Are old-time heavyweights too small? Take the poll

[billeau2]

I think it depends on the individual. Some carry it better than others, and it can detract from somes silly and athleticism while not others.

I agree. The one caveat I have is this notion that fighters seem to want to bulk up... Wilder perfect example, Even Fury... These guys should be imo lean and mean. I do not see the logic, but as other posters have said, fighters do bulk up... Holly is another great example, why did he muscle bound himself? He could always hit ahrd enough and had a great chin. There may be reasons, I do not see them though.

[JAB5239]

I agree. The one caveat I have is this notion that fighters seem to want to bulk up... Wilder perfect example, Even Fury... These guys should be imo lean and mean. I do not see the logic, but as other posters have said, fighters do bulk up... Holly is another great example, why did he muscle bound himself? He could always hit ahrd enough and had a great chin. There may be reasons, I do not see them though.

With Holyfield, I don't think him bulking up affected him as much as it would many others. But I agree it's definitely not ideal to put on so much weight for a lot of guys. Andy Ruiz is a good example. When in shape and 25lbs lighter he is much more effective as a fighter. The old school fighters knew that size wasn't everything. I wonder if there were still 15 round championship fights if guys would come in lighter?

[Marchegiano]

I'm positive I know what I'm talking about ,just as I'm positive you don't.
You have never answered my repeated question on why boxers from lower weights added weights to compete at heavyweight and you never will,because there is only one explanation and for you to admit that blows your case completely out of the water !

I never said any rules were ever ignored ,I asked for examples,of boxers filing for exemptions to compete in higher divisions.

I also never asked you to prove the necessity for weight divisions, I've been aware of the reason for over 60 years!

You've come looking to dig me out on two separate threads with unnecessarily sarcastic remarks.I'm just telling you I'm up for it if you want to continue.
If you insult me expect incoming,because believe me you will get it ,and that ain't a threat ,its a fact!

Oh it's right in this very thread actually.



Why would a boxer who meets minimum requirements filed an exemption? I'll give you an exemption but it isn't going to be for anyone you mentioned because no one you mentioned needed one.



I really wasn't trying to allude to you but if the shoe fits, dumbass it up. I promise if I mean to call you out I'll use your name. You are not the sole representative of the beliefs I mocked, you don't even cover them all, you just saw the ones that do apply to you and thought too much into it. It's okay, but nah bro you wrong.



The floor is yours bud, what is the purpose of weight divisions?

[Marchegiano]

Spinks had a career high of 212. Holy liked being under 220 often. Wilder liked to be under 220 often. Roy was in the 190s. Moorer's best work is below 220 and he really only consistently did bad above 220. Haye won his title below 220. Byrd represented the below 220s well. The Mike Tyson everyone loves is the below 220 Tyson who gathered the belts. Ali and Frazier represented the below 220s well.

Usyk is the current champion


What reason did the WBC/A have for making their HW division start at 220+?

Right, and have any of the BWs looked good now that they only fight BWs? Did the WBC save lives? Or did they size out a breed of men who has always done well and would have continued to do well?



Can take 220 all the way back until 220 is a large HW.


In that time period we should look to the analog not the actual. The smaller HWs are now the 176-190s. They are well represented by names like Patterson, Frazier, Cooper, Machen, Moore, etc.


Go back to where the 190s are now the top end of the division consistently and see the consistent 170s-180s challengers and champions doing just fine. Marciano, Charles, Maxim, Conn etc.


We get into an era when 180 is a larger HW and the 170s, 160s, and even 150s can have a pop at HW. Norfolk, Gans, Langford, Fitzsimmons, Burns, Choyinski, so on.






What happened? When was the time when the 160s just kept getting their asses kicked? Oh, never, divisions started being enforced in the 30s is all? And like magic that's about the time period when you stop seeing 175 and below HWs.

Then what happened to the 170s-80s HWs? They started losing in droves or were well represented on the top of the division? Oh, it just happens to be at the same time frame CW becomes a thing?

What happened to the 190 fighters? Did they lose often or were they still making champions? Okay well if they were still getting titles why make the new limit 200 right after Roy's done with the division?

