Anthony Joshua Reveals How A Fight With Mike Tyson Would Go

[bluepete]

Well you missed this part i added ......along with him switching or denying stances he posted this guys all over the place ,as you know by now .

Thats what he does as well ss not address actual points but brings straw man selective ones to fit his puzzle .! lol

You also should have asked him who wins 160 Toney or 215 Holyfield , he seemed to not want to answer that one ....of many .

Here's one you invented earlier. When did I say I wouldn't answer if Toney at 160 beats Holyfield at 215? I will happily give my opinion but when was I asked that? I'd have to be asked to "seem to not want to answer that one".. So show me where I was asked that.. If you can't then I guess it proves your a liar. Show me.

[Mr Objecitivity]

The fact that weight divisions exist doesn't lend credence to the theory extra weight means better chin or punch. It's just a simpler way of having a reasonable comparison of physicality since there is much more to boxing than power and chin. Men of a similar weight tend to be of a similar frame, and similar frames indicate that one man isn't massively disadvantaged as to size and reach and the ability to implement skills as a result of this. Even physical strength as this can influence a contest.This is the easiest most reasonable way of matching people fairly. It doesnt mean that chins and punch power is dependent on weight as the main factor and therefore it doesn't follow on that you can increase either by gaining weight. This is your mistake of correlation and causation again. In fact, in practice, it had been proven that chins are not improvable and neither is power. I know you don't like examples but boxing is littered with it. Someone you would like, Jarrell Miller fought last night at 300lbs.Youd think he would've done a better job than the 225 to 230 pound Wilder in terms of putting a dent in a common opponent. In fact he's punches lacked power. This is the trend with fighters coming in with extra, excess weight. They lose effectiveness. Since you don't care about stage of career,what do you think of the stats that show as fighters get heavier their performances decline and they take more losses? Is it misleading? 🤔

1) Why do weight divisions exist then if not for dividing boxers based on better punch resistance and power?

2) Yes, there is much more to boxing than punch power and resistance. However, those other things in boxing become irrelevant if a boxer's punch resistance is so high that he can walk through his opponent's hardest punches with minimal effect (which is what would happen if a much heavier boxer faced a much lighter opponent).

3) What does reach have to do with 'frame' size? Two boxers can have the same 'frame' size and different reach.

4) The statistics support the conclusion that heavier boxers on average have better punch resistance and knockout records than lighter boxers. So yes, the evidence suggests that gaining weight can improve punch resistance and power (even if marginally).

5) I've never claimed that a lighter boxer (Deontay Wilder) couldn't have more punching power than a heavier boxer (Jarrell Miller). Instead, I'm claiming that when everything is EQUAL (or close to it), the heavier boxer will have more power and Deontay Wilder and Jarrell Miller certainly aren't equal. A heavy power puncher > lighter power puncher.

6) What stats are you referring to when claiming that heavier boxers decline in performance and take more losses? Also, against who? If a boxer is heavier than what they themselves were before and started to lose to EVEN heavier opponents, then it just proves that weight is what affects the chances of winning / knocking out an opponent.

7) Vitali Klitschko would also have a HUGE frame, size and strength advantage over James Toney ( weighingabove 200 pounds). Yet, he will still be allowed to fight James Toney. Why? Because they happen to exist in the same weight division. Which proves that weight is the reason why Vitali Klitschko and Manny Pacquiao aren't allowed to fight each other and not strength / frame. Both Vitali Klitschko and Pacquiao are divided by weight divisions and not strength / frame divisions. If they were in the same weight division, they would still be allowed to fight each other irrespective of strength / frame difference.

8) Dwight Muhammad Qawi was also 5 foot 5 like Pacquiao but unlike Pacquiao, he would've been allowed to fight Vitali Klitschko like how he was allowed to fight George Foreman. Height wasn't relevant, weight was!

9) Boxer's statements don't hold much worth to me. Unless they can back their statements up with actual facts.

10) Evander Holyfield faced only 4 opponents above 6 foot 4 at heavyweight. Lennox Lewis, Rid**** Bowe, Nikolai Valuev and Lou Saverese. The rest were all roughly his own height. Even if we exclude those 4 taller opponents, Evander Holyfield still struggled against opponents his own height or shorter (especially if they were significantly heavier). Also, majority of Holyfield's opponents at cruiserweight were 6 foot 3 (same as height as many of his heavyweight opponents). Yet, he managed to KO those opponents. The two fights where he failed to KO his opponents where when they were shorter than him (Dwight Muhammad and Lionel Byarm). So it's a myth that he struggled as much against taller opponents as you claim since he only really fought 4 opponents that were SIGNIFICANTLY taller than him.

11) Unless you can OBJECTIVELY prove that Evander Holyfield's best and average opponents were better than Vitali Klitschko's, then there's no reason to believe Holyfield's opponents weren't comparable to Vitali's.

12) A 40+ year old Vitali Klitschko's punch resistance help up better than a 40+ year old Evander Holyfield's punch resistance.

13) Even if you claim that Vitali Klitschko's defense was better, thus his chin wasn't as tested as Holyfield's. Mariusz Wach's defense is even worse than Holyfield's and he stood up to Wladimir Klitschko's (the boxer with the greatest KO record ever) hardest punches for 12 rounds and didn't even go down. On the other hand, Holyfield was dropped by a far inferior puncher in Rid**** Bowe and stopped. So still, it remains that the heavier boxer with the ATG punch resistance (Mariusz Wach) > lighter boxer with ATG punch resistance (Evander Holyfield).

14) Outside Lennox Lewis and an old washed up Mike Tyson (as many of you like to claim), David Haye is arguably a harder puncher than anybody else Holyfield has fought. The fact that Nikolai Valuev didn't even come close to getting knocked down against David Haye whilst Holyfield was dropped against lesser punchers than Haye proves Valuev has the superior punch resistance. Outside a few opponents, majority of both Valuev and Holyfield's opposition have been of a similar caliber.

15) The relevance of Nikolai Valuev not getting dropped by Ruslan Chagaev and Evander Holyfield getting dropped by bert Cooper is that Ruslan Chagaev and Bert Cooper are both similar caliber of boxers. This was in response to you claiming Nikolai Valuev didn't face the level of opposition which Holyfield fought and this was one example of similar caliber of opponents for both. Bert Cooper doesn't have a better heayvweight record than Ruslan Chagaev.

16) What empirical evidence do you have which suggests that Cooper is a 'much bigger puncher than Chagaev'? Bert Cooper's KO percentage is a mere 46%. Ruslan Chagaev's KO percentage is at 54%. So if anything, the evidence suggests that Chagaev is the more powerful puncher.

17) You're anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. They are irrelevant.

18) Oliver Mccall weighed over 230 pounds (average weight of Wladimir Klitschko's opponents) for most of his career so he doesn't count as a small sized heavyweight like Evander Holyfield. If anything, Oliver Mccall, Mariusz Wach and Vitali Klitschko fall under the same category, which is the category of superheavyweights with ATG chins. On the other hand, James Toney and Evander Holyfield fall under the category of small sized boxers with ATG chins. Both Holyfield and James Toney have been knocked down multiple times. Oliver Mccall, Vitali Klitschko, Mariusz Wach and Nikolai Valuev have never been dropped.





