they haven't needed to be anything else.

I just hope it changes soon.

[billeau2]

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.

Great post...lets talk about that Holyfield comment you made because its one of those small details that gently recede into the night... never to be piqued again. When Holyfield decided to become a heavweight most of the boxing pundits at the time thought him to be too small. This thinking was very common at the time.

What is interesting is this sentiment are two things: first, the obvious...the thinking that he was small...and to be fair he did bulk up, though there is no evidence he needed to do this and it was done slowly, a combination of chemicals and age...we get bigger as we get older when we are athletic because our bodies are less efficient. At twenty I was strong as an ox and weighed in at 180, my weight went up in my late early 40's to around 210-230 to basically maintain the same strength. More fluid retention, more muscle mass needed, less efficient metabolism, etc.

In Holyfield's case, its not so much, as many people thought, he needed more weight, rather he needed to maintain his strength and to do so meant indirectly increasing his weight, artificially and otherwise.

The more interesting thing imo is that even though guys weighed less on average, there was still "size" to a heavyweight that some guys had and some guys did not. This means that weight was one component of size and a heavyweight, regardless of weight (within reason) was still a guy who was bigger than Holyfield. This, in turn, means that th argument that Elroy always advanced about everyone being a cruiser now, is wrong. Even a 190 pound Joe Louis had attributes that made him a heavyweight. Burt Cooper, Witherspoon, and the rest of the midsized heavyweights on the 80's still had qualities of size, despite not necessarily weighing more than a guy like David Haye, or Holyfield, when considering fitness level vis a vis obesity issues.

If we took an in shape, young Holyfield and put a normative amount of extra weight on him, he would have weighed what most heavyweights weighed at the time. Take Burt Cooper, put him in the best condition of his life, for example, and you would have a guy who weighed essentially what Holy did at cruiser.....Yet still Holy was small for a heavyweight. Were people blind to this apparent oversight? or...are there qualities that make a heavyweight bigger that are more than the weight of the individual? I tend to think it is the latter.

[Ray Corso]

....."LEAST ATHLETIC BODY OF THE TOP hw'S"

yeah but he's so tall & heavy.............

[AlexKid]

....."LEAST ATHLETIC BODY OF THE TOP hw'S"

yeah but he's so tall & heavy.............

A big man is enough of a problem for an explosive small man, but an explosive big man vs an explosive small man is suicide for the small man. Its just too much to overcome. With extra weight often comes (not always but often) more power, a better chin, longer range, more strength, add to that the same or more speed and forget about it.

Jack Dempsey may be able to be Valuev MAYBE

But no way Dempsey beats Tyson, Lewis, Bowe, etc

The same is true for the guys of the 80's except they are giving up less size than the guys from the 1920's so its closer

[Ray Corso]

Yeah its all about size, of course it is! Screw talent skill and desire!

....."But no way Dempsey beats Tyson".........you better go ask Mike that!
You saw how Evander handled him do you think Dempsey gives way to him?

Holyfield 6'2" 190--220
Louis 6'2" 190-211
yeah they give up a lot!



Whatever you say boys you know all about it!

Fishing wasn't good today to much bad weather yesterday with tornadoes all around here. Traded my 06 HD Road King & 91 HD FXRS-CON for a 2014 Road King with only 10k on it. Nice machine with the 103 motor (1590cc) and 6 spd. tranny. This one had the "screamin eagle" stage two set up. Moves out nicely for an 800lb machine. Big Toys for Big Boys!
Ray.

[billeau2]

Yeah its all about size, of course it is! Screw talent skill and desire!

....."But no way Dempsey beats Tyson".........you better go ask Mike that!
You saw how Evander handled him do you think Dempsey gives way to him?

Holyfield 6'2" 190--220
Louis 6'2" 190-211
yeah they give up a lot!



Whatever you say boys you know all about it!