Once 200 is the new minimum do weights follow? And were the just above 200s like Byrd and Haye and Wilder still getting belts? So what is the point of the new 220 limit?




Maybe John L was marketing. Maybe BW is marketing. Maybe everything in between is marketing.



That's an answer you're going to refuse to accept while stating vague dumb**** like "but science doe"




Nah, didn't change a ****ing thing. But if you're going to ask me questions like I didn't answer you already then it's plenty fair for me to shove this in your face over and over again.


Ivich, the "you" here is rhetorical. You're not the only one ignoring and asking at the same time.

[DeeMoney]

Men have not grown outside of any genetic norms

Having more giants alive today does not point to evolution, there's more midgets and tards alive too.

Americans are big now. Americans were big when America was first discovered. There's no genetic link to European Americans and Native Americans. There is a height average shared despite advancing science, genetics, and infrastructure looking nothing alike.


Y'all dumb

Once again, nobody is pointing to evolution. To try and argue as such is a strawman argument or being intentionally disingenuous. What is being said, is that as a whole people in western nations are taller and bigger now than they were 100 years ago. This is primarily due to better diets, healthier living conditions, and improved medicine.

The fact that there are more midgets now, is a result of there being more overall people BUT that is really irrelevant, as we are speaking of the average as a whole.

[billeau2]

With Holyfield, I don't think him bulking up affected him as much as it would many others. But I agree it's definitely not ideal to put on so much weight for a lot of guys. Andy Ruiz is a good example. When in shape and 25lbs lighter he is much more effective as a fighter. The old school fighters knew that size wasn't everything. I wonder if there were still 15 round championship fights if guys would come in lighter?

Yes so basically it puts me in a bit of a pickle... When Bronson asks "why fighters moving up bulk up?" It is IMO a good question... And whom am I to say "Because these fighters are obviously misguided!." I certainly do not think I know more than the professionals, but for the life of me... I would be lying if I said this bulking has a sensible reason I understand...

What I seldom, if ever see, are fighters who are just too small. It does happen but infrequently... Hyde fighting Bowe was an example. On the other hand? Most of the division appears to me to be much too heavy. And fighters that bulk up? the only real success story that I can tie directly to bulking was when Fury wanted to KO Wilder the second fight and used the heft to do so. I can't say for sure if Usyk even needed to bulk up If I am honest. And Wilder? 218 is a fine weight for him to be explosive and mobile IMO., no more heft needed.

[billeau2]

Oh it's right in this very thread actually.



Why would a boxer who meets minimum requirements filed an exemption? I'll give you an exemption but it isn't going to be for anyone you mentioned because no one you mentioned needed one.



I really wasn't trying to allude to you but if the shoe fits, dumbass it up. I promise if I mean to call you out I'll use your name. You are not the sole representative of the beliefs I mocked, you don't even cover them all, you just saw the ones that do apply to you and thought too much into it. It's okay, but nah bro you wrong.



The floor is yours bud, what is the purpose of weight divisions?

Having a circumspect view on weight classes entails many different considerations. All of these become special rabbit holes... I am talking Jabberwocky monster rabbit holes! a la Monty Python. Gloves, different punching technique, different safety and strategic considerations, Duration, distancing... The list goes on and on. And then there are the other reasons entirely for weight classes you mention... And then just as you think you made it out of the proverbial building? There is the question of whether fighters really do themselves a plus by bulking up, or maybe they are wrong... An opinion which I do not hold (at least for now), however I do think heft should be in moderation given how hard it is to throw it around in the ring against a mobile fighter.

[billeau2]

I want to address a few points about the size of people.

There is no question that in America the average size of individials has increased... AS a matter of fact, Deemoney correctly uses height and length of limbs as the basis for this measurement, which is how it is calculated... The Dutch are the tallest people in the world hence the biggest to statistical conventions.

There are other factors that matter with respect to size in any particular category, like a sports category. While margiano did not argue it, I would dovetail off his post. The continents with the most people generally have the most diversity and hence (because of the number of people (as dee money has argued cprrectly) the most people who are exceptionally large, small, midgets, twoheaded giants, etc. One possible implication of this is, as more people entered boxing, from more nationalities, more larger people came from nations with a larger amount of big people.