Anyway, here are the FACTUAL statistics of the KO percentages of some boxers against opponents of different weight ranges:


1) Larry Holmes:

Holmes' KO'ratio against opponents up to 214 lbs: 73% (hard puncher)

Holmes' KO'ratio against opponents 215+ lbs: 45% (featherfist)


2) Muhammad Ali:

Weight of opponent's:

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents weighing 175 - 184 pounds = 100%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents weighing 185 - 199 pounds = 75%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents weighing 200 - 214 pounds = 45%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 33%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents when he and his opponents are both above 200 pounds = 34%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents when he and his opponents are both above 215 pounds = 27%


3) Joe Frazier:

Joe Frazier's KO percentage against opponents weighing 175 - 184 pounds = 100%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage against opponents weighing 185-199 pounds = 100%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage against opponents weighing 200 - 214 pounds = 55%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 45%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage when he and his opponents both weigh above 200 pounds = 44%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage when he and his opponents both weigh above 215 pounds = 25%.


3) Earnie Shavers:

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage against opponents weighing 175 - 184 pounds = 75%

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage against opponents weighing 185-199 pounds = 93%

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage against opponents weighing 200-214 pounds = 80%

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 47%

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage when he and his opponents both weigh above 200 pounds = 66%.

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage when he and his opponents both weigh above 215 pounds = 60%.


4) George Foreman:

George Foreman's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 200 pounds = 82.8% (68 out of 81).

George Foreman's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 78.9% (30 out of 38).

George Foreman's KO percentage against purely NON-BUMMY opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 58.8% (10 out of 17).


5) Mike Tyson:

Mike Tyson's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 200 pounds = 78% (39 out of 50).

Mike Tyson's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 73.6% (28 out of 38).

Mike Tyson's KO percentage against purely NON-BUMMY opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 62.5% (15 out of 24).


For anyone that is knowledgeable about this, these results aren't ASTONISHING or SURPRISING. They are TYPICAL and EXPECTED. Only for ignorant / uneducated individuals would these results be a SURPRISE.

In addition, anybody that is open minded can deduce from these statistics that weight ABSOLUTELY has an impact on punch resistance and knockout records. These are only a few boxers that have had their knockout statistics extracted. There are many many more. However, these are enough required to get a gist of how weight plays a role / impact on punch resistance + knockout records.

The facts are all available for not just you, but everyone else visiting this page to see. They can use these facts to come to their own conclusion regarding this. You can choose to IGNORE or ACCEPT these facts, it's entirely up to you. However, I've laid the facts out for everyone to see either way.

After all the evidence I've posted, if you still claim that weight doesn't affect punch resistance and knockout records / capabilities, then you're just denying reality. In which case, the discussion should really be over by that point.

[bluepete]

1) Why do weight divisions exist then if not for dividing boxers based on better punch resistance and power?

2) Yes, there is much more to boxing than punch power and resistance. However, those other things in boxing become irrelevant if a boxer's punch resistance is so high that he can walk through his opponent's hardest punches with minimal effect (which is what would happen if a much heavier boxer faced a much lighter opponent).

3) What does reach have to do with 'frame' size? Two boxers can have the same 'frame' size and different reach.

4) The statistics support the conclusion that heavier boxers on average have better punch resistance and knockout records than lighter boxers. So yes, the evidence suggests that gaining weight can improve punch resistance and power (even if marginally).

5) I've never claimed that a lighter boxer (Deontay Wilder) couldn't have more punching power than a heavier boxer (Jarrell Miller). Instead, I'm claiming that when everything is EQUAL (or close to it), the heavier boxer will have more power and Deontay Wilder and Jarrell Miller certainly aren't equal. A heavy power puncher > lighter power puncher.

6) What stats are you referring to when claiming that heavier boxers decline in performance and take more losses? Also, against who? If a boxer is heavier than what they themselves were before and started to lose to EVEN heavier opponents, then it just proves that weight is what affects the chances of winning / knocking out an opponent.

7) Vitali Klitschko would also have a HUGE frame, size and strength advantage over James Toney ( weighingabove 200 pounds). Yet, he will still be allowed to fight James Toney. Why? Because they happen to exist in the same weight division. Which proves that weight is the reason why Vitali Klitschko and Manny Pacquiao aren't allowed to fight each other and not strength / frame. Both Vitali Klitschko and Pacquiao are divided by weight divisions and not strength / frame divisions. If they were in the same weight division, they would still be allowed to fight each other irrespective of strength / frame difference.

8) Dwight Muhammad Qawi was also 5 foot 5 like Pacquiao but unlike Pacquiao, he would've been allowed to fight Vitali Klitschko like how he was allowed to fight George Foreman. Height wasn't relevant, weight was!

9) Boxer's statements don't hold much worth to me. Unless they can back their statements up with actual facts.

10) Evander Holyfield faced only 4 opponents above 6 foot 4 at heavyweight. Lennox Lewis, Rid**** Bowe, Nikolai Valuev and Lou Saverese. The rest were all roughly his own height. Even if we exclude those 4 taller opponents, Evander Holyfield still struggled against opponents his own height or shorter (especially if they were significantly heavier). Also, majority of Holyfield's opponents at cruiserweight were 6 foot 3 (same as height as many of his heavyweight opponents). Yet, he managed to KO those opponents. The two fights where he failed to KO his opponents where when they were shorter than him (Dwight Muhammad and Lionel Byarm). So it's a myth that he struggled as much against taller opponents as you claim since he only really fought 4 opponents that were SIGNIFICANTLY taller than him.

11) Unless you can OBJECTIVELY prove that Evander Holyfield's best and average opponents were better than Vitali Klitschko's, then there's no reason to believe Holyfield's opponents weren't comparable to Vitali's.

12) A 40+ year old Vitali Klitschko's punch resistance help up better than a 40+ year old Evander Holyfield's punch resistance.

13) Even if you claim that Vitali Klitschko's defense was better, thus his chin wasn't as tested as Holyfield's. Mariusz Wach's defense is even worse than Holyfield's and he stood up to Wladimir Klitschko's (the boxer with the greatest KO record ever) hardest punches for 12 rounds and didn't even go down. On the other hand, Holyfield was dropped by a far inferior puncher in Rid**** Bowe and stopped. So still, it remains that the heavier boxer with the ATG punch resistance (Mariusz Wach) > lighter boxer with ATG punch resistance (Evander Holyfield).

14) Outside Lennox Lewis and an old washed up Mike Tyson (as many of you like to claim), David Haye is arguably a harder puncher than anybody else Holyfield has fought. The fact that Nikolai Valuev didn't even come close to getting knocked down against David Haye whilst Holyfield was dropped against lesser punchers than Haye proves Valuev has the superior punch resistance. Outside a few opponents, majority of both Valuev and Holyfield's opposition have been of a similar caliber.

15) The relevance of Nikolai Valuev not getting dropped by Ruslan Chagaev and Evander Holyfield getting dropped by bert Cooper is that Ruslan Chagaev and Bert Cooper are both similar caliber of boxers. This was in response to you claiming Nikolai Valuev didn't face the level of opposition which Holyfield fought and this was one example of similar caliber of opponents for both. Bert Cooper doesn't have a better heayvweight record than Ruslan Chagaev.

16) What empirical evidence do you have which suggests that Cooper is a 'much bigger puncher than Chagaev'? Bert Cooper's KO percentage is a mere 46%. Ruslan Chagaev's KO percentage is at 54%. So if anything, the evidence suggests that Chagaev is the more powerful puncher.

17) You're anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. They are irrelevant.

