What evidence do we have that heavyweights were too small in the past to compete today? and what determines a fighters size?

[Marchegiano]

Just to recap. When Roy became a HW the maximum for CW was 190. Roy weighed 193.

When Deontay Wilder debuted the maximum for CW was 200, Deontay fought a 201.

Ivich says this is by chance not design. Because he's ******.

[Marchegiano]

Been looking, can't see any evidence as to why guys fought below 200 but not below 190 when the limit was 190 and then fought above 200 exclusively when the limit was moved to 200.

You'd think if HW was excluded in some way from the weight divisions' normal limitations that'd get listed in some way. The lack of maximum is.

You'd likewise think if HW had no limitations you'd see a natural, slow, progression toward 200 rather than the abrupt change that comes with a rule change.







Why are their no successful HW under 200? Simply because the rules do not allow them to.



I don't even know that I'm right. I just know when pressed Ivich makes with sources and when he doesn't it's because he's made **** up.

[Marchegiano]

THERE IS NO MINIMUM WEIGHT A FIGHTER MUST ATTAIN TO FIGHT AT HEAVYWEIGHT.Fact.

You keep on wriggling, trying to get around the fact that nobody under 200lbs has challenged for the heavyweight title in the last 20 years,despite the fact that there is;
NO RULE PREVENTING THEM FROM DOING SO.Fact
If you ever had any credibility you sure haven't now,not since you hitched your wagon to this thread thinking you saw an opportunity to score points off of me.
All you have done is comprehensively mugged yourself and the laughably enjoyable part of it is you have done so with such an unrelenting gusto,in the totally misguided belief that you were winning !
Poor Old Margarino! Glaukos The Hammer isn't wearing any clothes! LOL

WBC Link : Understanding the Boxing Divisions | World Boxing Council (wbcboxing.com)

he weigh-in is the boxer`s first rival to greet, meet and to beat.

the physical and mental exhaustion cloying and clawing, when, there is not adequate poundage control before the fight and the risk of a serious injury increases, when there is dehydration.

At first, boxing primarily recognized 8 traditional divisions: Heavy, Light heavy, Middle, Welter, Light, Feather, Bantam and Fly.

The creation of intermediate divisions managed to effectively reduce the inhumane sacrifices that boxers had to make to stay at the same weight or the disadvantages they gave away, when having to move up to the next category.

The following are the current divisions:

Heavyweight – Minimum of 224 pounds (101 kg)

Bridger Weight – Up to 224 lbs (101 kg)

Cruiser Weight – Up to 200 lbs. (90,892 kg)

Light Heavy Weight – Up to 175 lbs. (79,378 kg)

Super Middleweight – Up to 168 lbs. (76,203 kg)

Middle Weight – Up to 160 lbs. (72,574 kg)

Super welter – Up to 154 lbs. (69,853 kg)

Welterweight – Up to 147 lbs. (66,678 kg)

Super Lightweight – Up to 140 lbs. (63,503 kg)

Lightweight – Up to 135 lbs. (61,235 kg)

Super Feather – Up to 130 lbs. (58,967 kg)

Featherweight – Up to 126 lbs. (57,153 kg)

Super Bantamweight or Jr. Feather Weight – Up to 122 lbs. (55,225 kg)

Bantamweight – Up to 118 lbs. (53,525 kg)

Super Flyweight – Up to 115 pounds (52,163 kg)

Fly Weight – Up to 112 lbs (50,802 kg)

Light Fly Weight – Up to 108 pounds (48,988 kg)

Straw Weight – Up to 105 lbs. (47,627 kg).

In the history of boxing there have been stellar fighters who have won multiple titles in different divisions, including the intermediate ones. Sugar Ray Leonard, Oscar de la Hoya, Roberto Duran, Manny Pacquiao, Floyd Mayweather, Julio C�sar Ch�vez, Saul Canelo �lvarez, Erik Morales, Jorge Travieso Arce, gloriously stand out.


-----





Seems like when the WBC made BW they moved up their MINIMUM to 224

Hmmm

But of course I'm sure the WBC is wrong now too?



Remember, if you weren't such a god awful prick to me I wouldn't be doing this to you.




You gonna be right about anything old man?

[Marchegiano]

Sanctioning Bodies, Commissions, Laws, and such nonsense - Boxing Forum (boxingscene.com)


You should have known better. Really. **** around some more. Find out some more.

