"A good Big Man beats a good Little Man" Why?

[billeau2]

Through history take the top welter vs the top lightweight and see who wins 9/10 times.Top middle 160 vs 175 .Thats what it’s about not two guys who weigh the same in the same division.I knew a couple guys genuine bad asses at about 185 or so whipped half ass big guys all the time and seen their doom when they went up vs guys 215 to 220 who were bad asses in a larger scale.don’t have to tell you who won.

Good point but keep in mind that as weight increases the difference becomes less and less a factor. Take the same weight increase from a light to a welter and compare to the relative same weight difference in heavy weights and it becomes less certain to end the same way.

[Marchegiano]

The very notion of natural size is interesting. People have habits. Habits lead to people assuming a certain "walk around" weight. We know from nutrition that protein rich diets do not cause weight gain. In this country for many generations people ate thick steaks, big burgers... and were relatively thin in relation to people today who eat a lot more sugar, fat, and are more sedentary. So a man's walk around weight would be different.

Start vid at 12:00 ...Look at the size of that steak! A typical dinner circa 1948 and that beef has a fat content twice what something like Angus beef does! Look at the relative size of the steak compared to the starch... this is what people ate... lol.

God damned snackie cakes and chips have made me a fat ****

[billeau2]

God damned snackie cakes and chips have made me a fat ****

Lol... I have seen two of these types of commercials and watched as a petite shapely women throws a freakin bronto sirlion into the broiler... the only cut of meat we get like that these days is chuck which is to be slow cooked... When it comes to steak one would have to go to the butcher and request any steak over a few pounds. lol. And for good reason... the meat we eat today is so lean that a thick steak would not taste good.

I have been a chef and am known for my cooking (published an ebook lol) so I keep abreast of food trends. I was asked to try Wagyu beef, top of the line by another chef. This beef is prime, and has a high fat content. I took one bite and was transported back to the kitchen as a kid when we had steak. I can't even eat a steak anymore... too lean, would prefer a burger, or it has to be really thin.

[Marchegiano]

Lol... I have seen two of these types of commercials and watched as a petite shapely women throws a freakin bronto sirlion into the broiler... the only cut of meat we get like that these days is chuck which is to be slow cooked... When it comes to steak one would have to go to the butcher and request any steak over a few pounds. lol. And for good reason... the meat we eat today is so lean that a thick steak would not taste good.

I have been a chef and am known for my cooking (published an ebook lol) so I keep abreast of food trends. I was asked to try Wagyu beef, top of the line by another chef. This beef is prime, and has a high fat content. I took one bite and was transported back to the kitchen as a kid when we had steak. I can't even eat a steak anymore... too lean, would prefer a burger, or it has to be really thin.

What's the name of the book, I'll buy that ****s right now

[The Old LefHook]

It is like repeating Einstein to kindergartners.

The weight adage holds up well, until the traditional heavyweight limit, that is, then is suddenly no longer valid and is supplanted by a new standard. Good welterweights beat good lightweights, good middleweights beat good welterweights, etc., in general, but only up to heavyweight.

The perfect heavyweight build is roughly 6' to 6'2". The best weight is 195 to 220. The reason for this is that boxing is a game of mobility and stamina. Galoots are fairly easy to avoid, and they tire rapidly. Galoots are tuckered out about the time someone like Marciano is getting fully warmed up for the task ahead. All the smaller fighter has to do is stick around and creatively tire out his galoot opponent, then dismantle him a la Clay/Foreman.

I can practically guarantee that an exhaustive list of heavyweight championship matchups covering the 20th century would not show favoritism toward higher weights and the "bigger man," idea. An objective study might find the opposite, that big heavyweights more often lose, precisely because they are often fat slobs that do not have to make a weight limit.

[Rockin']

I almost hated fighters guys with a reach advantage, until I learned to fight aggressive and low. Fighting them with the jab while walking a ring was tough. But being the aggressor and getting under their jab, to dig some ribs with a straight right hand, was great though. Fighting aggressively is tough though. Either way it really sucks to fight a guy with a large reach advantage, unless they are slow...........Rockin'

[billeau2]

What's the name of the book, I'll buy that ****s right now

I will send it to you. I wrote it for my son... I think I have it on the computer. Ill PM it.

[DeeMoney]

It is like repeating Einstein to kindergartners.

The weight adage holds up well, until the traditional heavyweight limit, that is, then is suddenly no longer valid and is supplanted by a new standard. Good welterweights beat good lightweights, good middleweights beat good welterweights, etc., in general, but only up to heavyweight.

The perfect heavyweight build is roughly 6' to 6'2". The best weight is 195 to 220. The reason for this is that boxing is a game of mobility and stamina. Galoots are fairly easy to avoid, and they tire rapidly. Galoots are tuckered out about the time someone like Marciano is getting fully warmed up for the task ahead. All the smaller fighter has to do is stick around and creatively tire out his galoot opponent, then dismantle him a la Clay/Foreman.

I can practically guarantee that an exhaustive list of heavyweight championship matchups covering the 20th century would not show favoritism toward higher weights and the "bigger man," idea. An objective study might find the opposite, that big heavyweights more often lose, precisely because they are often fat slobs that do not have to make a weight limit.

I agree with your premise there, up until the late 20th century. As training methods have improved being over 6'2 220 no longer is just reserved for 'galoots' and 'fat slobs'.

Tyson Fury is not a fat slob, but an athletic mover. I'd put Lennox Lewis up against any fighters in history though he far exceeds your prescribed perfect size. Wlad and Vitali's size seemed to benefit them. I don't think being taller than 6'2" was a detriment to Ali, Holmes, or Foreman.

Now don't go all strawman on me, this isn't to assume that size doesnt reach a point of negative returns; stamina is still important. Rather, that as training methods have improved, fighters can be bigger without sacrificing as much as they used to.

[The Old LefHook]

I do not consider Tyson Fury special. At 5' 9", 140 lbs. (still tall for that weight), people would see just how ordinary he actually is. He reminds me of an elephant that has learned a little footwork by rolling on huge haunches. He still makes his living being larger than everyone else. However, I do not deny he has some ring familiarity and knows how to capitalize on his size.

[DeeMoney]

I do not consider Tyson Fury special. At 5' 9", 140 lbs. (still tall for that weight), people would see just how ordinary he actually is. He reminds me of an elephant that has learned a little footwork by rolling on huge haunches. He still makes his living being larger than everyone else. However, I do not deny he has some ring familiarity and knows how to capitalize on his size.

But that even further accentuates the point. You don't consider him special, and yet look at what he is capable of doing. Thanks in no small part (pun intended) to his size.

The fact that a heavyweight can be his size, and still move around the ring with such footwork nowadays helps show how size can be a benefit.