18) Oliver Mccall weighed over 230 pounds (average weight of Wladimir Klitschko's opponents) for most of his career so he doesn't count as a small sized heavyweight like Evander Holyfield. If anything, Oliver Mccall, Mariusz Wach and Vitali Klitschko fall under the same category, which is the category of superheavyweights with ATG chins. On the other hand, James Toney and Evander Holyfield fall under the category of small sized boxers with ATG chins. Both Holyfield and James Toney have been knocked down multiple times. Oliver Mccall, Vitali Klitschko, Mariusz Wach and Nikolai Valuev have never been dropped.





Anyway, here are the FACTUAL statistics of the KO percentages of some boxers against opponents of different weight ranges:


1) Larry Holmes:

Holmes' KO'ratio against opponents up to 214 lbs: 73% (hard puncher)

Holmes' KO'ratio against opponents 215+ lbs: 45% (featherfist)


2) Muhammad Ali:

Weight of opponent's:

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents weighing 175 - 184 pounds = 100%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents weighing 185 - 199 pounds = 75%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents weighing 200 - 214 pounds = 45%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 33%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents when he and his opponents are both above 200 pounds = 34%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents when he and his opponents are both above 215 pounds = 27%


3) Joe Frazier:

Joe Frazier's KO percentage against opponents weighing 175 - 184 pounds = 100%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage against opponents weighing 185-199 pounds = 100%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage against opponents weighing 200 - 214 pounds = 55%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 45%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage when he and his opponents both weigh above 200 pounds = 44%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage when he and his opponents both weigh above 215 pounds = 25%.


3) Earnie Shavers:

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage against opponents weighing 175 - 184 pounds = 75%

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage against opponents weighing 185-199 pounds = 93%

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage against opponents weighing 200-214 pounds = 80%

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 47%

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage when he and his opponents both weigh above 200 pounds = 66%.

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage when he and his opponents both weigh above 215 pounds = 60%.


4) George Foreman:

George Foreman's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 200 pounds = 82.8% (68 out of 81).

George Foreman's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 78.9% (30 out of 38).

George Foreman's KO percentage against purely NON-BUMMY opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 58.8% (10 out of 17).


5) Mike Tyson:

Mike Tyson's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 200 pounds = 78% (39 out of 50).

Mike Tyson's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 73.6% (28 out of 38).

Mike Tyson's KO percentage against purely NON-BUMMY opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 62.5% (15 out of 24).


For anyone that is knowledgeable about this, these results aren't ASTONISHING or SURPRISING. They are TYPICAL and EXPECTED. Only for ignorant / uneducated individuals would these results be a SURPRISE.

In addition, anybody that is open minded can deduce from these statistics that weight ABSOLUTELY has an impact on punch resistance and knockout records. These are only a few boxers that have had their knockout statistics extracted. There are many many more. However, these are enough required to get a gist of how weight plays a role / impact on punch resistance + knockout records.

The facts are all available for not just you, but everyone else visiting this page to see. They can use these facts to come to their own conclusion regarding this. You can choose to IGNORE or ACCEPT these facts, it's entirely up to you. However, I've laid the facts out for everyone to see either way.

After all the evidence I've posted, if you still claim that weight doesn't affect punch resistance and knockout records / capabilities, then you're just denying reality. In which case, the discussion should really be over by that point.

Trying to make it look like Changaev and Cooper were similar punchers by quoting stats is absurd. One had a record full of world class fighters with world class chins and skills and defence and the other had a record of unknowns and journeymen.To compare Valuev and Holyfield on records is absurd. A total gulf in class. Haye had Valuev stumbling, but there's nothing to say Haye had a better punch than Bert Cooper. Better fighter who landed better yes. Power, no. Yes the opinion of Mccall on who hit him hardest at heavy is relevant . He experienced it. As well as man other top heavyweight hitters punches.Your theories are nothing in comparison, not only do they miss out other factors because you have no concept of stage of career, or of defensive skills and the relationship of this and a person's size, Mccall also weighed in in the 220s for some of he's fights and like Tua, he's chin never let him down there either. Obviously because it was nothing to do with weight. Theres no good comparing a Pac and Qawi, as one had a good bobbing weaving style and a great chin and the other didn't. Nobody left Qawi cold in a fight. Toney could've beaten Evander at 193 like Jones did Ruiz. He could've handle him as a super middle, which is the weight he wasn't drained at. Billy Conn at 169 was winning over 12 against 204lb Joe Louis,who was a puncher. Of course Toney came in heavy and fat because he always over ate. He was 200lb as a young man playing football. I guess now we have Jarrell Miller forcing guys to give up 50lb to him in the ring, because he thinks being that fat and heavy enhances him. Maybe he's looked at the stats and confused the connection of size to success and size to weight and think success and weight increase with each other. When in reality, the real examples show what happens when people carry artificial, extra weight that isn't just there on the frame naturally, but put their to confer advantage. It doesn't enhance chin to add extra weight. It doesnt enhance power. Dillian Whyte still goes the same rounds against Joshua being lighter, maybe more because he'd be faster. Mccall did weigh in the 220s for some of he's fights and was never floored in them either. David Tua still had a great chin at 220 absorbing 12 rounds of Ikes power shots. And I will always come back with real fights as examples because people like you think that if I have twenty fights against half decent opposition and am never knocked down you can say my chin is better than a guy who fought five great fighters with big punches and I went down twice because on paper that makes sense to you because you willingly ignore the other factors. Oh, and Larry Holmes puncher was early on he's career, in which stage he fought low level fighters in 4 and 6 rounders who HAPPENED to be men who were lighter. Then, Larry Holmes featherfist is made up of men of a higher class, men like Berwick, who were better fighters with better chins at a higher level of skill, defence also. Then he happened to have alot of fights late in he's career, after he fought, Tyson where he fought heavier men. He didn't stop too many of them also. Why? Because he was old! You don't factor this in! You do this because it is convenient, like it was with Tyson, to pretend you don't know what end of career skill decline is, the fact that getting older does, in fact, effect the way you can land fully loaded power punches, and how much quicker guys can get out of the way of your bombs. You know that Holmes was going though some of he's featherfist career at he's own heaviest weights do you? As far as trauma is concerned, and not knowing about it, what has the weight of your legs got to do with getting punched in the head. The impact shakes your brain. What has the size of your biceps got to do with it. Or the size or your belly. You have no science to back this up, you just waffle on about trauma. We know how the skull, which tends to be bigger on bigger people, protects the brain. How about this other weight on other body parts? Care to elaborate, or you just gonna start telling me that I must ACCEPT your point or view? Because I don't share your opinion, or your interpretation of what your numbers mean in relation to chin or power and how to improve them

[bluepete]

1) Why do weight divisions exist then if not for dividing boxers based on better punch resistance and power?

2) Yes, there is much more to boxing than punch power and resistance. However, those other things in boxing become irrelevant if a boxer's punch resistance is so high that he can walk through his opponent's hardest punches with minimal effect (which is what would happen if a much heavier boxer faced a much lighter opponent).

3) What does reach have to do with 'frame' size? Two boxers can have the same 'frame' size and different reach.

4) The statistics support the conclusion that heavier boxers on average have better punch resistance and knockout records than lighter boxers. So yes, the evidence suggests that gaining weight can improve punch resistance and power (even if marginally).

5) I've never claimed that a lighter boxer (Deontay Wilder) couldn't have more punching power than a heavier boxer (Jarrell Miller). Instead, I'm claiming that when everything is EQUAL (or close to it), the heavier boxer will have more power and Deontay Wilder and Jarrell Miller certainly aren't equal. A heavy power puncher > lighter power puncher.

