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

[them_apples]

Anyone who has been following your Marciano posts will immediately see the agenda behind this thread.
However let's examine your examples.

Joshua 6'6" 240lbs v Usyk 6'3 "' 221 1/2lbs = 3 inches in height,19 1/2lbs in weight

Lewis 6'5 246 1/2lbs v Rahman 6'2 1/2" 236lbs=1 inch in height,10lbs in weight

Foreman 6'3" 229lbs v Young 6'2" 212lbs=1 inch in height,17lbs in weight

Vitali 6'7"244 1/2lbs v Byrd 6'2 " 210 3/4lbs Injury decided the fight. Small heavyweight? Byrd is the same size as Max Baer.

Lewis 6'5" 238 lbs v McCall 6'2" 231 1/4lbs = 3 inches in height 5 3.4lbs in weight

Valuev 7' 316lbs v Haye 6'3" 221lbs=9 inches in height 95lbs in weight

Anyone who is 200 plus pounds can beat a man significantly heavier and taller IF he is good enough

Carnera was a fighter built on setups and tank artists,a fighter who never punched his weight.

Valuev had nothing going for him but his size, no skills, no big punch,just durability,he came around at just the right time.

Holyfield 6'2" 217lbs beat Bowe 6'5" 246lbs ONCE out of 3 tries

Marciano 5'10" 185lbs v Joshua 6'6" 240lbs is totally different to,Joshua v Usyk .
AJ has 3 inches in height and 19 1/2lbs in weight advantage .
Against AJ Marciano would be conceding 7'1/2" inches in height 53lbs in weight and 14 inches in reach.

Marciano may beat big guys like Simon,Carnera, Willard, and Valuev,but he isn't beating a guy like AJ who is not only huge, but can box, and hit like a truck.

There are weight divisions for a reason!

you proved my point with this response. Not sure what the argument is then.

accept the part about Usyk. He put ON weight. Does the 255 lb version of retired Marciano fair better? Because Marciano was undoubtably a stronger man than usyk. He pushed a similar sized Louis around like it was nothing.

on the topic of size. Lewis was much bigger than Rahman and mcall. If you deem weight the only factor regarding size, then see the above paragraph.


you want to talk about claims. Well lets see the hard evidence that supports the argument for weight. You said 200 lbs is the threshold for being capable of beating every man. Why is this? And where did you come up with this?

also factor in Joshua has weighed in the 235-237 range if I recall. And he STILL looks blown up. How big of a man do you figure joshua really is?

[Ivich]

you proved my point with this response. Not sure what the argument is then.

accept the part about Usyk. He put ON weight. Does the 255 lb version of retired Marciano fair better? Because Marciano was undoubtably a stronger man than usyk. He pushed a similar sized Louis around like it was nothing.

on the topic of size. Lewis was much bigger than Rahman and mcall. If you deem weight the only factor regarding size, then see the above paragraph.


you want to talk about claims. Well lets see the hard evidence that supports the argument for weight. You said 200 lbs is the threshold for being capable of beating every man. Why is this? And where did you come up with this?

also factor in Joshua has weighed in the 235-237 range if I recall. And he STILL looks blown up. How big of a man do you figure joshua really is?

No I didn't prove your point.
Usyk is 6'3"221lbs, fast on his feet and a clever boxer.

Marciano was 5' 10 /2" 185lbs, slow on his feet and not a good boxer.
Spot the difference!
Usyk beat Joe Joyce in the amateurs and has beaten Chisora,Joshua and Dubois as a pro,he is proven against modern sized ranked heavyweight punchers, Marciano never was.
Adding 30/50. lbs to Marciano would make a slow fighter even slower,and seriously detract from his stamina.

Please don't keep clinging to the fact that Marciano beat a washed up, 37 years old, one armed Louis it proves nothing!
Except perhaps Rocky was a sucker for Louis' jab!

Ask yourself this. if it wasnt neccesary for fighters to be a certain size by adding weight to compete successfully in todays heavyweight division why did the following do so?
Ellis
Byrd
Holyfield
Breidis
Usyk
All these men would already be heavyweights without adding more muscle , back in Marciano's day!

They felt it imperative to add muscle to be able to absorb the bigger men's punches and hold their own in the clinches !

Shorter, modern guys like Tua and Tyson were over 200lbs when they turned pro.Marciano weighed under 180lbs for 4 of his pro fights!
Do you think Toney and Ellis could have had the same success they had if they weighed in at their former weights?

Jones beat ONE heavyweight, the worst alphabet champ available.did he challenge Lewis?
NO! Why not?
You already know the answer.
Marciano proved his strength and stamina against old men! The biggest class man he fought was washed up.
Joshua is probably stronger than Usyk, Chisora ,and Dubois probably are too.but they were not as fast or as skilled, and that is why they lost!

Louis ,at 200/205lbs was successful because he was the total package,a good boxer, with a great

jab,balance ,variety of punches, blistering hand speed ,excellent combinations , fight ending power in both hands, and a cut resistant skin.

Marciano ticks only one of those boxes, power,and in that, because he wasn't particularly accurate he often needed to wear his man down in a war of attrition.

Lewis wasn't much bigger than either McCall or Rahman he was 3 3/4lbs heavier than McCall and 10lbs heavier than Rahman.
Lewis at 246 would be 59lbs heavier than Rocky and out reach him by16 inches!

Because Rahman and McCall beat Lewis does not make a case for Marciano doing so.

Rahman at 6' 21/2" 236lbs was 4 inches taller than Marciano and 51lbs heavier!

McCall at 6'2" 231 1/4lbs was 3 1/2inches taller than Marciano and 45 3/4lbs heavier!

Joshua is 6 ft 6 inches tall, he has always been a pro heavyweight ,and won the Super Heavy class at the Olympics.

How many rounds do you think ****ell, Layne,and Lastarza go with Lewis ?
I said a man 200lbs plus can beat anyone if he is good enough.
You want proof?
Here it is Joe Louis, Mike Tyson,Mike Spinks, Deontay Wilder.

You are in denial and no amount of stats will ever change your opinion.

Which is that a man 5'10 1/2", with a 68 in reach weighing 185lbs, can beat a man of equal ability and power who is 6'6" 240lbs with an 80"plus reach.

When was the last time this happened?

Q.Why do you think the Cruiserweight division was invented?

A. Simply because the gap between Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight had grown too big for the smaller guys to be competitive against modern giants!!

It's not rocket science it's the law of physics!

[Marchegiano]

Logically if the reason for a weight division is to protect small men from large men then it shouldn't be terribly difficult to find the era prior to the creation of the division that reflects that need. As in, it should not be difficult to find an era preceding the creation of a division in which the former lower limit consistently lost to the former upper limit.

This should not be difficult, but it is extremely difficult and though our members got plenty of gusto not one of them has enough neck to claim an era. Oh they'll tell you all about power and weight relation, they'll show you the size of men doing well going up over time, but pointing out a time and claiming specific men struggled to find success because larger specific men beat them is not something any poster will post.

Because they can't. Because that era does not exist.

The general size of HWs today is causality?

The relation between weight and power is causality?

No, they are evidence.

The cause for the division is stated in the division itself. It's because smaller men lose to larger men. Finding that cause reflected in reality is impossible.

Evidence for a subject and history that requires 0 ****ing evidence. The cause itself should be a matter of records.

Records do not reflect this cause. They do reflect something else though.

I had thought the creation of Bridger might open some eyes but I think people double down on what they believe to be true for so long their position becomes immovable.

Is their a lack of success for the lower 200s at HW? Wilder was a champion who put together a historic reign. Usyk is currently champion. Seems like success was found just fine.

No one was asking for it. No fighters, no fans, there was no call for a smaller HW division. There was no surge of clearly talented smaller boxers losing to lesser talents who only beat them with size. There's just a body making up a reason to introduce a new division.





You WILL NOT find any era in the entire history of boxing when men who were exalted for their talents lost to larger men in any sort of large numbers.

You WILL find eras when it is decided by those who reap financial rewards from it, it is time for a new belt, new title, new division.



Proof? You have no proof. There's no proof the divisions were ever needed in the first place let alone proof they are effective. There is, however, proof that the first weight divisions were made up ranges the fighters themselves drummed up and kept fluid to be able to call themselves a champion without fighting a champion. You will find proof bodies create divisions without regard to what the fighters or fans want.

