is it sanctioning bodies or evolution?

[Boilermaker]

There is no doubt that heavys are bigger than ever before. Is the reason for this not so much evolution, but the increased weight divisions. Look at Evander Holyfield for example. When he fought as a cruiserweight, he could have very easily been the best fighter in the world. He eventually beat Mike tyson, who was the undisputed champion. By the time he made his way to heavyweight, and certainly by the time he had his Bowe fights (by the third), he had begun to age. And naturally put on weight. The mere fact that a cruiserweight division existed meant he did not even fight at heavyweight for many years. If there was not cruiserweight, like in the old days, he would have been campaining at cruiser but he would have got his title shot earlier. If we assume he wins, it is interesting to not that Holy was given just as good a challenge by cruisers (see for example the Qawi fight) as he was in the early heavy days. So, it is reasonable to expect that at least a few of those cruisers would have also fought and beat some superheavys. and probably got title shots, rather than the behemoths that Tyson ended up being foced to fight.

The point is, if a good smaller fighter comes along now a days, he will first need to win a alphabet title, then he will need to wait 2 or 3 years usually longer to unify this title (if that is even possible with fighters dropping belts and changing weight classes). With so many extra weight divisions he will then have to fight and beat the other fighters in very close weight divisions, just to prove that he is the best Middleweight, Welterweight or Light heavyweight. Once he does this, and only then can he realistically think about moving up a weight class and fighting a heavier fighter. But it is more complicated, because fighters hardly ever fight more than every 6-12 months, he cannot afford to fight anybody but the very best in that division (and if he does he loses his currentl meal ticket championship anyway).

Anyway the point is that by the time ge goes to the higher division he will be getting older and will not be the same fighter he was. Amazingly, we have still seen guys like Holyfield go up and compete when he was past his prime and forge a good heavyweight resume. Just imagine how much longer and better his resume would be if there was no cruiserweight title. In most cases for example see Jirov, the fighters are simply not good enough, but is it because they are smaller or would they have performed much better if they went up when they were younger and did not have to worry about first winning and dominating the cruiserweight division.

People look at a Non pareil Jack Dempsey, or bob fitzsimmons etc and say that these feats could never be repeated because of evolution, but look at a Roberto Duran, or the current example James Toney. Roberto beat decent cruiserweights when he was so overweight and far from his best that the prime version of himself would have almost certainly blasted him out of the ring in a round or two. Likewise the version of Toney who has been competing with current super heavys. If these guys can do it at an old age, doesnt it stand to reason that some of the good young middles and light heavys (who are actually in shape) would at least beat some of the super heavys some of the time. The problem is that by the time guys are going up in weight they are usually getting to old to even compete at their own weight. Bernard Hopkins couldnt beat Jermain taylor the middleweight champ (twice) and someone who was later beaten himself, so he went up and fought for and won a light heavyweight belt. Surely the Hopkins from years earlier would have done the same.

The problem is that in the old days, you could dominate your weight division with a win against the champion. Now, it takes three years to find who the champion is and even then you will have other claims for the champion. And no one is willing to take risks any more on the way up. Ducking may have still happened in older times, but while they ducked they fought others, if you couldnt fight the champ you tried to do so by beating the no 1 contender or the number 4 contenders etc. I cant remember the last time we saw a number 6 heavyweight contender fight a number 5 contender and when he wins fight a number2 or 3 contender. And there arent such positions anyway. a champion now is a top 4 contender while there are about 30 top 10 contenders and about 50 contenders if you allow those closely related weight divisions. It is impossible for fighters to clean their own division and then dominate and go up through the ranks. Also, with the current dearth of talent hanging around the heavys for some time, financially, a fighter stands to make much more dominating like a Leonard, Hagler, Jones Jr etc than he does by taking higher risk heavyweight fights. All in all, i think it is these facts that mean we are seeing heavier and bigger superheavys, as much as anything else, and certainly more so than the Evolution factor.

[radianttwilight]

You make alot of valid points about how politics has hindered true dominance in the modern era.

However, I fail to see the connection between someone like James Toney and Bob Fitzsimmons. Toney, when campaigning at heavyweight, weighed in at 215+. On the other hand, I don't think Fitzsimmons ever broke 170.

The day that a modern fighter who weighs in under 170 pounds starts KOing ranked superheavyweights is the day that I'll change my opinion on this issue. However, if these "former middles" like Toney and RJJ are weighing in at 190ish (for RJJ, whose skirmish style at heavyweight is nothing like Fitz' style) and 215+ (for Toney, who had zero punching power or mobility at this weight), then it's no longer a question of "good small men can beat good big men".

It becomes "a good big man who used to be a good small man can beat a good big man".

Roberto Duran is a great example of a p4p great, but let's not fool ourselves in thinking that he was some kind of superman that fought opponents that outweighed him like Fitz did. He weighed in at 156.5 for the Hagler fight, when Hagler weighed in at 157.5. He may have been the "smaller man", but he was still a full-fledged middleweight for the fight.

I won't dispute a claim that some fighters can pack on weight, move up through weight classes, and still dominate. Not at all. RJJ, Toney, Duran, Hearns, et. al. did it. What bothers me is when people try to use these men's successes at higher weights as a justification for a heavyweight that weighs at 168 or a lightheavy that weighs in at 150 or whatever. They aren't the same.

[Boilermaker]

You make alot of valid points about how politics has hindered true dominance in the modern era.

However, I fail to see the connection between someone like James Toney and Bob Fitzsimmons. Toney, when campaigning at heavyweight, weighed in at 215+. On the other hand, I don't think Fitzsimmons ever broke 170.

The day that a modern fighter who weighs in under 170 pounds starts KOing ranked superheavyweights is the day that I'll change my opinion on this issue. However, if these "former middles" like Toney and RJJ are weighing in at 190ish (for RJJ, whose skirmish style at heavyweight is nothing like Fitz' style) and 215+ (for Toney, who had zero punching power or mobility at this weight), then it's no longer a question of "good small men can beat good big men".

It becomes "a good big man who used to be a good small man can beat a good big man".

Roberto Duran is a great example of a p4p great, but let's not fool ourselves in thinking that he was some kind of superman that fought opponents that outweighed him like Fitz did. He weighed in at 156.5 for the Hagler fight, when Hagler weighed in at 157.5. He may have been the "smaller man", but he was still a full-fledged middleweight for the fight.

I won't dispute a claim that some fighters can pack on weight, move up through weight classes, and still dominate. Not at all. RJJ, Toney, Duran, Hearns, et. al. did it. What bothers me is when people try to use these men's successes at higher weights as a justification for a heavyweight that weighs at 168 or a lightheavy that weighs in at 150 or whatever. They aren't the same.

The biggest thing which stops fighters from moving up in weight, is not so much lack of punching power, but lack of chin (imo) since a unbreakable lightweight chin is usually less than china at heavyweight. If old and fat versions of Toney can have a solid chin, then the lighter middleweight version can too.

Did prime Toney hit as hard as heavyweight version of Toney? I cant believe that he does. And if he does, it wont be by much. If Toney draws with Rahman now, how much does he dominate Rahman, if he were in the prime of his life (and much closer to Fitzsimmons weight). If Rahman struggles with Toney landing 20 or so slow punches in a fight fought at a snails pace, how would he go against Toney who land 60 or 70 much quicker punches and who doesnt breath hard after 1 round.

Fitz was only 167 because he was always in shape. Would you guy think differently of him, if had access to modern nutrition like krispy cremes and McDonalds and therefore ended turning up to his heavyweight fights at 250 lbs? If he were around today, he would have fought at middleweight or super middleweight or light heavyweight until he was in his mid 30s. When he finally signed his superheavy fight, he would be expected to bulk on weight until at least 190-200 and would not be allowed to fight if he only weighed 170, even if he was more effective at this weight. by the time he got a title shot, he would have had to beat 4 different champions just to be considered the best in the world. And while he does fight these 4 guys, while he is probably a better fighter than the 4, he willnot be able to make a single mistake, because as the superheavys proved against their very best (lennox Lewis) one off day or lucky punch can finish anyone. And it is unlikely at this weight that anyone would ever give him a rematch. Now why would fitzsimmons do this, when he can make just as much money fighting half bit contenders and pretend world champions at the lower weights for an easier fight. Politically, it is just not possible that Fitz could do what he did, because it would not be in his own benefit.

One thing which i have always thought interesting in modern fight is the weights of fighter. If a big heavyweight shows up in his lightest weight ever, he nearly always performs a lot better and is said to be looking good. Often they will drop say 30 lbs to be at their optimum fighting weight.

Why is it so rare for the same to happen in the lighter weights? Surely, like the heavyweights, there are some fighters who might fight at say light heavy but be overweight at that weight yet still good enough to win. Why do they not train down to their optimum weight for a light heavy fight and come in at say middleweight, because they have decided to train hard and get serious. Would (like modern heavys) some lighter fighters also benefit from being well trained and in condition and coming in at a lighter weight?

Also, and i am getting a little off topic here, but it is quite interesting, why is a fighter like Roy Jones Jr weight drained when he drops down from 190, but someone like David Tua, is told that he needs to cut down 20 to 30 pounds to be competive nowadays. Would that not also make Tua Weight Drained? It all is a very complicated situation and i really dont think that modern science has us any closer to solving the question of weight and its effects on a boxer, too any great degree.

[Michael Vick]

Evolution has nothing to do with bigger heavyweights or better athletes. All advances in any sport come from two places: nutrition and training. Anyone with a fundamental understanding of evolution will understand this.

[ChrisPontius]

In ye good old days, good fighters usually weren't over 180 pounds, i.e. hardly bigger than the lightheavyweight limit. That certainly made the distinction smaller and it should be no surprise that heavyweight contenders often came from the lower weight division, as there were too few big skilled guys.

And if you were black you didn't have to wait 3 years, but about 60 years until you could get a titleshot. They were completely cut out of competition.

As for your last question:


Also, and i am getting a little off topic here, but it is quite interesting, why is a fighter like Roy Jones Jr weight drained when he drops down from 190, but someone like David Tua, is told that he needs to cut down 20 to 30 pounds to be competive nowadays. Would that not also make Tua Weight Drained? It all is a very complicated situation and i really dont think that modern science has us any closer to solving the question of weight and its effects on a boxer, too any great degree.

David Tua is wide as a house, but post-2000 he was a bit overweight and could certainly have lost 20 or so pounds, because he had enough strength and bulk as it was. It would only make him fat-drained, and unless you're talking about Auswitz, that's a good thing.

Jones is a natural lightheavyweight ... skinny by comparson in fact. When he cut in weight it wasn't fat that he lost.


Oh and if Toney fought Rahman at 160 pounds.... look for the first time he doesn't hear the final bell. Same with Peter. What do you think, the only change between Toney at 220 and Toney at 160 is that the middleweight version threw more punches and was faster, with no loss in durability? Hey, imagine what the lightheavyweight Ali would've done to Foreman? He was faster and threw more punches back then, and the rest stays the same right?
Have you seen Holmes vs Bobick in the amateurs?

[Boilermaker]

In ye good old days, good fighters usually weren't over 180 pounds, i.e. hardly bigger than the lightheavyweight limit. That certainly made the distinction smaller and it should be no surprise that heavyweight contenders often came from the lower weight division, as there were too few big skilled guys.

And if you were black you didn't have to wait 3 years, but about 60 years until you could get a titleshot. They were completely cut out of competition.

As for your last question:


David Tua is wide as a house, but post-2000 he was a bit overweight and could certainly have lost 20 or so pounds, because he had enough strength and bulk as it was. It would only make him fat-drained, and unless you're talking about Auswitz, that's a good thing.

Jones is a natural lightheavyweight ... skinny by comparson in fact. When he cut in weight it wasn't fat that he lost.


Oh and if Toney fought Rahman at 160 pounds.... look for the first time he doesn't hear the final bell. Same with Peter. What do you think, the only change between Toney at 220 and Toney at 160 is that the middleweight version threw more punches and was faster, with no loss in durability? Hey, imagine what the lightheavyweight Ali would've done to Foreman? He was faster and threw more punches back then, and the rest stays the same right?
Have you seen Holmes vs Bobick in the amateurs?

You surely arent suggesting that the preexile Ali wouldnt have had a much easier time than the Rumble in the Jungle Ali?

I have never met one person who is stronger, faster or more durabile in their 30s thant they were 20s. Increasing weight has nothing or very little to do with increasing durability, that is silly. On this topic, i think it would answer an awful lot of questions, if Chris Byrd were to rematch his last opponent and come in at over or above the heavyweight limit. It really is a shame that some of the fights which could be made (but are slightly off beat) are not made. There are so many potential matchups that make things a little more interesting.

[radianttwilight]

Does anyone here remember when Gatti came in at like 160 fight-night for a junior welterweight fight and almost killed his opponent? Remember the flak he caught for that?

Granted, his opponent wasn't a world-class ATG, but neither was Gatti.

If 200+lb fighters started fighting middleweights, there would be mismatches of epic proportions.

Let's also not forget that today's middleweights and supermiddles were yesterday's lightheavies. Day-before weighins have made it pretty much standard to come in at at least 165 for a middleweight fight, but alot of guys drain down from as high as the lightheavy limit. Fighters tend to fight 5-10lbs below their walking weight nowadays, when old-timers were much more likely to fight at that walking around weight.

[radianttwilight]

You surely arent suggesting that the preexile Ali wouldnt have had a much easier time than the Rumble in the Jungle Ali?




Bogus argument.

Ali weighed in at 210.5 and 206 for Liston I and II, and ~212 for Williams and Terrell, which many consider his finest performances. He weighed 215 for Frazier I and 212 for Bonavena. He didn't get that much bigger post-exile, except when he came in fat.

Regardless, whose to say that the younger Ali wouldn't have had a harder time against 1974 Foreman? I think there's an argument to be made that he was more durable and punched harder in the 1970s, and his ring generalship certainly didn't diminish, even if he stopped dancing.


Increasing weight has nothing or very little to do with increasing durability, that is silly.

Alright. According to this logic, an iron-chinned flyweight could take bombs as well as a heavyweight.

Do you think Manny Pacquiao, weighing in at 122, could stand and fight with George Foreman, or even a "smaller" HW like Dempsey or Marciano, for that matter?

[ChrisPontius]

You surely arent suggesting that the preexile Ali wouldnt have had a much easier time than the Rumble in the Jungle Ali?


Irrelevant, as Ali was only a few pounds heavier against Foreman than he was pre-exile.

On the other hand, yes i'm pretty certain that Holmes wouldn't be knocked down by the first right hand that Bobick lands if we're talking about the 210lbs version of Holmes, instead of the 180lbs Holmes that Bobick stopped.



I have never met one person who is stronger, faster or more durabile in their 30s thant they were 20s.


Where did i say someone became faster in their 30's?

And you've never met someone who is stronger in his 30's than in his 20's? Are you kidding? Outside of a complete fatass, everyone is stronger in his 30's than in his 20's. You naturally gain some bulk as you mature. Who do you think was stronger, the Lewis who beat Ruddock or the Lewis who pushed Tyson around the ring and went even (strength-wise) with 6'7 250lbs Vitali Klitschko? Vitali would've shoved the 225lbs-in-his-20's Lewis around the ring.


As for durability, there are plenty. Foreman in his first career was knocked down by feather fisted young and almost knocked out by Lyle. In his comeback, he gains some muscle but mostly fat. Yet he takes flush bombs from Holyfield, Morrison, Moorer and basically everyone he faced, without once going down. Do you think the 220lbs Toney would've been knocked down by 160lbs Johnson's or 168lbs Roy Jones' punches?





Increasing weight has nothing or very little to do with increasing durability, that is silly.

Yeah, i guess they made those weight classes just they both fit in the TV picture at the same time.

[TBooze]

There is no doubt that heavys are bigger than ever before. Is the reason for this not so much evolution, but the increased weight divisions. Look at Evander Holyfield for example. When he fought as a cruiserweight, he could have very easily been the best fighter in the world. He eventually beat Mike tyson, who was the undisputed champion. By the time he made his way to heavyweight, and certainly by the time he had his Bowe fights (by the third), he had begun to age. And naturally put on weight. The mere fact that a cruiserweight division existed meant he did not even fight at heavyweight for many years. If there was not cruiserweight, like in the old days, he would have been campaining at cruiser but he would have got his title shot earlier. If we assume he wins, it is interesting to not that Holy was given just as good a challenge by cruisers (see for example the Qawi fight) as he was in the early heavy days. So, it is reasonable to expect that at least a few of those cruisers would have also fought and beat some superheavys. and probably got title shots, rather than the behemoths that Tyson ended up being foced to fight.

