If HWs today are so much better because of size than...

There's one more thing to factor in - after a point the human skull doesn't protect the brain from an impact. If stick your head out into the road and you're hit by a little mini cooper or an 18-wheeler - it doesn't make a difference. You're dead both ways (Obviously) even though the difference in mass between the two vehicles is tremendous. How does that apply to boxing? At a certain point it doesn't matter how big you are - your skull is not going to protect your brain from the impact. You could be 6'3" and weigh 210 or 6'6" and weight 240. (And fat and muscle doesn't help cushion the blow to the head). You could be 6'9", built like Mike Tyson and weigh 320 pounds but the blow to your head would knock you out the same way as if you weighed 220. And certainly putting on fat doesn't help so Ray Mercer coming in at 240 v LL didn't help him absorb head shots (as opposed to coming in at 210). Does weight help? Of course. It helps you absorb body shots, it helps you wrestle and push off and lean on the other guy. It helps in clinches. But after a point it doesn't help in absorbing a head shot. I mostly disagree with this point. I say mostly because your last line had some truth in the sense that if a boxer of similar relative natural size put on increasing amounts of fat in order to increase his chin (i.e. on the head, face and neck) he would sacrifice all his other attributes, be unable to walk let alone box. I have always been talking about boxers fit enough for elite performance in pro boxing with some extra chub, not obese boxers with clear training and performance issues. But your analogy doesn't hold when it comes to all around growth. Bone, muscle, fat and organ growth together you know. Your analogy with the cars represents 2 cases, both of which are sufficiently capable of destroying the head completely, the impact difference is different, but by nowhere near the difference of either of them to the object being crushed (the skull). The chin it makes intuitive sense also goes up in a percentage scale, just as punch power would. The 30 lb difference between a 1970 HW and a 2010 HW provides more than a noticeable protection. It can be seen clearly analysing populations of boxers that as a boxers opponents weight goes up, his own chin qualities against them diminish (he is at higher risk of KO) and his punch power too (he does not score as many or easy KO's). This is just an indisputable fact mate. The relative percentage scale was a relevant point. But trying to apply the "once you get to 200lbs or 175lbs weight doesn't matter" business isn't true. Naturally larger people have thicker skulls, bigger organs, more fat, muscle, connective tissue etc etc. Skills are most important. If that were not the case then newbies would be able to beat veterans, obviously that's not the case. But aside from that.. The 2 most measurable things that are important are WEIGHT, and EXPERIENCE.

I agree with "weight percentages" 10 lbs to a lightweight is huge compared to 10lbs as a heavyweight of course. But what we see here is striking differences, entire weight classes of 15-25lbs in some instances. That's a different story. Neither me or any of my colleagues are arguing with size alone. In the light of being completely broken down you all just resort to focussing on 1 aspect of what was said instead of looking at the whole picture. Size, skills, athleticism... On average, it's all better. How could it be otherwise!? Frazier would not even be allowed to compete at boxing today because he was partially blind. Who could he beat today? Nobody. Case rested! There's one more thing to factor in - after a point the human skull doesn't protect the brain from an impact. If stick your head out into the road and you're hit by a little mini cooper or an 18-wheeler - it doesn't make a difference. You're dead both ways (Obviously) even though the difference in mass between the two vehicles is tremendous. How does that apply to boxing? At a certain point it doesn't matter how big you are - your skull is not going to protect your brain from the impact. You could be 6'3" and weigh 210 or 6'6" and weight 240. (And fat and muscle doesn't help cushion the blow to the head). You could be 6'9", built like Mike Tyson and weigh 320 pounds but the blow to your head would knock you out the same way as if you weighed 220. And certainly putting on fat doesn't help so Ray Mercer coming in at 240 v LL didn't help him absorb head shots (as opposed to coming in at 210). Does weight help? Of course. It helps you absorb body shots, it helps you wrestle and push off and lean on the other guy. It helps in clinches. But after a point it doesn't help in absorbing a head shot. EDIT: One more thing. Neck muscles do help cushion the blow. So. If you compare two 6'9" 320 lb boxers and one is fat and the other is built like Mike Tyson, with Mike Tyson like neck muscles then yeah (genetics aside) the Mike Tyson type guy can take a better punch. What are the weird genetics? I don't know. Your skull has more mass, the way your brain is attached to the spinal cord leads to less concussions; or the padding and fluid is such to protect the brain better than the avg person. Whatever.