6) What stats are you referring to when claiming that heavier boxers decline in performance and take more losses? Also, against who? If a boxer is heavier than what they themselves were before and started to lose to EVEN heavier opponents, then it just proves that weight is what affects the chances of winning / knocking out an opponent.

7) Vitali Klitschko would also have a HUGE frame, size and strength advantage over James Toney ( weighingabove 200 pounds). Yet, he will still be allowed to fight James Toney. Why? Because they happen to exist in the same weight division. Which proves that weight is the reason why Vitali Klitschko and Manny Pacquiao aren't allowed to fight each other and not strength / frame. Both Vitali Klitschko and Pacquiao are divided by weight divisions and not strength / frame divisions. If they were in the same weight division, they would still be allowed to fight each other irrespective of strength / frame difference.

8) Dwight Muhammad Qawi was also 5 foot 5 like Pacquiao but unlike Pacquiao, he would've been allowed to fight Vitali Klitschko like how he was allowed to fight George Foreman. Height wasn't relevant, weight was!

9) Boxer's statements don't hold much worth to me. Unless they can back their statements up with actual facts.

10) Evander Holyfield faced only 4 opponents above 6 foot 4 at heavyweight. Lennox Lewis, Rid**** Bowe, Nikolai Valuev and Lou Saverese. The rest were all roughly his own height. Even if we exclude those 4 taller opponents, Evander Holyfield still struggled against opponents his own height or shorter (especially if they were significantly heavier). Also, majority of Holyfield's opponents at cruiserweight were 6 foot 3 (same as height as many of his heavyweight opponents). Yet, he managed to KO those opponents. The two fights where he failed to KO his opponents where when they were shorter than him (Dwight Muhammad and Lionel Byarm). So it's a myth that he struggled as much against taller opponents as you claim since he only really fought 4 opponents that were SIGNIFICANTLY taller than him.

11) Unless you can OBJECTIVELY prove that Evander Holyfield's best and average opponents were better than Vitali Klitschko's, then there's no reason to believe Holyfield's opponents weren't comparable to Vitali's.

12) A 40+ year old Vitali Klitschko's punch resistance help up better than a 40+ year old Evander Holyfield's punch resistance.

13) Even if you claim that Vitali Klitschko's defense was better, thus his chin wasn't as tested as Holyfield's. Mariusz Wach's defense is even worse than Holyfield's and he stood up to Wladimir Klitschko's (the boxer with the greatest KO record ever) hardest punches for 12 rounds and didn't even go down. On the other hand, Holyfield was dropped by a far inferior puncher in Rid**** Bowe and stopped. So still, it remains that the heavier boxer with the ATG punch resistance (Mariusz Wach) > lighter boxer with ATG punch resistance (Evander Holyfield).

14) Outside Lennox Lewis and an old washed up Mike Tyson (as many of you like to claim), David Haye is arguably a harder puncher than anybody else Holyfield has fought. The fact that Nikolai Valuev didn't even come close to getting knocked down against David Haye whilst Holyfield was dropped against lesser punchers than Haye proves Valuev has the superior punch resistance. Outside a few opponents, majority of both Valuev and Holyfield's opposition have been of a similar caliber.

15) The relevance of Nikolai Valuev not getting dropped by Ruslan Chagaev and Evander Holyfield getting dropped by bert Cooper is that Ruslan Chagaev and Bert Cooper are both similar caliber of boxers. This was in response to you claiming Nikolai Valuev didn't face the level of opposition which Holyfield fought and this was one example of similar caliber of opponents for both. Bert Cooper doesn't have a better heayvweight record than Ruslan Chagaev.

16) What empirical evidence do you have which suggests that Cooper is a 'much bigger puncher than Chagaev'? Bert Cooper's KO percentage is a mere 46%. Ruslan Chagaev's KO percentage is at 54%. So if anything, the evidence suggests that Chagaev is the more powerful puncher.

17) You're anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything. They are irrelevant.

18) Oliver Mccall weighed over 230 pounds (average weight of Wladimir Klitschko's opponents) for most of his career so he doesn't count as a small sized heavyweight like Evander Holyfield. If anything, Oliver Mccall, Mariusz Wach and Vitali Klitschko fall under the same category, which is the category of superheavyweights with ATG chins. On the other hand, James Toney and Evander Holyfield fall under the category of small sized boxers with ATG chins. Both Holyfield and James Toney have been knocked down multiple times. Oliver Mccall, Vitali Klitschko, Mariusz Wach and Nikolai Valuev have never been dropped.





Anyway, here are the FACTUAL statistics of the KO percentages of some boxers against opponents of different weight ranges:


1) Larry Holmes:

Holmes' KO'ratio against opponents up to 214 lbs: 73% (hard puncher)

Holmes' KO'ratio against opponents 215+ lbs: 45% (featherfist)


2) Muhammad Ali:

Weight of opponent's:

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents weighing 175 - 184 pounds = 100%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents weighing 185 - 199 pounds = 75%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents weighing 200 - 214 pounds = 45%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 33%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents when he and his opponents are both above 200 pounds = 34%

Muhammad Ali's KO percentage against opponents when he and his opponents are both above 215 pounds = 27%


3) Joe Frazier:

Joe Frazier's KO percentage against opponents weighing 175 - 184 pounds = 100%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage against opponents weighing 185-199 pounds = 100%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage against opponents weighing 200 - 214 pounds = 55%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 45%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage when he and his opponents both weigh above 200 pounds = 44%

Joe Frazier's KO percentage when he and his opponents both weigh above 215 pounds = 25%.


3) Earnie Shavers:

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage against opponents weighing 175 - 184 pounds = 75%

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage against opponents weighing 185-199 pounds = 93%

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage against opponents weighing 200-214 pounds = 80%

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 47%

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage when he and his opponents both weigh above 200 pounds = 66%.

Earnie Shaver's KO percentage when he and his opponents both weigh above 215 pounds = 60%.


4) George Foreman:

George Foreman's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 200 pounds = 82.8% (68 out of 81).

George Foreman's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 78.9% (30 out of 38).

George Foreman's KO percentage against purely NON-BUMMY opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 58.8% (10 out of 17).


5) Mike Tyson:

Mike Tyson's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 200 pounds = 78% (39 out of 50).

Mike Tyson's KO percentage against opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 73.6% (28 out of 38).

Mike Tyson's KO percentage against purely NON-BUMMY opponents weighing above 215 pounds = 62.5% (15 out of 24).


For anyone that is knowledgeable about this, these results aren't ASTONISHING or SURPRISING. They are TYPICAL and EXPECTED. Only for ignorant / uneducated individuals would these results be a SURPRISE.

In addition, anybody that is open minded can deduce from these statistics that weight ABSOLUTELY has an impact on punch resistance and knockout records. These are only a few boxers that have had their knockout statistics extracted. There are many many more. However, these are enough required to get a gist of how weight plays a role / impact on punch resistance + knockout records.

The facts are all available for not just you, but everyone else visiting this page to see. They can use these facts to come to their own conclusion regarding this. You can choose to IGNORE or ACCEPT these facts, it's entirely up to you. However, I've laid the facts out for everyone to see either way.

After all the evidence I've posted, if you still claim that weight doesn't affect punch resistance and knockout records / capabilities, then you're just denying reality. In which case, the discussion should really be over by that point.