[them_apples]

This is what I am saying, we have boatloads of evidence that this weight thing is a gimmick and it entirely depends on the boxer himself. We have almost no evidence that fighters are “too big” now. Nothing at all. We don’t even have examples that might coincide with what Ivich is claiming. Even in the event where we have pitted bigger fighters again smaller fighters of similar skill, the result is still hard to predict. For example the Holyfield fight with Lewis in 99. Holyfield is not only on the slide and Lewis is prime, he is a former light heavy - and even with bulk is considerably smaller than Lewis. Lewis beat him but probably could have lost one of them as well. Lewis was in a better point in his career, is a bigger man and for all intents and purposes they are considered relatively close in skill level.

Even in this fight, Lewis did not show he could dominate Holyfield or even win a convincing decision.

Can we find even 1 fight where size played a role?

we can’t even use Foreman vs Frazier because while Foreman was much stronger and bigger than Joe, they weighed nearly the same when they fought.

can we find ONE example?

its clear this debate has run dry for me. Either you are willfully ignorant or you just like arguing for the sake of arguing.

what Marchegano is saying is correct. I never thought of it but the cruiserweight division didn’t even exist back then so they just fought at heavyweight. And even today we have cruisers who move up and yes win titles.

Ivich is saying the reason they can win these titles is because of the 10-15 lbs they put on. This is absurd and I an willing to bet the weight they put on actually lessens their chances by being more hittable.

[Marchegiano]

This is what I am saying, we have boatloads of evidence that this weight thing is a gimmick and it entirely depends on the boxer himself. We have almost no evidence that fighters are �too big� now. Nothing at all. We don�t even have examples that might coincide with what Ivich is claiming. Even in the event where we have pitted bigger fighters again smaller fighters of similar skill, the result is still hard to predict. For example the Holyfield fight with Lewis in 99. Holyfield is not only on the slide and Lewis is prime, he is a former light heavy - and even with bulk is considerably smaller than Lewis. Lewis beat him but probably could have lost one of them as well. Lewis was in a better point in his career, is a bigger man and for all intents and purposes they are considered relatively close in skill level.

Even in this fight, Lewis did not show he could dominate Holyfield or even win a convincing decision.

Can we find even 1 fight where size played a role?

we can�t even use Foreman vs Frazier because while Foreman was much stronger and bigger than Joe, they weighed nearly the same when they fought.

can we find ONE example?

its clear this debate has run dry for me. Either you are willfully ignorant or you just like arguing for the sake of arguing.

what Marchegano is saying is correct. I never thought of it but the cruiserweight division didn�t even exist back then so they just fought at heavyweight. And even today we have cruisers who move up and yes win titles.

Ivich is saying the reason they can win these titles is because of the 10-15 lbs they put on. This is absurd and I an willing to bet the weight they put on actually lessens their chances by being more hittable.

Bro I'll do a quick recap because I know no one is reading everything but me.

There was never an era provided in which the smaller end of the weight division was not represented at the highest end of the ranking.

It took fifteen pages but finally we can all agree small men so have physical advantages.

The belief heavyweight has no minimum has been debunked.

They don't have little, they have no evidence.


When their drum is "Who has weighed under 200 in 20 years" and the fact is the minimum for HW is the max for CW and now BW (which I only just found out myself) has been 200 for that entire time frame they have **** all nothing.



Ivich
Dr. Z
Bundana

From the best to the worst of them. Nothing but a belief they've told on another.

[them_apples]

Bro I'll do a quick recap because I know no one is reading everything but me.

There was never an era provided in which the smaller end of the weight division was not represented at the highest end of the ranking.

It took fifteen pages but finally we can all agree small men so have physical advantages.

The belief heavyweight has no minimum has been debunked.

They don't have little, they have no evidence.


When their drum is "Who has weighed under 200 in 20 years" and the fact is the minimum for HW is the max for CW and now BW (which I only just found out myself) has been 200 for that entire time frame they have **** all nothing.



Ivich
Dr. Z
Bundana

From the best to the worst of them. Nothing but a belief they've told on another.

although I expected to get a lot of opposing arguments, I agree it has been narrowed down to a pretty obvious conclusion.

and yes Ivich is likely the most knowledgeable of those 3 posters, I think he’s wrong on this topic and hope he can either come up with a better argument or just change his view.

[them_apples]

There are better arguments for the old vs new debates due to all the intangibles. However the size debate seems to be easy to debunk and should be laid to rest once and for all.