I wouldn't even call myself a Klittard. I am fan of many boxers. I do like them and really respect their skills obviously. But if there's one thing I have noticed it's that almost everybody who does so seems to apply reasonable very well thought out logic to their opinions, they don't SOUND like raving lunatics.. Why is that you reckon?

Absolutely. And that's the logic behind weight classes , it's about weight percentage. That's why you have bigger 'jumps' the higher you go . Super Flyweight is 115lbs, Bantamweight 118lbs , while the difference between Junior Welterweight and WW is already considerably higher (7lbs). A 112 lbs fighting a 122lbs has a weight disadvantage of almost 10% while a 185 lbs fighting a 195 lbs only has a 5% ratio. Of course it doesn't matter for some Klit fanatics, Pianeta would knock Frazier out in 5 because he is bigger and taller :D I agree with "weight percentages" 10 lbs to a lightweight is huge compared to 10lbs as a heavyweight of course. But what we see here is striking differences, entire weight classes of 15-25lbs in some instances. That's a different story. Neither me or any of my colleagues are arguing with size alone. In the light of being completely broken down you all just resort to focussing on 1 aspect of what was said instead of looking at the whole picture. Size, skills, athleticism... On average, it's all better. How could it be otherwise!? Frazier would not even be allowed to compete at boxing today because he was partially blind. Who could he beat today? Nobody. Case rested!

lol why bother to debate with klittards - they dksab

And they always ignore the fact that a man in fighting shape over 175 is capable of taking ANY man out. Weight differentials matter less and less the further up the scale you go. At flyweight, giving away 10lbs, say 112 to 122, is a big deal. 185 to 195 is way less of a problem. It's still an advantage if Both guys are fit, but it matters a whole lot less. Jack Dempsey beat the living fck out of Jess Willard ffs. 6"1 185 lbs bouncing 6"6 245lbs off the canvas like a basketball, breaking his face in numerous places. That could never happen between two fighters at say, 130 and 190. It would be borderline impossible. Absolutely. And that's the logic behind weight classes , it's about weight percentage. That's why you have bigger 'jumps' the higher you go . Super Flyweight is 115lbs, Bantamweight 118lbs , while the difference between Junior Welterweight and WW is already considerably higher (7lbs). A 112 lbs fighting a 122lbs has a weight disadvantage of almost 10% while a 185 lbs fighting a 195 lbs only has a 5% ratio. Of course it doesn't matter for some Klit fanatics, Pianeta would knock Frazier out in 5 because he is bigger and taller :D

That's why he's been banned repeatedly in the past. This is just his latest alt. False. But aw... Don't be like that princess ;) ;) lol I like it how you always drop in for a 1 liner snide remark but never actually have anything what I like to call "counterfactual" to offer. What do you think, OP claims that superheavies are no good because the little boxers are able to step up and whack them around. I point out that there has never been fewer limited division fighters who have been able to step up in history (please note they are all champion boxers who have stepped up as well). A bit contradictory to me. What a dilemma! :lol1: Join your OTNB friends in a "brain storming" session.

I can't help but agree with some of the OP's points. Haye did, indeed, become the fans' 'no.2.' ranked HW the moment he moved up. It probably had something to do with the closeted career of Povetkin, and the fact that Vitali and Wladimir had cleaned out most of the division.