Again in reference to 4,which really is the subject were debating. Bigger men do, on average get stopped less and stop more smaller men in a boxing ring. However it is because the, in general, have bigger, thicker bones in the head, longer limbs that tend to help them control range land more often more jabs ect, and these bigger men tend, on average to be heavier. This does not mean, that by adding weight, that the attributes that happen to be their in the heavier, but more importantly, bigger man, can be improved. Which all my examples prove. The reason it doesn't always work is that some bigger men like Price ect have smaller heads, weaker jaws, while some smaller men, James Toney, have supethick dense heads and Jawbones.As for power, surely with Miller outweighing Wilder by near 70lbs, however much better Wilder is as a puncher at the same weight such enormous difference should bring Miller out ahead in terms of power. But, even though Miller is billed as a puncher, he's punches seem to have even less steam than before. Weight doesn't mean power or chin Mr Armchair expert. Dismiss everyones opinions that are derived from the scientific evidence of actual experiments due to experience of the activity,if you want, it is YOU who refuse to accept reality.

[juggernaut666]

Here's one you invented earlier. When did I say I wouldn't answer if Toney at 160 beats Holyfield at 215? I will happily give my opinion but when was I asked that? I'd have to be asked to "seem to not want to answer that one".. So show me where I was asked that.. If you can't then I guess it proves your a liar. Show me.

Its CLEARLY posted on page 17 /Comment 164 .

Petey once again making shyte up.

You are getting battered on here ,as stated you should have taken the L,as you are just showing us how less you know not the other way around .

Dont bother answering that anyway bc you will only dig yourself deeper bc it goes against what you are saying .

Maybe you can send a message to the athletic commissions and state why they should have head classes since you have the idiotic notion skull size determines punch resistance and not actual weight of someone ? Haha

There i took it easy on you in this one .

[EMOBCBG]

There is no way Anthony Joshua with the slowness that he exhibits, would have survived the lightning combos of Mike Tyson. Secondly, Joshua gasses faster than Tyson did.....

[bluepete]

Its CLEARLY posted on page 17 /Comment 164 .

Petey once again making shyte up.

You are getting battered on here ,as stated you should have taken the L,as you are just showing us how less you know not the other way around .

Dont bother answering that anyway bc you will only dig yourself deeper bc it goes against what you are saying .

Maybe you can send a message to the athletic commissions and state why they should have head classes since you have the idiotic notion skull size determines punch resistance and not actual weight of someone ? Haha

There i took it easy on you in this one .

I've just looked at that. I didn't avoid answering because I didnt want to. I honestly overlooked that since like you I can admit I was skimming some of your answers by then. Of course I believe the best Toney was the 168 version than beat Barkley and Williams, and the shot Evander of the Toney fight I one hundred percent believe he wouldve beaten giving away 50lbs.No problems answering with my opinion on that. Of course, you still haven't addressed lying about Lewis being heavier than Golota in their fight because it supports your views. Its obviously impractical to have skull thickness divisons and I never suggested that, only that it is the difference between chins and the main factor in punch resistance, and this is proven by the disparity of chin stength in divisions where everyone weighs the same. You talk about getting battered but if I make mistakes I am accountable. Unlike yourself. I don't seek to discuss you with other posters either, because I'm not a ***** like that. I don't tell you I'm not replying and then reply or tell you not to either because I don't give a **** if you do or not. I believe size is an advantage overall, on both stopping people and not getting stopped but not because weight directly lends itself to either power or chin, nor can the gaining of any improve it. This is my opinion and it's not changing, you ain't gotta like it. George Chuvalo and Jake Lamotta first pointed out that "idiotic notion" in relation to head size, and it's easily observable on alot of fighters, even though it's really like Eubank said more the bone density than the size of the head necessarily. Proves itself again and again. Chavez, Hagler, even for the guys with bad resistance like Khan who have small heads. Nobody suggested making divisons based on chin or power either did they? But the disparagy exists. Anyway theres my answer, I'm sure you won't mention your own fiddling of the numbers in your argument. I don't seek to change your opinion, you seem to seek to change mine. I answer when I feel like it and don't follow requests, theres no getting battered or taking an L, childish nonsense, I just don't agree with you. If you don't like it jog on. Missed you though, don't take so long to write back next time. ☺️

[Mr Objecitivity]

Trying to make it look like Changaev and Cooper were similar punchers by quoting stats is absurd. One had a record full of world class fighters with world class chins and skills and defence and the other had a record of unknowns and journeymen.To compare Valuev and Holyfield on records is absurd. A total gulf in class. Haye had Valuev stumbling, but there's nothing to say Haye had a better punch than Bert Cooper. Better fighter who landed better yes. Power, no. Yes the opinion of Mccall on who hit him hardest at heavy is relevant . He experienced it. As well as man other top heavyweight hitters punches.Your theories are nothing in comparison, not only do they miss out other factors because you have no concept of stage of career, or of defensive skills and the relationship of this and a person's size, Mccall also weighed in in the 220s for some of he's fights and like Tua, he's chin never let him down there either. Obviously because it was nothing to do with weight. Theres no good comparing a Pac and Qawi, as one had a good bobbing weaving style and a great chin and the other didn't. Nobody left Qawi cold in a fight. Toney could've beaten Evander at 193 like Jones did Ruiz. He could've handle him as a super middle, which is the weight he wasn't drained at. Billy Conn at 169 was winning over 12 against 204lb Joe Louis,who was a puncher. Of course Toney came in heavy and fat because he always over ate. He was 200lb as a young man playing football. I guess now we have Jarrell Miller forcing guys to give up 50lb to him in the ring, because he thinks being that fat and heavy enhances him. Maybe he's looked at the stats and confused the connection of size to success and size to weight and think success and weight increase with each other. When in reality, the real examples show what happens when people carry artificial, extra weight that isn't just there on the frame naturally, but put their to confer advantage. It doesn't enhance chin to add extra weight. It doesnt enhance power. Dillian Whyte still goes the same rounds against Joshua being lighter, maybe more because he'd be faster. Mccall did weigh in the 220s for some of he's fights and was never floored in them either. David Tua still had a great chin at 220 absorbing 12 rounds of Ikes power shots. And I will always come back with real fights as examples because people like you think that if I have twenty fights against half decent opposition and am never knocked down you can say my chin is better than a guy who fought five great fighters with big punches and I went down twice because on paper that makes sense to you because you willingly ignore the other factors. Oh, and Larry Holmes puncher was early on he's career, in which stage he fought low level fighters in 4 and 6 rounders who HAPPENED to be men who were lighter. Then, Larry Holmes featherfist is made up of men of a higher class, men like Berwick, who were better fighters with better chins at a higher level of skill, defence also. Then he happened to have alot of fights late in he's career, after he fought, Tyson where he fought heavier men. He didn't stop too many of them also. Why? Because he was old! You don't factor this in! You do this because it is convenient, like it was with Tyson, to pretend you don't know what end of career skill decline is, the fact that getting older does, in fact, effect the way you can land fully loaded power punches, and how much quicker guys can get out of the way of your bombs. You know that Holmes was going though some of he's featherfist career at he's own heaviest weights do you? As far as trauma is concerned, and not knowing about it, what has the weight of your legs got to do with getting punched in the head. The impact shakes your brain. What has the size of your biceps got to do with it. Or the size or your belly. You have no science to back this up, you just waffle on about trauma. We know how the skull, which tends to be bigger on bigger people, protects the brain. How about this other weight on other body parts? Care to elaborate, or you just gonna start telling me that I must ACCEPT your point or view? Because I don't share your opinion, or your interpretation of what your numbers mean in relation to chin or power and how to improve them

Again in reference to 4,which really is the subject were debating. Bigger men do, on average get stopped less and stop more smaller men in a boxing ring. However it is because the, in general, have bigger, thicker bones in the head, longer limbs that tend to help them control range land more often more jabs ect, and these bigger men tend, on average to be heavier. This does not mean, that by adding weight, that the attributes that happen to be their in the heavier, but more importantly, bigger man, can be improved. Which all my examples prove. The reason it doesn't always work is that some bigger men like Price ect have smaller heads, weaker jaws, while some smaller men, James Toney, have supethick dense heads and Jawbones.As for power, surely with Miller outweighing Wilder by near 70lbs, however much better Wilder is as a puncher at the same weight such enormous difference should bring Miller out ahead in terms of power. But, even though Miller is billed as a puncher, he's punches seem to have even less steam than before. Weight doesn't mean power or chin Mr Armchair expert. Dismiss everyones opinions that are derived from the scientific evidence of actual experiments due to experience of the activity,if you want, it is YOU who refuse to accept reality.

