View Single Post
Old 06-27-2007, 12:34 PM   #27
Sizzle
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 647
vCash: 1000
Default Re: What was so bad with Dempsey vs Gibbons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by janitor
Yes but if you take a natural light heavyweight and bulk him up to 200lbs you do not end up with a natural 200lb fighter you just get a pumped up light heavyweight.

Chris Byrd bulked up to 210 lbs but he still couldn't knock a heavyweight's hat off and he might well have been better off keeping his weight low to preserve his advantages of speed and mobility.

Do you think for example that Billy Conn would have fared better against Joe Louis if he had bulked up to 200lbs?
Yes.

Byrd bulked up to 210lbs for a reason.

Weight-classes also exist for a reason.

I don't believe in "Natural weight" - What is natural weight? Our weight is a product of our frame, diet and exercise. Are you telling me Spinks looks unnatural as 6'3 213lbs heavyweight? If anything Tyson is the one in that fight whose "weight" looks "unnatural"

Vargas walks around at close to 200lbs, but fights at 154lbs, so what is his "natural" weight? He doesn't have one. A natural size perhaps, but weight-training and nutritional breakthroughs has given modern fighters a better ability to "control" their weight. I'm not saying the fighters are better, but I think Roy Jones is a good example of how this has favoured modern athletes.

Oh, and I wouldn't deny that steroids have played a major role in the "weight regulation" of some boxers.
Sizzle is offline  Top
Reply With Quote