And they always ignore the fact that a man in fighting shape over 175 is capable of taking ANY man out. Weight differentials matter less and less the further up the scale you go. At flyweight, giving away 10lbs, say 112 to 122, is a big deal. 185 to 195 is way less of a problem. It's still an advantage if Both guys are fit, but it matters a whole lot less. Jack Dempsey beat the living fck out of Jess Willard ffs. 6"1 185 lbs bouncing 6"6 245lbs off the canvas like a basketball, breaking his face in numerous places. That could never happen between two fighters at say, 130 and 190. It would be borderline impossible. Anybody who knows boxing history knows Williard was a shocking boxer with no skills and Dempsey was basically a manufactured champion, his career all smoke and mirrors. If 175lb men were REALLY good at KOing the big guys then where are they? Whoever said size is what makes the K's or modern boxers great? Certainly not me, that's an invention from nutbags because they can't read properly. None of these points are true or make sense!

yes its legit because he made vitali quit, and i know he's not that good. that's why its sad that he is wlad's best win. you seem to be basing your "who's good" off of the eye test. yeah haye is fast and has power but what did he do at heavy? barely beat valuev? povetkin has done nothing as well. you mentioned a completely shot rahman? why... Rahman was a very strong HW, huge power, I don't consider him completely shot. He never made VK quit, I seen the fight, VK was beating him the whole time, he never made a scratch on VK and could although he didn't know it, could have won without throwing another punch. He tore his shoulder really bad if I remember rightly. Well you can choose not to trust your eyesight but I definitely trust mine. And I never said Byrd was not a good boxer, he just wasn't a dangerous fighter. 2 key words are, he had no chance of causing an upset, And could never stylistically beat WK under any circumstances. Both are pure facts. Calling Byrd the best win in light of this in order to trash his other opponents falls squarely in the realm of nutbaggery.

...how come so many cruiserweights and 200 pound guys are among the best at HW during Wlad's reign? Chris Byrd was a 200 pounder and he is Wlad's best win. Wlad's second best win, David Haye, was a cruiserweight that became the 2nd best HW almost the moment he walked into the division. James Toney was boxing obese at HW and he beat Holyfield, Ruiz, and Peter. Roy Jones Jr. weighed in at 193 and beat Ruiz better than most HWs ever did. Marco Huck is a cruiserweight and a lot of people think he beat Povetkin, one of Wlad's best wins. Tomasz Adamek was a past prime cruiserweight and he beat top 10 HWs after moving up. Steve Cunningham is a cruiserweight and he floored Fury and beat Monsour, who people were hyping. He also beat Adamek. Eddie Chambers was huge at 220, and his best around 210. If all these supposed 240 pound monsters are so much better, why are they losing to all the guys just as small as fighters in inferior eras? Agreed, but what are you trying to prove? Every knowledgeable boxing fan knows that size isn't everything, even at HW. You are knocking on open doors here.

Ok, so I was bored at work and decided that I'm going to calculate the average height of the top fighters in the division. I decided to base this on f1ght.news.com's top 16 ranked fighters, it was like the first link I found, so what the hey, I'm sure it's not too wrong, after all, Leapai isn't in there... The data was bimodal, ie. there were two mode averages, ie. the most common heights present amongst these fighters. These values were 6ft 1.5 and 6ft 2. The median value, ie. the middle value if we arrange the fighters in height order from shortest to tallest, was 6 ft 2.75. The mean average was the highest, this came to 6ft 3.5 inches. Now, i believe this value was higher due to the outliers ie. Wlad at 6ft 7, Fury at 6ft 9 and Wilder at 6ft 7. These 3 fighters being so much taller than their counterparts threw off the mean. Take them away and as we have seen with the mode and median, the average height for a fighter in the heavyweight division drops. So, there we go. The top fighters average out at between 6ft 1 to 6ft 3.5. So much for anyone saying that it's "giants" running the show.... I did something similar. I just researched most of the HW's in the top 15 on boxrec. According to boxrec: Perez 6"1 Jennings 6"2 Cunningham 6"3 Solis 6"2 Adamek 6"2 Chisora 6"2 Povetkin 6"2 Takam 6"3 Stiverne 6"2 Glaskov 6"3 I rounded up on a lot of these as well. A lot of these fighters were 6"1 1/2.