You can find proof and cause behind the weight divisions and their creation, but that stated purpose, to make a fair playing field so that all sizes can be successful in the sport, you will never find proof of because there is none. There is only evidence, and just to remind you lot we ain't talking about Jesus or space, evidence should not be part of this conversation, it should be proof and provable history.



Show me the era in which smaller men from any division were acknowledged as great fighters who only lose to larger men because of unfair weight advantages and so a new division was created to allow those men to shine. Show it to me.




Y'all using evidence to back up a claim that is provable because you're ****** people. Just being real. You do it despite having sat through Bridger, because you are dumb.

[Marchegiano]

Oh to be very clear, I think Ivich is a dumb person. His argument is ****** and I do believe one has to be ****** to believe such ******ity.


Also, I'd like to point something out. Youse do have a rocket scientist hur. Youse could ask him about physics and ****, but since I don't agree with the tard **** youse learned from boxing you know why you don't. If you could use my credentials to enforce your opinion you'd jump on it like a fly on ****, but, since you know I don't agree it's what does working on missiles and rockets got to do with boxing right?


Goddamn right it ain't rocket science Ivich.

[Marchegiano]

Q.Why do you think the Cruiserweight division was invented?

A. Simply because the gap between Light Heavyweight and Heavyweight had grown too big for the smaller guys to be competitive against modern giants!!

It's not rocket science it's the law of physics!

You talking about when MW Roy went to HW for a belt are ya?


Mention rocket science somewhere where I can read it again. I love that. I love that you use my work as a tool to reflect understanding complex ideas as a vehicle to point out how simple what you're talking about is. While you disagree with me over everything under the sun.

Maybe your tired ass should have a think about how it certainly is not rocket science?

Busted that entire post with a line, because it isn't rocket science, and, ***** you are wrong.

[them_apples]

Logically if the reason for a weight division is to protect small men from large men then it shouldn't be terribly difficult to find the era prior to the creation of the division that reflects that need. As in, it should not be difficult to find an era preceding the creation of a division in which the former lower limit consistently lost to the former upper limit.

This should not be difficult, but it is extremely difficult and though our members got plenty of gusto not one of them has enough neck to claim an era. Oh they'll tell you all about power and weight relation, they'll show you the size of men doing well going up over time, but pointing out a time and claiming specific men struggled to find success because larger specific men beat them is not something any poster will post.

Because they can't. Because that era does not exist.

The general size of HWs today is causality?

The relation between weight and power is causality?

No, they are evidence.

The cause for the division is stated in the division itself. It's because smaller men lose to larger men. Finding that cause reflected in reality is impossible.

Evidence for a subject and history that requires 0 ****ing evidence. The cause itself should be a matter of records.

Records do not reflect this cause. They do reflect something else though.

I had thought the creation of Bridger might open some eyes but I think people double down on what they believe to be true for so long their position becomes immovable.

Is their a lack of success for the lower 200s at HW? Wilder was a champion who put together a historic reign. Usyk is currently champion. Seems like success was found just fine.

No one was asking for it. No fighters, no fans, there was no call for a smaller HW division. There was no surge of clearly talented smaller boxers losing to lesser talents who only beat them with size. There's just a body making up a reason to introduce a new division.





You WILL NOT find any era in the entire history of boxing when men who were exalted for their talents lost to larger men in any sort of large numbers.

You WILL find eras when it is decided by those who reap financial rewards from it, it is time for a new belt, new title, new division.



Proof? You have no proof. There's no proof the divisions were ever needed in the first place let alone proof they are effective. There is, however, proof that the first weight divisions were made up ranges the fighters themselves drummed up and kept fluid to be able to call themselves a champion without fighting a champion. You will find proof bodies create divisions without regard to what the fighters or fans want.

You can find proof and cause behind the weight divisions and their creation, but that stated purpose, to make a fair playing field so that all sizes can be successful in the sport, you will never find proof of because there is none. There is only evidence, and just to remind you lot we ain't talking about Jesus or space, evidence should not be part of this conversation, it should be proof and provable history.



Show me the era in which smaller men from any division were acknowledged as great fighters who only lose to larger men because of unfair weight advantages and so a new division was created to allow those men to shine. Show it to me.




Y'all using evidence to back up a claim that is provable because you're ****** people. Just being real. You do it despite having sat through Bridger, because you are dumb.