The point is, if a good smaller fighter comes along now a days, he will first need to win a alphabet title, then he will need to wait 2 or 3 years usually longer to unify this title (if that is even possible with fighters dropping belts and changing weight classes). With so many extra weight divisions he will then have to fight and beat the other fighters in very close weight divisions, just to prove that he is the best Middleweight, Welterweight or Light heavyweight. Once he does this, and only then can he realistically think about moving up a weight class and fighting a heavier fighter. But it is more complicated, because fighters hardly ever fight more than every 6-12 months, he cannot afford to fight anybody but the very best in that division (and if he does he loses his currentl meal ticket championship anyway).

Anyway the point is that by the time ge goes to the higher division he will be getting older and will not be the same fighter he was. Amazingly, we have still seen guys like Holyfield go up and compete when he was past his prime and forge a good heavyweight resume. Just imagine how much longer and better his resume would be if there was no cruiserweight title. In most cases for example see Jirov, the fighters are simply not good enough, but is it because they are smaller or would they have performed much better if they went up when they were younger and did not have to worry about first winning and dominating the cruiserweight division.

People look at a Non pareil Jack Dempsey, or bob fitzsimmons etc and say that these feats could never be repeated because of evolution, but look at a Roberto Duran, or the current example James Toney. Roberto beat decent cruiserweights when he was so overweight and far from his best that the prime version of himself would have almost certainly blasted him out of the ring in a round or two. Likewise the version of Toney who has been competing with current super heavys. If these guys can do it at an old age, doesnt it stand to reason that some of the good young middles and light heavys (who are actually in shape) would at least beat some of the super heavys some of the time. The problem is that by the time guys are going up in weight they are usually getting to old to even compete at their own weight. Bernard Hopkins couldnt beat Jermain taylor the middleweight champ (twice) and someone who was later beaten himself, so he went up and fought for and won a light heavyweight belt. Surely the Hopkins from years earlier would have done the same.

The problem is that in the old days, you could dominate your weight division with a win against the champion. Now, it takes three years to find who the champion is and even then you will have other claims for the champion. And no one is willing to take risks any more on the way up. Ducking may have still happened in older times, but while they ducked they fought others, if you couldnt fight the champ you tried to do so by beating the no 1 contender or the number 4 contenders etc. I cant remember the last time we saw a number 6 heavyweight contender fight a number 5 contender and when he wins fight a number2 or 3 contender. And there arent such positions anyway. a champion now is a top 4 contender while there are about 30 top 10 contenders and about 50 contenders if you allow those closely related weight divisions. It is impossible for fighters to clean their own division and then dominate and go up through the ranks. Also, with the current dearth of talent hanging around the heavys for some time, financially, a fighter stands to make much more dominating like a Leonard, Hagler, Jones Jr etc than he does by taking higher risk heavyweight fights. All in all, i think it is these facts that mean we are seeing heavier and bigger superheavys, as much as anything else, and certainly more so than the Evolution factor.

As far as Holyfield goes he and us the fans have to be thankful for the creation of the division.

Remember when Evander debuted he tried to fight at 175lbs. If the 190 division were not around, I suspect Duva would of made Evander stick at 175, and I suspect the constant battle to stay at 175 may of ruined Holyfields' career before it had even begun.

Imagine him having his first Qawi fight being replaced with LKO4 Bobby Czyz or Marvin Johnson....

[janitor]

Oh and if Toney fought Rahman at 160 pounds.... look for the first time he doesn't hear the final bell.

Come on now.

Virtualy any world class version of Toney would have done better than the 230lb blob that fought Ramhan.

I would honestly be interested to see the cruiserweight Evander Holyfield take on the heavyweights of his era. He would have done better in some fights and worse in others but he would have had a prety clean run up to the title and the first fight with Bowe.

Do you think that Billy Conn would have done better against Joe Louis if he had added 20 lbs of muscle incidentaly?

[radianttwilight]

Do you think that Billy Conn would have done better against Joe Louis if he had added 20 lbs of muscle incidentaly?

Probably not, but it sure as hell would've enhanced his durability.

This point is fairly irrelevant too, because the way Conn fought Louis fits the logic that Chris and I are trying to promote here. Hit-and-run is the only way that he stood a chance against Louis, he didn't need punching power and, to a lesser extent, durability because he had to be moving backwards at a fast pace the whole time.

I won't deny that lighter fighters can potshot their way to success over much larger men (see Jones-Ruiz, Conn-Louis even though he lost, and so on), but when was the last time a guy who weighed less than 180lbs slugged it out with a superheavy and won?

[Boilermaker]

Bogus argument.

Ali weighed in at 210.5 and 206 for Liston I and II, and ~212 for Williams and Terrell, which many consider his finest performances. He weighed 215 for Frazier I and 212 for Bonavena. He didn't get that much bigger post-exile, except when he came in fat.



Well isnt that the argument? You dont think the Toney against Rahman was fat? and light heavyweight Toney in shape? Suggesting that the fat Ali was more durable than the Ali vs liston is crazy.



Regardless, whose to say that the younger Ali wouldn't have had a harder time against 1974 Foreman? I think there's an argument to be made that he was more durable and punched harder in the 1970s, and his ring generalship certainly didn't diminish, even if he stopped dancing.