Ok, so I was bored at work and decided that I'm going to calculate the average height of the top fighters in the division. I decided to base this on f1ght.news.com's top 16 ranked fighters, it was like the first link I found, so what the hey, I'm sure it's not too wrong, after all, Leapai isn't in there... The data was bimodal, ie. there were two mode averages, ie. the most common heights present amongst these fighters. These values were 6ft 1.5 and 6ft 2. The median value, ie. the middle value if we arrange the fighters in height order from shortest to tallest, was 6 ft 2.75. The mean average was the highest, this came to 6ft 3.5 inches. Now, i believe this value was higher due to the outliers ie. Wlad at 6ft 7, Fury at 6ft 9 and Wilder at 6ft 7. These 3 fighters being so much taller than their counterparts threw off the mean. Take them away and as we have seen with the mode and median, the average height for a fighter in the heavyweight division drops. So, there we go. The top fighters average out at between 6ft 1 to 6ft 3.5. So much for anyone saying that it's "giants" running the show....

Size doesn't keep Wladimir Klitschko from getting knocked out, his skills do. So size is overrated. Guy like Vitali and Wladimir are special because their great skills not their size. Smaller fighters would beat them if they had better skills. Totally agree. It's an insult to Wlad and Vitali when their fans denigrate small fighters and say mediocre fighters are better simply for being bigger. They always make the greatness argument about size. Wlad's size isn't why he's an ATG HW. His skills are.

Size doesn't keep Wladimir Klitschko from getting knocked out, his skills do. So size is overrated. Guy like Vitali and Wladimir are special because their great skills not their size. Smaller fighters would beat them if they had better skills.

Thanks Ray, which failed to address anything. My post remains unassailable. You can beat me up all you like Ray but it still wouldn't prove you were right. Goodnight! I don't remember mentioning Ali or Frazier in this thread. And I only ever rubbish a boxer if I see they are being moronically compared.

Perhaps you would care or rather dare to weigh in with an answer to that other post I made. None of you will because you know you put your foot in it :lol1: You listed a shot to sh1t Hasim Rahman who came in at short notice as one of Wlad's best wins :lol1:

Don't get to personal sonny my reach is extensive!!! Try to ingest this and learn something instead of yaking like a little girl. The Heavyweight Division is an "OPEN CLASS" there are NO weight limits involved!! Can you try to understand this!! This is how Armstrong and Bea Jack and any other crazy MFer who had popularity could challenge anyone at any weight in the division. Because the light heavy stops at 175 doesn't mean a light heavy can't fight at heavy at 175!!!! How dense are you that you can't understand this?????? We know you think Haye is a great fighter and that Wlad is your hero, its ok but stop running all over hear degrading Frazier and Ali. Your making a bigger fool out of yourself and much more importantly you down grading this forum into a joke! Relax for a day or two, go to a gym and get your azz handed to you hahaha!!!! Come visit Florida, you can go on the rides a in Orlando and I'll drive up to visit you! HA!!! Ray.

Yeah I'll give you he has the best paper trail.. If the best win is Vitali, that's not even really legit now is it. As for his effectiveness at modern HW and his dangerousness, he isn't really that good though, that's why we can't rate him that highly. yes its legit because he made vitali quit, and i know he's not that good. that's why its sad that he is wlad's best win. you seem to be basing your "who's good" off of the eye test. yeah haye is fast and has power but what did he do at heavy? barely beat valuev? povetkin has done nothing as well. you mentioned a completely shot rahman? why...

Must be trolling :lol1: Perhaps you would care or rather dare to weigh in with an answer to that other post I made. None of you will because you know you put your foot in it :lol1: