View Single Post
Old 11-15-2012, 07:49 PM   #41
Absolutely!
Fabulous, darling!
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: A cut above my left nose
Posts: 3,225
vCash: 500
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
Haye and Chambers are/were better because they were far more skilled. Chisora throws Trevor Berbick round, pushed punches. Haye throws sharp, straight, fast, leveraged punches that were getting inside Chisora's attempts. Dimitrenko is just tall and that's it. Chambers was in a different league.

Size does not overcome all...
I'm perfectly aware that size does not overcome all. That was precisely my point.

Chisora, on paper, had certain advantages against Haye that were dependent upon his stockiness and bulk. The fight proved that those advantages were all just smoke. Haye not only had the skills to overcome Chisora's brute strength, but the power to knock him out as well.

The idea that a fighter can "bulk up" and this somehow makes them a better fighter is such nonsense, yet still gets bandied about by fans as if it's a gospel truth. I'm not against strength training per se; in fact I think it's an integral part of training. Rather, I'm against the idea of adding muscle mass willy nilly and somehow hoping it'll lead to magical gains as a result.

A skilled and athletic 210lbs fighter can potentially beat all but the best superheavyweights. The limit might be even lower than that, I don't know. Of course there is a limit, a point where lack of size genuinely becomes a problem, but I don't think Cruiserweight is it.
Absolutely! is offline  Top
Reply With Quote