There is an argument, it just isnt realistic and certainly is rarely made by anybody who has actually reached an older age or been forced to comeback from an enforced lay off.



Alright. According to this logic, an iron-chinned flyweight could take bombs as well as a heavyweight.


Only if his chin is actually iron! It might look iron at flyweight, but will it have been tested with the punishment taken by a heavyweight? Some iron chins at lighter weights might not up to the world class heavys (see for example Michael Spinks) but then others have passed all their tests with flying colours (see for example Evander Holyfield). The naturally bigger guys will generally be more durable, but that doesnt mean that a vlad Klitchsko or Nicolai Valuev will necessarilly be the most durable fighter going around. Likewise, if Jameel Mcline or Andrew Golota fought every world champion in every weight division one month after each other, they would win most fights, but they would not win every fight with a one punch or one round or even a knockout victor. I would also expect that they would lose their share of fights also.



Do you think Manny Pacquiao, weighing in at 122, could stand and fight with George Foreman, or even a "smaller" HW like Dempsey or Marciano, for that matter?

No. But i think he would put up a much better effort and be far more durable than in another 5 or more years time when he baloons up to 200 with the help of weights, steroids and fast food.

[Boilermaker]

Probably not, but it sure as hell would've enhanced his durability.

This point is fairly irrelevant too, because the way Conn fought Louis fits the logic that Chris and I are trying to promote here. Hit-and-run is the only way that he stood a chance against Louis, he didn't need punching power and, to a lesser extent, durability because he had to be moving backwards at a fast pace the whole time.

I won't deny that lighter fighters can potshot their way to success over much larger men (see Jones-Ruiz, Conn-Louis even though he lost, and so on), but when was the last time a guy who weighed less than 180lbs slugged it out with a superheavy and won?

How could adding 30lbs of muscel possibly enhance Conns durability when he would have tired out much easier due to having to lug that weight around the ring and therefore, Louis would have hit him harder and more cleanly than he did previously.

[radianttwilight]

How could adding 30lbs of muscel possibly enhance Conns durability when he would have tired out much easier due to having to lug that weight around the ring and therefore, Louis would have hit him harder and more cleanly than he did previously.

Let's not confuse "ability to avoid punches" with "durability", now.

[radianttwilight]

Well isnt that the argument? You dont think the Toney against Rahman was fat? and light heavyweight Toney in shape? Suggesting that the fat Ali was more durable than the Ali vs liston is crazy.



Ali wasn't fat against Foreman or Frazier. The "fat" Ali I mentioned is the guy that came into Norton I and a few of his post-Manilla defenses, who was obviously inferior.



There is an argument, it just isnt realistic and certainly is rarely made by anybody who has actually reached an older age or been forced to comeback from an enforced lay off.



Why isn't it realistic? Ali was in shape during the early part of the 1970s, when he did his best work. The difference in weight was not because he fattened up.

Did you forget that Cooper put Ali on his ass in the early 1960s? Prime Foreman couldn't do that.

Need I mention Foreman, who was on his last leg against Lyle and knocked down by featherfisted Young in the 1970s, but was taking flush bombs from Holyfield, Morrison, Briggs, and others without going down when he was in his forties?



Only if his chin is actually iron! It might look iron at flyweight, but will it have been tested with the punishment taken by a heavyweight? Some iron chins at lighter weights might not up to the world class heavys (see for example Michael Spinks) but then others have passed all their tests with flying colours (see for example Evander Holyfield).



Holyfield doesn't prove your point. He started out at 190 (175 if you want to get technical, but he didn't get tested at that weight). His first fight at HW against Tillis, he weighed in at 202, but after that he weighed in at 208+ every time out. For Dokes, which alot of people consider his "prime" HW performance, he was 208.

Should I even mention that, for his "legendary" performances against Tyson, he was 215 and 218, and that he trained to gain ~10lbs after getting bossed around by Riddick Bowe in their first fight?



The naturally bigger guys will generally be more durable, but that doesnt mean that a vlad Klitchsko or Nicolai Valuev will necessarilly be the most durable fighter going around. Likewise, if Jameel Mcline or Andrew Golota fought every world champion in every weight division one month after each other, they would win most fights, but they would not win every fight with a one punch or one round or even a knockout victor. I would also expect that they would lose their share of fights also.



In a p4p sense, hell no, but are you trying to tell me that a fighter that weighs 170 or less can take punches like Valuev can? Wladimir has a glass jaw, so I can somewhat buy into that argument.



No. But i think he would put up a much better effort and be far more durable than in another 5 or more years time when he baloons up to 200 with the help of weights, steroids and fast food.

You really think so? Superbantam Pacquiao could slug it out with peak Foreman?

Why do we even have weight classes, then?

[Boilermaker]

Ali wasn't fat against Foreman or Frazier. The "fat" Ali I mentioned is the guy that came into Norton I and a few of his post-Manilla defenses, who was obviously inferior.

So tell me does fat (heavier) Ali that faced Norton have a better chin than the vs Foreman and Frazier? Of course he doesnt because weight doesnt increase durability.



Why isn't it realistic? Ali was in shape during the early part of the 1970s, when he did his best work. The difference in weight was not because he fattened up.

He wasnt bad in the 70s, but one of the things that makes him the greatest ever was his ability to dominate a guarantee


Did you forget that Cooper put Ali on his ass in the early 1960s? Prime Foreman couldn't do that.