Fishing wasn't good today to much bad weather yesterday with tornadoes all around here. Traded my 06 HD Road King & 91 HD FXRS-CON for a 2014 Road King with only 10k on it. Nice machine with the 103 motor (1590cc) and 6 spd. tranny. This one had the "screamin eagle" stage two set up. Moves out nicely for an 800lb machine. Big Toys for Big Boys!
Ray.

Lol we got it up here in Baltimore! It less than 5 minutes there were no curbs on the road, I found the curb though or should I say it found me. Scared my poor boy quite a bit as the car tire slammed into where I had thought the curb should be....

Ray I could have used your boat!

[billeau2]

A big man is enough of a problem for an explosive small man, but an explosive big man vs an explosive small man is suicide for the small man. Its just too much to overcome. With extra weight often comes (not always but often) more power, a better chin, longer range, more strength, add to that the same or more speed and forget about it.

Jack Dempsey may be able to be Valuev MAYBE

But no way Dempsey beats Tyson, Lewis, Bowe, etc

The same is true for the guys of the 80's except they are giving up less size than the guys from the 1920's so its closer

There are some particularly egregious statements you might look at young Alex. Then you might look at the rest, but start with these by all means:

a) the Chin is not a muscle and there is no weight advantage that makes a chin better with respect to impact. Now surely getting to Big George foreman's chin may be more difficult but thats a different issue. Proof? Lennox Lewis and his losses to Rahman and the Atomic Bull. The same Lennox Lewis who could take a full on shot from Vitalie Klitsko.

b)Range is a function of reach, not weight...and only indirectly a function of size. Bigger people often have more reach, and then sometimes they don't, and we have Paul Williams for example.

c) Weight can increase strength...But not always. You probably mean specifically punching strength. Weight is nothing more than one possible contributing factor to the strength of a punch which is probably why the hardest punchers are not necessarily the biggest men.

When you carefully deconstruct these categories things become a little clearer and one can see that size has its benefitts and limitations.

[AlexKid]

There are some particularly egregious statements you might look at young Alex. Then you might look at the rest, but start with these by all means:

a) the Chin is not a muscle and there is no weight advantage that makes a chin better with respect to impact. Now surely getting to Big George foreman's chin may be more difficult but thats a different issue. Proof? Lennox Lewis and his losses to Rahman and the Atomic Bull. The same Lennox Lewis who could take a full on shot from Vitalie Klitsko.

b)Range is a function of reach, not weight...and only indirectly a function of size. Bigger people often have more reach, and then sometimes they don't, and we have Paul Williams for example.

c) Weight can increase strength...But not always. You probably mean specifically punching strength. Weight is nothing more than one possible contributing factor to the strength of a punch which is probably why the hardest punchers are not necessarily the biggest men.

When you carefully deconstruct these categories things become a little clearer and one can see that size has its benefitts and limitations.

A) As overall size increases, so does skull size, neck size, shoulder girdle size, and so on, on average, sure their are weak chinned big guys and stronger chinned small guys, but generally the bigger the guy the more likely it is he can take a punch and vice versa for a small guy

B) Range is strongly correlated with size

C) Strength can be all over the place but the strongest people on the planet are all heavyweights, so again positive correlation, the middleweight weightlifters have a stunning strength to weight ratio but they cant compete with the heavyweight weight lifters, not by a long stretch

[billeau2]

A) As overall size increases, so does skull size, neck size, shoulder girdle size, and so on, on average, sure their are weak chinned big guys and stronger chinned small guys, but generally the bigger the guy the more likely it is he can take a punch and vice versa for a small guy

B) Range is strongly correlated with size

C) Strength can be all over the place but the strongest people on the planet are all heavyweights, so again positive correlation, the middleweight weightlifters have a stunning strength to weight ratio but they cant compete with the heavyweight weight lifters, not by a long stretch

Ok lets take skull size, something which does give a man some punch resistance. Its really about skull thickness, Caeser Chavez and james Toney have two of the best chins in boxing and they also have thicker skulls, proven with an Xray. So again, not size here, thickness. The other factors have nothing to do with chin...there are 260 pound bouncers who have been laid out by guys half their size with a sucker punch...I saw it many times as a bouncer... big neck and all!