It appears we've established one thing, which is you finally accepting and agreeing that heavier boxers get stopped / knocked out less and KO / stop their opponents more frequently on average compared to lighter boxers. However, you're also adding extra (yet unsubstantiated) factors as the cause behind it along with weight, which happens to be bone thickness / size and limb length. I've used actual evidence (statistics) to substantiate my conclusion / claim that heavier boxers are less likely to be knocked and are more difficult to KO (on average and when everything else is relatively equal) than lighter boxers whilst heavier boxers are more likely to KO lighter boxers whilst having higher KO percentages against them. You have to do the same with your own claims / conclusions. Otherwise, they hold no value / worth in this debate / discussion. So go ahead and substantiate your claims that bone thickness / size and limb length also plays as much of a role or of a role than weight when it comes to knockouts. Make sure you use non-fallacious evidence / arguments to substantiate your claims / conclusions. Otherwise, they will be dismissed. Arguments / evidence such as 'boxer x says this, therefore it must be true' is a FALLACIOUS argument by the name of 'APPEALING TO AUTHORITY'. Or arguments / evidences such as 'I have experienced this myself' is another LOGICAL FALLACY by the name of 'ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE'. Also provide evidence / arguments for why height, bone thickness and limb length divisions don't exist in boxing and why only weight divisions exist in boxing. You stated it's because of practicality and simplicity but you are still yet to explain HOW such is the case. I'll AWAIT!

Now, back to addressing your points in a point by point basis:

1) It's Ruslan 'CHAGAEV' and not 'CHANGAEV'.

2) Stats are FACTS! Me claiming that Chagaev is a more powerful puncher than Bert Cooper using stats is more reliable / convincing and less 'absurd' than you claiming Bert Cooper is a more powerful puncher without using anything to substantiate your claim or using fallacious arguments (appealing to authority) to substantiate your claim.

3) Again, another unsubstantiated claim about Bert Cooper's opponents being better than Ruslan Chagaev's. You need to first substantiate that claim for it to be accepted by me or any other objective individual. Until then, both have fought top level and low level opposition in their own respective eras and it's Ruslan Chagaev who holds the higher KO percentage.

4) Outside of only a few boxers (Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, George Foreman and maybe Rid**** Bowe), both Holyfield and Valuev have fought comparable caliber of opposition. So no, it is not 'absurd' to compare the heavyweight records of Valuev and Holyfield. It is 'absurd' to claim that Valuev has never fought the level of opponents that Holyfield did (which you claimed) as that is clearly false. Valuev fought many opponents who were better than some of the opponents Holyfield fought and most of them are comparable. Only a few are exceptions. So overall, you could argue that Evander Holyfield has a better heavyweight record than Nikolai Valuev but not by much. Certainly not a 'gulf in class'. That's a huge over exaggeration!

5) David Haye had a higher knockout percentage than Bert Cooper at heavyweight. Thus, it was enough to suggest that he was a better puncher. Getting punched by a heavyweight with a higher KO percentage (David Haye) and not getting dropped (Nikolai Valuev) is more impressive than getting punched by a heavyweight with a lower KO percentage (Bert Cooper) and getting dropped (Evander Holyfield).

6) Using the opinion of another individual in order to arrive at a conclusion is a logical fallacy by the name of 'APPEALING TO AUTHORITY'. Thus, it's flawed logic and thus, arguments based on such logic can be disregarded.

7) My 'theories' are based on consistently recurring FACTUAL DATA. Thus, they are more reliable and convincing than the opinions of cherry picked boxers (which is a logical fallacy of appealing to authority in the first place).

8) I'm not ignoring other 'factors'. The main 'factor' happens to be weight (due to weight divisions existing and divisions for those other 'factors' not existing). So for now, I will continue to analyse the MAIN factor which is weight and will only analyse those other factors in as much detail when either divisions exist for those factors or when you can ACTUALLY substantiate that those other factors are as significant, or more significant than weight.

9) Oliver Mccall for most of his career weighed above 230 pounds, especially for most of his biggest fights.

10) The reason why I compared Qawi to Pacquiao because you argued Pacquiao can't fight Vitali Klitschko due to one of the reasons being he was 5 foot 5 inches tall. Yet, Qawi was the same height as well but he would've been allowed to fight Vitali Klitschko the night he fought George Foreman unlike Manny Pacquiao. Why? Because of weight. Not because of 'bobbing and weaving style', or height, or anything else but because of weight. Thus, those other 'factors' you're referring to are irrelevant in terms of judging whether boxer A (Vitali Klitschko) would be allowed to compete against boxer B (Dwight Muhammad Qawi) or boxer c (Manny Pacquiao).

11) Roy Jones Jr beating John Ruiz at 193 pounds is an EXTREMELY rare scenario of a sub heavyweight beating a heavyweight. What did that fight prove? It proved that one of the greatest P4P and super middleweight / light heavyweight boxer (Roy Jones Jr) in history could beat one of the worst heavyweight champions in history (John Ruiz) with such a weight disadvantage. I've never argued that a lighter man can't beat a heavier opponent (especially if he has a significant skill advantage). Instead, the chances of winning against a heavier opponent decreases. Thus, Roy Jones jr refused to stay at heavyweight and fight better opposition such as Lennox Lewis or the Klitschkos at 193 pounds or even above 200 pounds because he most likely knew defeat would've been inevitable. Using that one example is an EXTREME example of cherry picking because Roy Jones Jr was an exception and not the rule. He proved he could beat SOME heavyweights without himself weighing at the heavyweight limit. However, even he would've lost (irrespective of whether he weighed 193 pounds or above 200 pounds) against the best caliber of heavyweights.

12) James Toney may have been able to beat Evander Holyfield as a 193 pounder. However, that's another EXTREME example.

13) There hasn't been a single bout between a heavyweight (weighing above 200 pounds) and someone weighing as much as a super middleweight in the last few decades. As such, James Toney won't even be allowed to fight Evander Holyfield as a super middleweight whilst Holyfield himself is weighing above 200 pounds. So what you may think is irrelevant. What's relevant is what the rules have established (which is contrary to what you think).