Not at all, Cooper caught him clean. That shot would have put any version of Ali, down if he caught him clean in the same way. Just because someone like Foreman is a bigger stronger puncher than cooper, doesnt mean that he is capable of catching a fighter clean like Cooper did, in every fight.

Need I mention Foreman, who was on his last leg against Lyle and knocked down by featherfisted Young in the 1970s, but was taking flush bombs from Holyfield, Morrison, Briggs, and others without going down when he was in his forties?

To be honest, Foremans effort (and he was never the very best of the 90s) is as close to living proof that the 90s fighters (below the best 2 or 3) simply were not as big hitting or as good as the 70s. Young george foreman would have KOd old Foreman in 1 round (even easier than Young Toney would beat old Toney).



Holyfield doesn't prove your point. He started out at 190 (175 if you want to get technical, but he didn't get tested at that weight). His first fight at HW against Tillis, he weighed in at 202, but after that he weighed in at 208+ every time out. For Dokes, which alot of people consider his "prime" HW performance, he was 208.

Should I even mention that, for his "legendary" performances against Tyson, he was 215 and 218, and that he trained to gain ~10lbs after getting bossed around by Riddick Bowe in their first fight?



Holyfield could take a punch at any of those weights. It is no coincidence that his best performances finished pretty much after Bowe, where he decided to trade with the big heavys, rather than to box more, like the lighter version of Holy did. After this point, it was more his heart and will to win that enabled him to get good results against Tyson and to a lesser extent Lewis. The more he went up in weight, the less effective he was, although in fairness, this was due more to his aging than anything else. Which is back to my original point. If he fought at heavyweight earlier, in his career, he could have forged a heavy legacy and would of beat many bigger heavys, even at the lighter weight. Incidentally, things were much easier for Holy back then, he only had to beat Douglas to become the man. If the situation were today, he would need have needed to beat Douglas, Tyson, Lewis and Bowe before he became number one, and if he lost to one fighter on this route (which he did) then suddenly he would have his chin questioned due to his weight and risk losing his reputation and box office draw. Why would any smaller weight fighter attempt this? especially considering that today, unlike when holy came up, and previously spinks and others, none of the 4 title matches would actually be very big money fights. Certainly not as big as fighting some of the smaller weighted fighters.


In a p4p sense, hell no, but are you trying to tell me that a fighter that weighs 170 or less can take punches like Valuev can? Wladimir has a glass jaw, so I can somewhat buy into that argument.

I admit that Valuev has a good chin so probably a bad example. Would Butterbean be a better one? but Vlad illustrates the point perfectly. If size meant durability, he would be a beast, but durability is made up of other facts.


You really think so? Superbantam Pacquiao could slug it out with peak Foreman?


Not at all, for a start, he would be an idiot to even try "slugging it out". I doubt that even the non pareil Jack Dempsey Could slug it out. But as i said, he would definitely put up a better effort than the fat ballooned version of himself.


Why do we even have weight classes, then?

I am not saying that the light heavys are better on whole than the heavys (even though they do have better average skill), or even that the best light heavy will always beat the best heavy or even one of the best heavys. What i am saying that a great light heavy would still beat many good heavys and in some circumstances the Worlds best heavy. This has always been proved and will always be proved. it happened in the past with Fitzsimmons and Tunney. We saw Braddock Beat Baer, we saw Spinks do it to Holmes. And more recently we saw Jones beat Ruiz, Toney compete at heavy and to a lesser extent a reasonably small chris byrd. In the era of super heavys many people argue that the two best were Prime Tyson and Holyfield, neither of whom were spectacularly big. Former light heavy champ Michael Moorer also held a title, as did Spinks. In reality, history (even present history) suggests that this is the case and that is not arguable. I know most point to Great light heavys like Moore and Foster who were knocked out at heavy, but look at the guys that they lost to. They were capable of beating any heavys around anyway.

The whole argument of this thread is that while a little guy can still be the best in the world and beat the heavys, he will not because of the weight divisions, which mean that the bigger guys (who cant fight in the lower divisions) will always dominate the ratings, because no smaller guy is going to risk fighting a bigger guy (unless they get out of shape). And by the time they clean out their own weight and division, they will be at the stage where even if they do move up in weight, they will be past their best and getting ripe for the picking (even at their own weight). In these circumstances, if a Bob Fitzsimmons were born today, i doubt he would even fight at Heavyweight.

[ChrisPontius]

I would honestly be interested to see the cruiserweight Evander Holyfield take on the heavyweights of his era. He would have done better in some fights and worse in others but he would have had a prety clean run up to the title and the first fight with Bowe.


Well, you can go ahead with the wishful thinking that Holyfield's results wouldn't have changed if he stayed around 190lbs.

One thing is certain, though. Holyfield himself certainly didn't think he could. After Bowe handled him easily despite being outlanded 2:1 in the early rounds, Holyfield added another 10 pounds and gained the upper hand on Bowe.

Do you think it's a coincidence that we haven't had a heavyweight champion fighting at 190lbs for over 40 years, exactly since heavyweights grew bigger? And "don't tell me they aren't allowed to": they are, especially if they're good. Jones officially weighed 193lbs against Ruiz.

[radianttwilight]

So tell me does fat (heavier) Ali that faced Norton have a better chin than the vs Foreman and Frazier? Of course he doesnt because weight doesnt increase durability.



I never said the fat Ali was more durable. I said the heaver (not fatter) Ali that faced Foreman, Frazier, Quarry, and the rest of his 1970s comp is arguably more durable than the younger, lighter Ali of the 1960s.