Now I will say this: as a very gross measure sure, bigger people have more absorbing power, but this has nothing to do with having a better chin and its such a gross measure that it does not really consider the range that a boxer who is 170 pounds versus a 270 pound might fall in. In other words, yes a butterfly will get crushed with a fly swatter and a rhino will not...is that because of size? well...sort of!

but your trying to make a case for the difference in a fighter by saying that a bigger fighter, by minutia of maybe 50-70 pounds will make a chin better...this isn't so Alex. James Toney has a much better chin than Vlad Klitscko and is outweighed substantially, that is just one example. Your chin is the ability to take a punch and it does not get better because you are bigger.

When you say range is correlated to size you are making an error of logic. There is nothing about weighing more that makes a person have greater range. It so happens that if someone is substantially bigger, they will often have a greater reach as well, but a guy weighing more does not make someone rangier! If I tell you people who are bigger weigh more there is a direct correlation: weighing more is a direct result of being bigger.

If we take cruiserweights, even middle weights, and heavy weights, the differences in range and reach are obviously not a result of weighing more. Proof: Tommy Hearns, Bob Foster, Sonny Listen, paul williams, etc are all guys with a big wingspan. They were also all in different divisions.

Again, if we take someone who is 120 pounds and someone who is 320 pounds we might see more reach in the bigger men, but when comparing heavyweights, middle weights, etc we won't see great variation is range based on size. Rangier heavyweights is a result of type of build, not weight.

On this last point about size and strength, your assuming that because strong men are bigger than average (true) that the bigger someone is, the stronger that individual is. you have to define the type of strength but if we are talking weightlifting, then power lifters are indeed very big men yet still one cannot predict that one lifter will win because he is bigger...size is one factor. For example, there was a turkish champion who won the gold on the dead lift, through a technique of learning to squat down so low, he would get his but in the floor and get under the weight. He was really short which helped his technique and probably the smallest man in his group. Was this man strong? hell yes!! But his strength was normative for the group, it did not act as a predictive indicator of his performance.

In boxing there is and always has been, a range of size that predisposes one to the strength (the ability to defend and attack other big men) necessary to compete. A good heavyweight generally comes in anywhere from just north of 200/210 up through to 250/260...it has gone up on the top number, but not by much. At this size a man has enough strength to compete and one will not be able to know that a man who is bigger will necessarily be stronger.

The proof is in the pudding.

[BennyST]

A big man is enough of a problem for an explosive small man, but an explosive big man vs an explosive small man is suicide for the small man. Its just too much to overcome. With extra weight often comes (not always but often) more power, a better chin, longer range, more strength, add to that the same or more speed and forget about it.

Jack Dempsey may be able to be Valuev MAYBE

But no way Dempsey beats Tyson, Lewis, Bowe, etc

The same is true for the guys of the 80's except they are giving up less size than the guys from the 1920's so its closer

Yes, and Tyson and Bowe at their best were low 200's, and Lewis was in the low-mid 240's at his best, and looked worst at his highest weight in the 250's.

The less weight these guys have, the sharper they are, the more mobile they are, the faster they are, the more explosive they are. When they put on unnecessary wight just for size's sake alone, it makes them worse fighters, not better. It's been proven time and time and time and time again.

Bowe looked sensational against Holyfield when he weighed in his 230's. When he put on extra weight and went up to the 240's and above, he became sluggish, slower, easier to hit...he was considerably worse. In their third meeting, he lost that weight, came in lighter and once again looked incredible.

It's just simple common sense. The fitter, lighter, faster and less useless fat and flab you carry, the better athlete and boxer you are going to be, the more endurance you'll have. It's that ****ing simple. It gains you everything and loses you nothing. Adding weight for the sake of weight doesn't give you extra power or allow you to take a shot better. It actually means you are going to be slower, more likely to get hit and tire quicker, which means you are more likely to give up mentally from exhaustion.