Does bigger mean better?

[Rusty Tromboni]

Fury has a 67% KO ratio against his peers.

Fury is 31. Ali was 32 when he fought Frazier in 78. His KO ratio was 68% at that time despite losing his best years for his resistance to the draft.

I'm sure there was a point to be made there, but i'm not sure what.

It definitely demonstrates that Fury, a pure Boxer, is a better finisher than Ali, who threw LOTS AND LOTS of punches. So yeah, another argument for size.

I dunno how Ali lost his best years, though. That's an odd conclusion to come to.

[Deontaytheking]

Joshua got destroyed by a cruiserweight with a belly but his fans think he could beat Ali and Tyson because he is too big. I think any fighter around 200 pounds could knock out any fighter at any weight of they have power and skills.

[TonyGe]

I'm sure there was a point to be made there, but i'm not sure what.

It definitely demonstrates that Fury, a pure Boxer, is a better finisher than Ali, who threw LOTS AND LOTS of punches. So yeah, another argument for size.

I dunno how Ali lost his best years, though. That's an odd conclusion to come to.

Yeah you know what the point is or you wouldn't have responded to it with a counter argument. As far as the odd conclusion goes there are plenty of articles regarding Ali's career.

Wow you really don't get it do you. Why did I say against his peers??

[The Old LefHook]

I reiterate: 6' 0" at 200 lbs is the neighborhood of the perfect heavyweight body. All the muscle necessary is there and you have not lost any speed yet. That size body will tire a behemoth out and can carry itself for 15 rounds easily.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I reiterate: 6' 0" at 200 lbs is the neighborhood of the perfect heavyweight body. All the muscle necessary is there and you have not lost any speed yet. That size body will tire a behemoth out and can carry itself for 15 rounds easily.

Mr. Humphries, we're talking about Boxers. Not you're ideal Deserted-Island boytoy.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Yeah you know what the point is or you wouldn't have responded to it with a counter argument. As far as the odd conclusion goes there are plenty of articles regarding Ali's career.

Counter-argument!?
I thought we were agreeing to the obvious: not only is Fury a far superior fighter to Ali overall, even as a finisher he's Ali's superior.

And you having to turn your tail and run isn't surprising, but it remains disappointing.

Ali dodged Frazier at his best and returned in time to about physical prime. A rare luxury for fighters of his era and before.

Fury, too, lost 3 important years. But being a real man, had made no excuse for it. It's nice to see Boxing once again has a real role model after going generations without. Maybe if you'd grown up witnessing a man standing up to take account for himself, rather than running away, you'd be different?

[Rusty Tromboni]

Joshua got destroyed by a cruiserweight with a belly but his fans think he could beat Ali and Tyson because he is too big. I think any fighter around 200 pounds could knock out any fighter at any weight of they have power and skills.

Except it hasn't happened, has it?

Instead, they made the Cw division. Qnd they bumped the limit from 190 to 200... and that allows for rehydration.

Heavyweights have gotten bigger and bigger.

It's true there is more parity as you go up in weight. But that doesn't mean there's ever been a 200 lb. Man with the power and skill ro KO everyone.

Dempsey has come closest. But even with a Gil Clancy or Ray Arcel as his trainer qould you pick him to beat all the Heavyweights who've come after him?

I suspect even Ali and Foreman might be a bridge too far.

[DeeMoney]

You are gonna get a lot of straw man arguments here. "See 'fill-in-the-blank' bigger fighter who lost as the bigger fighter.'

This is an asinine argument. I'm sure I can find instances where the faster fighter lost a boxing match, where the smarter fighter lost, does this then prove that being faster or smarter is not an advantage? Of course not.

In general, being bigger is better assuming you lose no mobility or stamina; but that's almost always a tradeoff. So what it means is you have to find that optimal weight. Every fighter has their optimal weight, where being bigger then leads to negative returns, or at least what it adds out weighs the diminished returns in stamina and mobility.

[Rusty Tromboni]

You are gonna get a lot of straw man arguments here. "See 'fill-in-the-blank' bigger fighter who lost as the bigger fighter.'

This is an asinine argument. I'm sure I can find instances where the faster fighter lost a boxing match, where the smarter fighter lost, does this then prove that being faster or smarter is not an advantage? Of course not.

In general, being bigger is better assuming you lose no mobility or stamina; but that's almost always a tradeoff. So what it means is you have to find that optimal weight. Every fighter has their optimal weight, where being bigger then leads to negative returns, or at least what it adds out weighs the diminished returns in stamina and mobility.

You should tell Pro-Fighters that.

It would've saved a lot of fellas a lot of brain cells over the past dozen or so decades


Weight divisions exist for a reason.

[QueensburyRules]

Joshua got destroyed by a cruiserweight with a belly but his fans think he could beat Ali and Tyson because he is too big. I think any fighter around 200 pounds could knock out any fighter at any weight of they have power and skills.

- -Thought Fat Andy was a natural feather he being Meskin and all.

Deyonce ducking a natural Haymon feather is it now?

My, my, the wreckage of his flotsam is finally washing up on the beaches...