Not at all, Cooper caught him clean. That shot would have put any version of Ali, down if he caught him clean in the same way. Just because someone like Foreman is a bigger stronger puncher than cooper, doesnt mean that he is capable of catching a fighter clean like Cooper did, in every fight.



This is a legitimate point about Cooper being a more pinpoint puncher, but I think there's definately an argument that the Ali who took bombs from Foreman in Zaire was more durable.



To be honest, Foremans effort (and he was never the very best of the 90s) is as close to living proof that the 90s fighters (below the best 2 or 3) simply were not as big hitting or as good as the 70s.



Why is this? You said it yourself that he was never the very best of the 1990s, so how does that make the fighters inferior?



Young george foreman would have KOd old Foreman in 1 round (even easier than Young Toney would beat old Toney).



You really think young Foreman would've KO'd old Foreman in one? If comeback Foreman was any one thing, he was durable as hell.




Holyfield could take a punch at any of those weights. It is no coincidence that his best performances finished pretty much after Bowe, where he decided to trade with the big heavys, rather than to box more, like the lighter version of Holy did. After this point, it was more his heart and will to win that enabled him to get good results against Tyson and to a lesser extent Lewis. The more he went up in weight, the less effective he was, although in fairness, this was due more to his aging than anything else. Which is back to my original point. If he fought at heavyweight earlier, in his career, he could have forged a heavy legacy and would of beat many bigger heavys, even at the lighter weight. Incidentally, things were much easier for Holy back then, he only had to beat Douglas to become the man. If the situation were today, he would need have needed to beat Douglas, Tyson, Lewis and Bowe before he became number one, and if he lost to one fighter on this route (which he did) then suddenly he would have his chin questioned due to his weight and risk losing his reputation and box office draw. Why would any smaller weight fighter attempt this? especially considering that today, unlike when holy came up, and previously spinks and others, none of the 4 title matches would actually be very big money fights. Certainly not as big as fighting some of the smaller weighted fighters.



Valid point about Holyfield only having to fight one guy (who wasn't a very good one at that), but I have to disagree about how his effectiveness decreased.

Do you think it's merely coincidence that he lost 2 of 3 to superheavy Bowe, with the first being about as close to a prime-vs-prime match as was possible for the two? Did you forget that, after getting knocked around in the first fight, Holyfield put on ten pounds of muscle and then won the second?

The Holyfield who was having close calls against Cooper and others like him, smaller heavyweights, got plain owned by the big ones like Bowe and Lewis. Partly because he was old, but also because of his size disadvantage.



I admit that Valuev has a good chin so probably a bad example. Would Butterbean be a better one? but Vlad illustrates the point perfectly. If size meant durability, he would be a beast, but durability is made up of other facts.



Butterbean actually has a decent chin, but he's a four-round gimmick fighter, so he's also a terrible example. He isn't world-class.

Klitschko may have a bad chin in a p4p sense, but if Ross Purrity ever fought a featherweight, I'd bet the house on Purrity by KO.



Not at all, for a start, he would be an idiot to even try "slugging it out". I doubt that even the non pareil Jack Dempsey Could slug it out. But as i said, he would definitely put up a better effort than the fat ballooned version of himself.



You're confusing "fat ballooned up version of himself" with "legitimately beefed up version of himself". Of course Pacquiao would suck if he was 200lbs of fat.



I am not saying that the light heavys are better on whole than the heavys (even though they do have better average skill), or even that the best light heavy will always beat the best heavy or even one of the best heavys. What i am saying that a great light heavy would still beat many good heavys and in some circumstances the Worlds best heavy. This has always been proved and will always be proved. it happened in the past with Fitzsimmons and Tunney. We saw Braddock Beat Baer, we saw Spinks do it to Holmes. And more recently we saw Jones beat Ruiz, Toney compete at heavy and to a lesser extent a reasonably small chris byrd. In the era of super heavys many people argue that the two best were Prime Tyson and Holyfield, neither of whom were spectacularly big. Former light heavy champ Michael Moorer also held a title, as did Spinks. In reality, history (even present history) suggests that this is the case and that is not arguable. I know most point to Great light heavys like Moore and Foster who were knocked out at heavy, but look at the guys that they lost to. They were capable of beating any heavys around anyway.



You still havn't made your point.

Braddock weighed in at 194 for the Baer fight.

Tunney weighed in at 189.5 for both Dempsey performances, he was only a pound lighter than Dempsey for the first fight!!

Spinks weighed in at 199 and 205 for Holmes I and II!

Those "small" heavies in Tyson and Holyfield? Roughly 217 and 210 in their primes, respectively.

Oh, and light-heavyweight champion Michael Moorer? He weighed in at 214 when he won the heavyweight title.

Even Jones, who you didn't mention, managed to weigh in at 193 for his fight vs. Ruiz.

Of all your examples, only Fitzsimmons wasn't of proper heavyweight size.


The whole argument of this thread is that while a little guy can still be the best in the world and beat the heavys, he will not because of the weight divisions, which mean that the bigger guys (who cant fight in the lower divisions) will always dominate the ratings, because no smaller guy is going to risk fighting a bigger guy (unless they get out of shape). And by the time they clean out their own weight and division, they will be at the stage where even if they do move up in weight, they will be past their best and getting ripe for the picking (even at their own weight). In these circumstances, if a Bob Fitzsimmons were born today, i doubt he would even fight at Heavyweight.

I don't see your point? Like 90% of the money in boxing is in the heavyweight division, and the heavyweight champion of the world has traditionally been one of the most famous athletes alive.