14) jarrell Miller is not a top level heavyweight. So of course he isn't going to be as good as a lighter top level heavyweight. Again, you're attacking a straw man. At no point did I claim that a heavier person will ALWAYS be a more powerful puncher than a lighter boxer. Instead, I argued that when everything is equal (or close to it) in terms of level, the heavier boxer will USUALLY be the more powerful puncher and heavier boxers on average have better knockout records than lighter boxers on average. So you comparing Jarrell Miller to someone like Deontay Wilder is a ridiculous straw man fallacy which doesn't at all refute or address any of my arguments. Instead, compare Deontay Wilder to a heavier boxer at his level (Anthony Joshua) and you get different results.

15) Larry Holmes wasn't the ONLY boxer with a lower KO percentage against heavier opponents than against lighter opponents. This has happened to many other past heavyweights CONSISTENTLY. Meaning, they must be considered! So even if you argue 'Larry Holmes' was old when he fought those opponents, it doesn't change the fact that many of those other heavyweights also had lower knockout percentages against heavier opposition than against lighter opposition.

Furthermore, I'm analyzing the ENTIRE career KO percentage of those boxers. So you can't accuse me of cherry picking anything out of convenience or being bias as that would require me only selectively picking out specific period of a boxer's career (which is not what I'm doing) or selectively picking out SPECIFICALLY vulnerable boxers to prove my point (which is not what I'm doing either). Thus, I've analysed Larry Holmes' (and all the other boxers I've analyzed) entire career. So this includes his knockout percentage against lighter and heavier opposition throughout his ENTIRE career and not just of a specific period.

16) You can accept or ignore the FACTS, it's entirely up to you. I'm not telling you or forcing you to do anything. However, weight divisions exist. Thus, they have a significance and that significance happens to be punch resistance and power. So yes, heavier boxers do absorb punches better. Your speculation about having a heavier head being significant isn't ACCEPTED by the group of individuals that created the rules of boxing. Thus, there aren't any 'head weight divisions'. There's only weight divisions. Thus, the size of head isn't AS relevant as entire body weight.

As far as the science behind weight. When one becomes heavier, their entire body holistically becomes heavier. You can rarely, if ever isolate individual body parts and then claim part X is heavier than parts Y and Z. Therefore, the weight is irrelevant. Increasing weight affects the whole body. Thus, it affects the entire body's punch resistance. So you're still continuing to expose your ignorance of science.

17) I'm not refusing to accept reality because I'm not refusing to accept any factual data backed up with valid & sound evidence / arguments that you've proposed. You haven't substantiated any of your claims with valid / sound logically presented evidence / arguments. Thus, there exists nothing for me to to accept.

On the other hand, I have proposed evidence for my claims using statistics and facts. If you refuse to accept what the numbers are indicating, it is YOU who is denying reality.

[Mr Objecitivity]

Its CLEARLY posted on page 17 /Comment 164 .

Petey once again making shyte up.

You are getting battered on here ,as stated you should have taken the L,as you are just showing us how less you know not the other way around .

Dont bother answering that anyway bc you will only dig yourself deeper bc it goes against what you are saying .

Maybe you can send a message to the athletic commissions and state why they should have head classes since you have the idiotic notion skull size determines punch resistance and not actual weight of someone ? Haha

There i took it easy on you in this one .

I was initially going to stop responding to Bluepete after my previous comment but I then changed my decision because at this point, I'm actually enjoying responding to this user. Not only are his / her points EXTREMELY easy to refute / address, but some of them are EXTREMELY hilarious. Thus, I'm now doing it partly out of entertainment and fun.

So I guess I'll keep it going.

[bluepete]

It appears we've established one thing, which is you finally accepting and agreeing that heavier boxers get stopped / knocked out less and KO / stop their opponents more frequently on average compared to lighter boxers. However, you're also adding extra (yet unsubstantiated) factors as the cause behind it along with weight, which happens to be bone thickness / size and limb length. I've used actual evidence (statistics) to substantiate my conclusion / claim that heavier boxers are less likely to be knocked and are more difficult to KO (on average and when everything else is relatively equal) than lighter boxers whilst heavier boxers are more likely to KO lighter boxers whilst having higher KO percentages against them. You have to do the same with your own claims / conclusions. Otherwise, they hold no value / worth in this debate / discussion. So go ahead and substantiate your claims that bone thickness / size and limb length also plays as much of a role or of a role than weight when it comes to knockouts. Make sure you use non-fallacious evidence / arguments to substantiate your claims / conclusions. Otherwise, they will be dismissed. Arguments / evidence such as 'boxer x says this, therefore it must be true' is a FALLACIOUS argument by the name of 'APPEALING TO AUTHORITY'. Or arguments / evidences such as 'I have experienced this myself' is another LOGICAL FALLACY by the name of 'ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE'. Also provide evidence / arguments for why height, bone thickness and limb length divisions don't exist in boxing and why only weight divisions exist in boxing. You stated it's because of practicality and simplicity but you are still yet to explain HOW such is the case. I'll AWAIT!

Now, back to addressing your points in a point by point basis:

1) It's Ruslan 'CHAGAEV' and not 'CHANGAEV'.

2) Stats are FACTS! Me claiming that Chagaev is a more powerful puncher than Bert Cooper using stats is more reliable / convincing and less 'absurd' than you claiming Bert Cooper is a more powerful puncher without using anything to substantiate your claim or using fallacious arguments (appealing to authority) to substantiate your claim.

3) Again, another unsubstantiated claim about Bert Cooper's opponents being better than Ruslan Chagaev's. You need to first substantiate that claim for it to be accepted by me or any other objective individual. Until then, both have fought top level and low level opposition in their own respective eras and it's Ruslan Chagaev who holds the higher KO percentage.

4) Outside of only a few boxers (Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, George Foreman and maybe Rid**** Bowe), both Holyfield and Valuev have fought comparable caliber of opposition. So no, it is not 'absurd' to compare the heavyweight records of Valuev and Holyfield. It is 'absurd' to claim that Valuev has never fought the level of opponents that Holyfield did (which you claimed) as that is clearly false. Valuev fought many opponents who were better than some of the opponents Holyfield fought and most of them are comparable. Only a few are exceptions. So overall, you could argue that Evander Holyfield has a better heavyweight record than Nikolai Valuev but not by much. Certainly not a 'gulf in class'. That's a huge over exaggeration!

5) David Haye had a higher knockout percentage than Bert Cooper at heavyweight. Thus, it was enough to suggest that he was a better puncher. Getting punched by a heavyweight with a higher KO percentage (David Haye) and not getting dropped (Nikolai Valuev) is more impressive than getting punched by a heavyweight with a lower KO percentage (Bert Cooper) and getting dropped (Evander Holyfield).

6) Using the opinion of another individual in order to arrive at a conclusion is a logical fallacy by the name of 'APPEALING TO AUTHORITY'. Thus, it's flawed logic and thus, arguments based on such logic can be disregarded.

7) My 'theories' are based on consistently recurring FACTUAL DATA. Thus, they are more reliable and convincing than the opinions of cherry picked boxers (which is a logical fallacy of appealing to authority in the first place).

8) I'm not ignoring other 'factors'. The main 'factor' happens to be weight (due to weight divisions existing and divisions for those other 'factors' not existing). So for now, I will continue to analyse the MAIN factor which is weight and will only analyse those other factors in as much detail when either divisions exist for those factors or when you can ACTUALLY substantiate that those other factors are as significant, or more significant than weight.

9) Oliver Mccall for most of his career weighed above 230 pounds, especially for most of his biggest fights.

