Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?
""To an extent it does. But a completely different style of strength training that that which adds a lot of weight and mass.""
Not true, see I knew id catch you out, literally low reps high weight increases endurance. Do you know how?
""Low levels? We are talking about 23% increase of weight. That is not low. I don't see where a guy with such a small frame is going to hide this mass and still be effective as a whole. [/quote]""
Low levels compared to bodybuilding which is the only time "maxing out your skeletal frame" is even possible, which is why I made that comparison.
""But he was the best type of fighter he could be given his natural gifts. Making into a different style fighter would be making him into a lesser fighter. Against his better opposition (which was limited to the last portion of his career) he was largely an attrition slugger who relied on stamina and output. Slow him down, decrease his mobility and output and he becomes nothing more than a sitting duck with decent one punch power. There are tons of fighters like that. Everyone of his opponents remarked no so much on Marciano's power but his relentless attack, that he never stopped and ultimately overwhelmed any defense. Remold him at even 20 pounds more and this ability disappears.""
I agree theres a good chance he was at his best at his weight. Im not arguing against you on this one just throwing an argument at you to see what your response will be....
....A guy like Tyson can hold huge amounts of muscle for his short stature, and still have good cardio and power. Why not rocky? Why would 20lbs make such a difference? There are many other examples not just Tyson, guys with alot of muscle mass that still have decent cardio.
Last edited by OMGWTF; 11-15-2012 at 09:55 PM.