Another possible causative factor is competition among sports. A heavyweight MMA fighter looks very different from a heavyweight boxer... More like boxers used to look imo. Boxing may be getting a different sample of heavyweights than in the past because of the draw of other sports.

Another factor could simply be training. Fighters training with size as a goal, as opposed to the opposite intent in the past.

Football is a fascinating example of a total upwards trajectory regarding the quality of the athletes involved. At a cursory glance one would see a few causative factors at work here: Money! Big big money! Which made the sport state of the art athletically, with no expense spared in creating the best players. During the early eighties, plays developed into very sophisticated structures with the advent of the West Coast offense. But a little known and very important fact was the development of high intensity, circuit training, Originally done by Arthur Jones at the Florida State University, using Nautilus machines that allowed, through negative reps, players to exhaust all the major muscled in the body in a few minutes! Allowing more time to practice scrimmage, positional skills, etc.

One does not see the same trajectory in boxing and all sports are at least slightly different in respect to their trajectories... with the caveat it is a fair statement to say virtually all team sports have evolved considerably.

[DeeMoney]

I want to address a few points about the size of people.

There is no question that in America the average size of individials has increased... AS a matter of fact, Deemoney correctly uses height and length of limbs as the basis for this measurement, which is how it is calculated... The Dutch are the tallest people in the world hence the biggest to statistical conventions.

There are other factors that matter with respect to size in any particular category, like a sports category. While margiano did not argue it, I would dovetail off his post. The continents with the most people generally have the most diversity and hence (because of the number of people (as dee money has argued cprrectly) the most people who are exceptionally large, small, midgets, twoheaded giants, etc. One possible implication of this is, as more people entered boxing, from more nationalities, more larger people came from nations with a larger amount of big people.

Another possible causative factor is competition among sports. A heavyweight MMA fighter looks very different from a heavyweight boxer... More like boxers used to look imo. Boxing may be getting a different sample of heavyweights than in the past because of the draw of other sports.

Another factor could simply be training. Fighters training with size as a goal, as opposed to the opposite intent in the past.

Football is a fascinating example of a total upwards trajectory regarding the quality of the athletes involved. At a cursory glance one would see a few causative factors at work here: Money! Big big money! Which made the sport state of the art athletically, with no expense spared in creating the best players. During the early eighties, plays developed into very sophisticated structures with the advent of the West Coast offense. But a little known and very important fact was the development of high intensity, circuit training, Originally done by Arthur Jones at the Florida State University, using Nautilus machines that allowed, through negative reps, players to exhaust all the major muscled in the body in a few minutes! Allowing more time to practice scrimmage, positional skills, etc.

One does not see the same trajectory in boxing and all sports are at least slightly different in respect to their trajectories... with the caveat it is a fair statement to say virtually all team sports have evolved considerably.

I know I've mentioned it before but one of my favorite reads, "the Sports Gene" goes into the changes in football athletes over the past decade. They too cite the money involved in how it helped the sport grow (I strongly recommend it). Additionally, it outlines how when money went up there came a change in specialization of body types: linemen got bigger, DBs got smaller, etc. Part of this could also be attached to an increased specialization that came about with more l1beral substitution rules (no longer a need for Chuck Bednarik), but even so the body type explosion continued well past the 1960s, and the death of the two-way player.

[Dr Z]

I know I've mentioned it before but one of my favorite reads, "the Sports Gene" goes into the changes in football athletes over the past decade. They too cite the money involved in how it helped the sport grow (I strongly recommend it). Additionally, it outlines how when money went up there came a change in specialization of body types: linemen got bigger, DBs got smaller, etc. Part of this could also be attached to an increased specialization that came about with more l1beral substitution rules (no longer a need for Chuck Bednarik), but even so the body type explosion continued well past the 1960s, and the death of the two-way player.

ANY sport has seen an increase in the size and strength of the athletes change dramatically over the past 50 years.


NFL football, basketball, Hockey, Tennis, and MLB.