10) The reason why I compared Qawi to Pacquiao because you argued Pacquiao can't fight Vitali Klitschko due to one of the reasons being he was 5 foot 5 inches tall. Yet, Qawi was the same height as well but he would've been allowed to fight Vitali Klitschko the night he fought George Foreman unlike Manny Pacquiao. Why? Because of weight. Not because of 'bobbing and weaving style', or height, or anything else but because of weight. Thus, those other 'factors' you're referring to are irrelevant in terms of judging whether boxer A (Vitali Klitschko) would be allowed to compete against boxer B (Dwight Muhammad Qawi) or boxer c (Manny Pacquiao).

11) Roy Jones Jr beating John Ruiz at 193 pounds is an EXTREMELY rare scenario of a sub heavyweight beating a heavyweight. What did that fight prove? It proved that one of the greatest P4P and super middleweight / light heavyweight boxer (Roy Jones Jr) in history could beat one of the worst heavyweight champions in history (John Ruiz) with such a weight disadvantage. I've never argued that a lighter man can't beat a heavier opponent (especially if he has a significant skill advantage). Instead, the chances of winning against a heavier opponent decreases. Thus, Roy Jones jr refused to stay at heavyweight and fight better opposition such as Lennox Lewis or the Klitschkos at 193 pounds or even above 200 pounds because he most likely knew defeat would've been inevitable. Using that one example is an EXTREME example of cherry picking because Roy Jones Jr was an exception and not the rule. He proved he could beat SOME heavyweights without himself weighing at the heavyweight limit. However, even he would've lost (irrespective of whether he weighed 193 pounds or above 200 pounds) against the best caliber of heavyweights.

12) James Toney may have been able to beat Evander Holyfield as a 193 pounder. However, that's another EXTREME example.

13) There hasn't been a single bout between a heavyweight (weighing above 200 pounds) and someone weighing as much as a super middleweight in the last few decades. As such, James Toney won't even be allowed to fight Evander Holyfield as a super middleweight whilst Holyfield himself is weighing above 200 pounds. So what you may think is irrelevant. What's relevant is what the rules have established (which is contrary to what you think).

14) jarrell Miller is not a top level heavyweight. So of course he isn't going to be as good as a lighter top level heavyweight. Again, you're attacking a straw man. At no point did I claim that a heavier person will ALWAYS be a more powerful puncher than a lighter boxer. Instead, I argued that when everything is equal (or close to it) in terms of level, the heavier boxer will USUALLY be the more powerful puncher and heavier boxers on average have better knockout records than lighter boxers on average. So you comparing Jarrell Miller to someone like Deontay Wilder is a ridiculous straw man fallacy which doesn't at all refute or address any of my arguments. Instead, compare Deontay Wilder to a heavier boxer at his level (Anthony Joshua) and you get different results.

15) Larry Holmes wasn't the ONLY boxer with a lower KO percentage against heavier opponents than against lighter opponents. This has happened to many other past heavyweights CONSISTENTLY. Meaning, they must be considered! So even if you argue 'Larry Holmes' was old when he fought those opponents, it doesn't change the fact that many of those other heavyweights also had lower knockout percentages against heavier opposition than against lighter opposition.

Furthermore, I'm analyzing the ENTIRE career KO percentage of those boxers. So you can't accuse me of cherry picking anything out of convenience or being bias as that would require me only selectively picking out specific period of a boxer's career (which is not what I'm doing) or selectively picking out SPECIFICALLY vulnerable boxers to prove my point (which is not what I'm doing either). Thus, I've analysed Larry Holmes' (and all the other boxers I've analyzed) entire career. So this includes his knockout percentage against lighter and heavier opposition throughout his ENTIRE career and not just of a specific period.

16) You can accept or ignore the FACTS, it's entirely up to you. I'm not telling you or forcing you to do anything. However, weight divisions exist. Thus, they have a significance and that significance happens to be punch resistance and power. So yes, heavier boxers do absorb punches better. Your speculation about having a heavier head being significant isn't ACCEPTED by the group of individuals that created the rules of boxing. Thus, there aren't any 'head weight divisions'. There's only weight divisions. Thus, the size of head isn't AS relevant as entire body weight.

As far as the science behind weight. When one becomes heavier, their entire body holistically becomes heavier. You can rarely, if ever isolate individual body parts and then claim part X is heavier than parts Y and Z. Therefore, the weight is irrelevant. Increasing weight affects the whole body. Thus, it affects the entire body's punch resistance. So you're still continuing to expose your ignorance of science.

17) I'm not refusing to accept reality because I'm not refusing to accept any factual data backed up with valid & sound evidence / arguments that you've proposed. You haven't substantiated any of your claims with valid / sound logically presented evidence / arguments. Thus, there exists nothing for me to to accept.

On the other hand, I have proposed evidence for my claims using statistics and facts. If you refuse to accept what the numbers are indicating, it is YOU who is denying reality.

I don't need your advice on how to present my facts. I don't need to see much numbers wise to know how little someone who compares the dismal heavyweight record of Valuev to the hall of fame record of Holyfield and thinks Holyfields is better, "not by much" doesn't know much about the actual sport. Everybody knows size is an advantage in boxing, and that bigger men tend to be heavier. This doesn't prove that that's because chin and power are due to weight,that's what you are taking away from it. But again, you are a man who dismisses different stages of career or level of opponent in each and every discussion. Haye may hit as hard as Cooper, maybe not, but then he wobbled Valuev with hes left hook, which wasn't he's power punch. "The Haye maker" as he calls it, is yes right hand. He never caught Valuev with a full force right hand in the entire fight, because Valuev is hard to hit correctly, so much so, Adam Booth needed stilts to hold the pads to ready Haye for for fight. This may contribute as much as anything else to the fact he was never stopped, but you'd rather site weight. Also the fact that Cooper caught Holyfield with a full force flush right, he's best punch, changes the equation again does it not? How do you compare the chin of a man who was hit with another best shot went down and then survived to win a fight, to a man who fought a puncher, who never caught him with he's best punch, who was caught with an inferior punch, wobbles but goes on to lose? From this information, you get that Valuev has the better chin than Holyfield. See how what you see on paper misleads you? Men don't tend to fight guys 50lb heavier because of the overall size difference involved in these contests that don't pertain to chin or power necessarily anyway. Even though we have smaller men like Conn giving up 40lbs to Joe Louis and leading going into round 13,yiy find it hard to imagine supermiddle Toney or in fact any sub 200lb Toney handling heavies, not due to skill, but to he's chin letting him down. This is nonsense. Often men give away even more than 50lb at heavy without being blown away or disadvantaged, sometimes they blast the bigger man out. What is at play here if your rule holds true. If head trauma was due to bodyweight then the biggest would have the best chin as a rule, and all men of 275 like Price would have similar advantages over a man Hayes size as you think all heavyweights have over supermiddles. It doesn't work that way, this is why gaining weight has never made a guys chin improve and adding 20lb never made anyone a better puncher. As for the appeal to authority, I would gladly appeal to the authority of a cardiologist over a man who has read alot of books about it and happily do the same as far as guys like Chuvalo Lamotta and trainers like Steward over a nobody who has time to write very nicely written pieces on a website but who thinks Tyson would be a "minor annoyance" to Joshua. You give me the stats and Ill give you what happened in the ring, in reality on any given day, as well as a theory of chin proved by head scans in at least two people who had some of the greatest chins in the sport. Funny how we have Chavez and Hagler unified by this feature and other great chins Chuvalo and Lamotta feeling this is what also gave them great chins. The we have you, saying weight is the factor, but unable to explain the chinny big man and why he can't absorb the trauma of a iron chinnee small man. Over to you MrDawkins.