If they can beat the big guys, why not?

Also - why do you say they don't "risk" fighting bigger guys? Aren't big guys the same as small guys, after all...?

[Boilermaker]

I never said the fat Ali was more durable. I said the heaver (not fatter) Ali that faced Foreman, Frazier, Quarry, and the rest of his 1970s comp is arguably more durable than the younger, lighter Ali of the 1960s.

But that is my argument, by the time most fighters go up in weight, they have gone up in weight because they are older, have sacrificed their speed and endurance training, and are generally not as good as they were when they were younger (there obviously some even many exception but they are getting fewer and far between). If they beat the heavier fighter in an inferior condition to what they used to be then obviously the earlier, lighter version would beat that version too (in most cases). If they take the heavier persons shots at the heavier weight, they will generally do so at the lighter weight. Now weather or not lack of strength means the lighter fighter cant land and is obliterated is a slightly different argument.



This is a legitimate point about Cooper being a more pinpoint puncher, but I think there's definately an argument that the Ali who took bombs from Foreman in Zaire was more durable.

And not so much necessarilly that he was a better puncher, but just that this particular punch that landed was.


Why is this? You said it yourself that he was never the very best of the 1990s, so how does that make the fighters inferior?

We know for sure that his chin holds up to the superheavy punchers. He wasnt the best, but he was probably in the top 5, or at least capable of beating all but the top 5. At the very worst, we know that the second best fighter of the 70s, prime for prime would have been a top 5 fighter in the 90s.


You really think young Foreman would've KO'd old Foreman in one? If comeback Foreman was any one thing, he was durable as hell.



I actually do, he would hit him 2 or 3 times before old foreman set himself. It doesnt matter how durable you are, if you are being hit cleanly by foreman and not running or defending like mad, you are in big trouble. Even if he didnt, he would totally dominate him.




Valid point about Holyfield only having to fight one guy (who wasn't a very good one at that), but I have to disagree about how his effectiveness decreased.

Do you think it's merely coincidence that he lost 2 of 3 to superheavy Bowe, with the first being about as close to a prime-vs-prime match as was possible for the two? Did you forget that, after getting knocked around in the first fight, Holyfield put on ten pounds of muscle and then won the second?

The Holyfield who was having close calls against Cooper and others like him, smaller heavyweights, got plain owned by the big ones like Bowe and Lewis. Partly because he was old, but also because of his size disadvantage.


My oppinion is that holyfield was at his best when was lighter and using a boxing style. Against Bowe, he tried to go to war and outpower him, which worked against him. Holyfield should have used the same tactics he used against Foreman. I think that he declined quite a bit after Bowe. Dont forget that of all the superheavys only two were really in the same class as the two main smaller heavys - Holyfield and Tyson. Tyson, only got dominated when he began to train so much for power.


Butterbean actually has a decent chin, but he's a four-round gimmick fighter, so he's also a terrible example. He isn't world-class.

I know he is not world class. That is why i am saying that size is not the be all and end all for durability. Do you not think that a world class middleweight like say Bernard Hopkins is likely to have as good a chin as Butterbean?



Klitschko may have a bad chin in a p4p sense, but if Ross Purrity ever fought a featherweight, I'd bet the house on Purrity by KO.


Almost certainly. Would you be so confident that he would KO a prime middleweight version of James Toney?


You're confusing "fat ballooned up version of himself" with "legitimately beefed up version of himself". Of course Pacquiao would suck if he was 200lbs of fat.


My point is that by the time that they get around to fighting at higher weights, half the time they are fat ballooned up versions of themself. Look no further than Toney for an example.


You still havn't made your point.

Braddock weighed in at 194 for the Baer fight.

Tunney weighed in at 189.5 for both Dempsey performances, he was only a pound lighter than Dempsey for the first fight!!

Spinks weighed in at 199 and 205 for Holmes I and II!

Those "small" heavies in Tyson and Holyfield? Roughly 217 and 210 in their primes, respectively.

Oh, and light-heavyweight champion Michael Moorer? He weighed in at 214 when he won the heavyweight title.

Even Jones, who you didn't mention, managed to weigh in at 193 for his fight vs. Ruiz.

Of all your examples, only Fitzsimmons wasn't of proper heavyweight size.



I don't see your point? Like 90% of the money in boxing is in the heavyweight division, and the heavyweight champion of the world has traditionally been one of the most famous athletes alive.

If they can beat the big guys, why not?

Also - why do you say they don't "risk" fighting bigger guys? Aren't big guys the same as small guys, after all...?[/quote]

I think that you misunderstand me. Vlad Klitchsko (assuming he is the best heavy) is the best fighter in the world at the moment. Weight does make a big difference. But a classy big little man will beat an average big man.

Joe Calzaghe, for example, would beat lots of heavyweights. Who knows, he may beat a top 10 ranked heavyweight. But make no mistake, plenty would knock him out. With their power, they even knock out the good Superheavys when they land clean. Calzaghe would make a lot more money than most top 10 heavys. I doubt he would be good enough to actually beat the top 2 or 3 curent superheavys like say a harry Greb, but then again, i dont rank Calzaghe nearly as highly as greb at his own weight anyway. But why would he choose now, to fight say Jameel McLine and then Nicolai Valuev, to maybe then get a shot at a portion of the world title, when he can fight someone his own weight division and earn more money (like hopkins or Tarver). The heavyweight division is not currently the cash cow, particularly at anywhere under world title level that it used to be. This means that the little fighters will not fight against heavweights like they used to, and therefore they will not beat heavyweights like they used to.