Does bigger mean better?

[The Old LefHook]

Look at Foreman, one of the strongest heavyweights ever, yet stood only 6' 3" and change. Being tall does not help your grip much, boys, and grip roughly equals punching potential. A man with big bones and a big grip is ideal. Have you seen the former forearm on Mike Tyson. Even Tyson Fury now has him an outsized steroid forearm. Juiced forearms are the coming trend because of their outsized effect on punching power.

Can you imagine for one minute what Jimmy Young might have done with juiced forearms to go with his man boobs?

[billeau2]

This argument is so common in this section

Round and round it goes... never to be resolved. I think Lefty is on the right track here. So here it goes:

Dee Money there is no such thing as "optimal" because it depends on what the fight environment, the fight goal is to be attained.

Its very simple: some men are naturally big. Weight is JUSt one consideration. Like Lefty says, Foreman was very strong, so was Liston... If they wanted to they could have come in weighing more. Foreman actually did, didn't he?

Men came up with the idea to be mobile and skillful and come in for a fight light as they could. So naturally older heavyweights weighed less. The reason natural strength and not weight is so important is that a man can retain strength regardless of weight. just weighing more does not produce more strength. I don't think of Vlad Klitsko as being very strong physically in the ring. Yes he had a great build and had good punches...and yes he was big. But compared to guys who weighed less and had more natural strength the weight is kind of trivial.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Look at Foreman, one of the strongest heavyweights ever, yet stood only 6' 3" and change. Being tall does not help your grip much, boys, and grip roughly equals punching potential. A man with big bones and a big grip is ideal. Have you seen the former forearm on Mike Tyson. Even Tyson Fury now has him an outsized steroid forearm. Juiced forearms are the coming trend because of their outsized effect on punching power.

Can you imagine for one minute what Jimmy Young might have done with juiced forearms to go with his man boobs?

I have a pretty good idea what you'd be doing when no one was looking... lots of Kleenex and Juergens would be involved, no doubt

[Rusty Tromboni]

Round and round it goes... never to be resolved. I think Lefty is on the right track here. So here it goes:

Dee Money there is no such thing as "optimal" because it depends on what the fight environment, the fight goal is to be attained.

Its very simple: some men are naturally big. Weight is JUSt one consideration. Like Lefty says, Foreman was very strong, so was Liston... If they wanted to they could have come in weighing more. Foreman actually did, didn't he?

Men came up with the idea to be mobile and skillful and come in for a fight light as they could. So naturally older heavyweights weighed less. The reason natural strength and not weight is so important is that a man can retain strength regardless of weight. just weighing more does not produce more strength. I don't think of Vlad Klitsko as being very strong physically in the ring. Yes he had a great build and had good punches...and yes he was big. But compared to guys who weighed less and had more natural strength the weight is kind of trivial.

Just out of curiosity why do YOU believe weight-classes exist?

Do you think Fury goes the distance against Finito? Or does Lopez stop him? Is there a reason you ignored my response to you which in spirit, ended this thread?

[billeau2]

Just out of curiosity why do YOU believe weight-classes exist?

Do you think Fury goes the distance against Finito? Or does Lopez stop him? Is there a reason you ignored my response to you which in spirit, ended this thread?

The heavyweight division is open. There are certain optimal measures of a man... At a certain weight and height you start to lose abilities. Not at 160 so much, but at about 260? maybe so.

[PRINCEKOOL]

I think the more advantages you have the better.So yes bigger is better.

There is going to be a trade off somewhere, it is like in Formula 1 motor racing 'Engineers and car designers have to decide? If they work on improving TOP-END speed, down-force is most likely going to be compromised and the list goes on etc

Somebody like Mike Tyson was unusual, because nature created him without any trade off's 'There has not be any heavyweight since him with the same dimensions who? Has been able to operate with his speed,power or co-ordination.

There are trade off's with Fury, such as his lack of power.

Note: Size in itself can be a advantage, but it can also work against you. I don't think there is one definitive answer to this thread question.

[Rusty Tromboni]

The heavyweight division is open. There are certain optimal measures of a man... At a certain weight and height you start to lose abilities. Not at 160 so much, but at about 260? maybe so.

Really?

I guess you haven't heard about Cruiserweight.

And actually, while it started out limited at 190 pounds. It now is limited to 200.

And divisions always come about a generation overdue.

It's only a matter of time before it's bumped to 210 - and most likely a new division topped off at 190 Lbs. returns.

In Wrestling we do it like that for High School. Works wonderfully.

You begin losing ability every time you add even a margin of weight. Jofre, Gomez, Pep... they make Mayweather look like old Hopkins.

How did Byrd's superior athleticism and defense work for him against Ibeabuchi and Wlad?

[Rusty Tromboni]

There is going to be a trade off somewhere, it is like in Formula 1 motor racing 'Engineers and car designers have to decide? If they work on improving TOP-END speed, down-force is most likely going to be compromised and the list goes on etc

Somebody like Mike Tyson was unusual, because nature created him without any trade off's 'There has not be any heavyweight since him with the same dimensions who? Has been able to operate with his speed,power or co-ordination.

There are trade off's with Fury, such as his lack of power.

Note: Size in itself can be a advantage, but it can also work against you. I don't think there is one definitive answer to this thread question.

LMAO!!!!! You're brutal! Nature!?!? Tyson was made in a lab. There's really no saying what Ryson would look like if he came of age today, in the VADA era. But it certainly would NOT be the monster of the 80's. Not in the least.

Also, when did you see him Box for 12 fulls rounds like Fury? Even Patterson, who was half his size, fought in spurts.

When did you see Tyson finish a guy like Wilder? Douglas' power was too much for him. And he couldn't put away Tucker. Hell, he fumbled through that bumb Bruno.

Fury conversely put Wilder through a meat grinder. That was rhe product of just 7 weeks of training! He spent years training exclusively as a pure Boxer. And then in just 7 weeks he accomplished a beatdown greater than anything Tyson ever pulled off in the ring after YEARS of training with D'Amato & Co., and taking needles in the ass.

Fury's genes were selected over millennia for combat, though. Mike's the product of centuries of breeding for working ability and docility.

[Rusty Tromboni]

I'll through you guys a bone.

You've got the subject surrounded, anyway.

You're talking about "PARITY". As you move up in weight.

Consider the following men:
Wilfredo Gomez. Ike Williams. Tommy Hearns. Roid Jones. Beyonce Wilder.

The bigger you get the worse the fighter, but the further his power carries him.

We're shocked that Gomez's wizardly offense couldn't survive the 4 pound jump to Featherweight. (skill-wise it's amazing Nelson even shared the ring with him). But no one really thinks of Wilder as being the smaller man - and certainly not undersized - when fighting Fury, despite giving up 40+ pounds. In fact, in the rematch, it was his power that made HIM the favorite.

Parity.

[Rip Chudd]

David Price would say no