Spot on. Couldn’t have said it better myself. There literally is no relation or way of proving it. And if its that hard to prove it shouldn’t matter. Way too many large men have been toppled by smaller men in every single era. Even today.

[Marchegiano]

Spot on. CouldnâÂÂt have said it better myself. There literally is no relation or way of proving it. And if its that hard to prove it shouldnâÂÂt matter. Way too many large men have been toppled by smaller men in every single era. Even today.

Perfect, right there, everything captured in less than twenty words.


These guys sat around talking about the 1800s-1900s for so long they refuse anything new. They're set in their beliefs regardless of what you present to them.

Ask them what makes a champion before sanctioning bodies. Then use that given criteria to find a new character in history that hits all the marks, consensus and such. Instead of any of these old jabronis expressing any excitement over having possibly found a new champion they'll tell you, you lack the credentials.

It's really any perspective or new proof that asks them to change what they "know" and accepted a long time ago will be met with stubborn refusal.



Actually, Dr. Z get your ass in here too. I'm feeling awfully slap happy this morning.

[Dr. Z]

Perfect, right there, everything captured in less than twenty words.


These guys sat around talking about the 1800s-1900s for so long they refuse anything new. They're set in their beliefs regardless of what you present to them.

Ask them what makes a champion before sanctioning bodies. Then use that given criteria to find a new character in history that hits all the marks, consensus and such. Instead of any of these old jabronis expressing any excitement over having possibly found a new champion they'll tell you, you lack the credentials.

It's really any perspective or new proof that asks them to change what they "know" and accepted a long time ago will be met with stubborn refusal.



Actually, Dr. Z get your ass in here too. I'm feeling awfully slap happy this morning.

Oh I am here. Please tell us which ranked heavyweight under 205 pounds since Mike Spinks was ranked back in 1987. Now go!

[Ivich]

You talking about when MW Roy went to HW for a belt are ya?


Mention rocket science somewhere where I can read it again. I love that. I love that you use my work as a tool to reflect understanding complex ideas as a vehicle to point out how simple what you're talking about is. While you disagree with me over everything under the sun.

Maybe your tired ass should have a think about how it certainly is not rocket science?

Busted that entire post with a line, because it isn't rocket science, and, ***** you are wrong.

Do you seriously suppose I need assistance composing posts from a verified nutter like you? LOL!!!!

Your work?
Do you honestly think I would stoop to plagiarise your lunatic scriblings?

When have you ever written a post worth a cup of cold piss?

Apart from your schizoid, pidgin scribblings , what on earth have you to offer a boxing fan?

Your unintelligible ramblings got you banned from two forums!

I don't consciously disagree with you ,I don't intentionally read your drivel!

You are regarded with tolerant condescension by the majority.

A harmless" anorak "who is fixated on mythical gladiators,whom nobody gives a flying **** about!


Loonies like you are not on my radar!
But thanks for the entertainment, though you didn't actually say anything!!! LOL
FYI
Jones had been a lhvy for 6 years before he moved up to take on the bigger guys,he had 16 fights against them.He was taller than Marciano with 6 inches more reach and 3 times his speed and talent,and he had enough sense not to go looking for quality heavyweights like Lewis where he knew he would be slaughtered.
Now take your meds and have a nap ,you ridiculous imposter!

[Marchegiano]

Oh I am here. Please tell us which ranked heavyweight under 205 pounds since Mike Spinks was ranked back in 1987. Now go!

This is a very specific response to a very open position soo ... I doubt you put much thought into it and I bet I can use the confines of this proposition as a counter point:

Who would have been great in that time frame had bridgerweight existed? If you want to be ultra specific, than be ultra specific buddy. Give me a name of a 205er who was actually excellent but couldn't get ranked due to their size disadvantage since the GOAT Spinks?

The lack of proof is not proof buddo. I don't need to refute the question to refute the idea Bridgerweight was a necessary addition to the divisions. do better with your gotchas



How did I know? You were silent bro. You really should have stayed silent. It would have made me question myself. All I did was mention you. How did I know that's all I need to get you and Ivich teamed up against me? Also, if I am using you as a vehicle to call out your entire demographic Why the **** would you just hand it to me? You just raised your hand and basically said "Y'all he's wrong about weight divisions but **** on dead right about cantankerous old stubborn ****s" Bro, buddy, I ****ing love you guy.