View Single Post
Old 10-16-2012, 06:46 AM   #13
East Side Guru
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Finland
Posts: 7,122
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

Originally Posted by thistle1 View Post
I have ALWAYS maintained this - fighters ARE what they level out at, in their prime years...

their lighter weights they were merely passing through, likewise the heaviest they fought at the end of their careers equally doesn't make them a bonified fight at that weight either.

I believe too fights should only be ranked at 1 weight, for overall career assessment i.e, Armstrongs a WW, SRR is a MW, Fitz is a L-HW, any successess ABOVE their natuaral weight only adds to their capability & greatness, but they are the Among the Best at their real weight on the Ratings tables... this also opens up placement for other equally deserving fighters who might miss a slot because someone like Fitz gets counted in 2 or 3 divisions.

Not accurate really!
Armstrong was never a welterweight in size. Even at 30 years of age he weighed 135. The majority of Ray Robinson's prime was spent at 147 lbs, he only started campaigning as a middleweight when he was 30 years old.

Ignoring Robinson's accomplishments as a welterweight, only because he happened to fight as a middleweight while largely past his prime, is just not really a valid system of ranking fighters at all when it comes down to it.
TheGreatA is offline  Top
Reply With Quote