[Ivich]

Bro I'll do a quick recap because I know no one is reading everything but me.

There was never an era provided in which the smaller end of the weight division was not represented at the highest end of the ranking.

It took fifteen pages but finally we can all agree small men so have physical advantages.

The belief heavyweight has no minimum has been debunked.

They don't have little, they have no evidence.


When their drum is "Who has weighed under 200 in 20 years" and the fact is the minimum for HW is the max for CW and now BW (which I only just found out myself) has been 200 for that entire time frame they have **** all nothing.



Ivich
Dr. Z
Bundana

From the best to the worst of them. Nothing but a belief they've told on another.

"There was never an era provided in which the smaller end of the weight division was not represented at the highest end of the ranking."
The above has never been part of the argument,not in the title and NOT in my replies.
The only poster who has argued about this is YOU ,The question posed by the OP WAS and REMAINS.

What Evidence Do We Have That Heavyweights Were Too Small In The Past To Compete Today?
The answer to this is the introduction of the Cruiserweight division and the fact that nobody under 200lbs has challenged for the heavyweight title for the last twenty years ,despite there being nothing in the rules to stop them!

Every student of Boxing is aware that in the past, before the advent of the bigger heavies in any number,smaller men competed successfully at heavyweight.BUT they were NOT facing CLASS big men of the size of the giants of today on anything like a regular basis huge men who can both box and punch.
THIS SEEMS SO OBVIOUS.SO ASTONISHINGLY EASY TO GRASP .THAT I AM BEGINNING TO THINK YOU ARE TROLLING.
I have put the salient point in caps I don't now what else I can do to make this anymore easier to grasp.

IF YOU ARE STILL CONVINCED YOU ARE RIGHT AND WE ARE WRONG
WHY WAS THE CRUISERWEIGHT DIVISION INVENTED?
WHY HAS EVERY CRUISER WHO WAS COMPETED AT HEAVYWEIGHT ADDED WEIGHT TO HIS FRAME?
IF YOU ARE CORRECT IN STATING LIGHTER IS FASTER .LIGHTER MEANS MORE STAMINA.
WHY HAVE THEY DELIBERATELY DISREGARDED THIS AND ADDED WEIGHT?

[them_apples]

"There was never an era provided in which the smaller end of the weight division was not represented at the highest end of the ranking."
The above has never been part of the argument,not in the title and NOT in my replies.
The only poster who has argued about this is YOU ,The question posed by the OP WAS and REMAINS.

What Evidence Do We Have That Heavyweights Were Too Small In The Past To Compete Today?
The answer to this is the introduction of the Cruiserweight division and the fact that nobody under 200lbs has challenged for the heavyweight title for the last twenty years ,despite there being nothing in the rules to stop them!

Every student of Boxing is aware that in the past, before the advent of the bigger heavies in any number,smaller men competed successfully at heavyweight.BUT they were NOT facing CLASS big men of the size of the giants of today on anything like a regular basis huge men who can both box and punch.
THIS SEEMS SO OBVIOUS.SO ASTONISHINGLY EASY TO GRASP .THAT I AM BEGINNING TO THINK YOU ARE TROLLING.
I have put the salient point in caps I don't now what else I can do to make this anymore easier to grasp.

IF YOU ARE STILL CONVINCED YOU ARE RIGHT AND WE ARE WRONG
WHY WAS THE CRUISERWEIGHT DIVISION INVENTED?
WHY HAS EVERY CRUISER WHO WAS COMPETED AT HEAVYWEIGHT ADDED WEIGHT TO HIS FRAME?
IF YOU ARE CORRECT IN STATING LIGHTER IS FASTER .LIGHTER MEANS MORE STAMINA.
WHY HAVE THEY DELIBERATELY DISREGARDED THIS AND ADDED WEIGHT?

In bolded is not the answer though. This was a choice made to add a few more titles to the division. I don’t recall this having anything to do with heavies being too light. In fact they added many new weight classes. It just meant more champions and title fights to sell to the masses.

the bulking they do actually has no merit. It doesn’t even make any sense - they just seem to do it. The small mans strengths are his speed and stamina. By them putting on weight like michelen man just makes it worse for them by sapping their advantages.

oh ya and one more thing, you deem the big guys today as better big heavies than the past. Well the small guys of the past were certainly better then the small guys today. Is cruiserweight is where you think all those guys hang out - why do we have have such ****ty cruiserweights?