The mythical 200lb line/weight drain

[Boilermaker]

Why is the 200lb weight/weight drain so important. only really seem to effect heavyweights who drop down in weight when they are above or below the mythical 200lb (used to be 190 lb) line. For example, if Eddie Chambers who has ballooned up in weight were to drop back to 200 lbs he would be in great shape and a chance to beat the best heavyweights. If he gets in shape and fights at 195, he is just a cruiserweight who should never be fighting at heavyweight. If he fights a cruiserweight at this weight, and he loses then he is weight drained.

A fighter like Tua puts on 100lbs in between fights, but when he comes back he is expected to do so 100lbs lighter without becoming weight drained. Most people say Tua is 20lb overweight even at fighting weight nowadays and he should lose that weight. Yet, if a fighter like Roy Jones puts on 30lb to fight heavyweights and then takes it off, he is weight drained.

How is it that modern fighters and contenders can not stay in shape all year round, year after year, and balloon in between fights, yet not become weight drained?

Why is it that 240lb overweight heavyweights are expected to drop 30lbs to fight other heavyweights, but 210lb overweight heavyweights are not expected to drop 30lbs (fighting as cruiserweights) to give themselves the best chance to beat heavyweights.

Why does a cruiserweight champion like Huck have to go up in weight if he fights a heavyweight. Is it because he is not fighting at his best weight? And he would be a much better fighter at the higher weight.

Now i think about it, is there a fighter alive, who actually fights at their best weight, or is every single modern champion fighting below their best weight, because there are so many weight divisions to choose from.

[janitor]

The 200lb "real heavyweight" is an artefact of modern training methods for sure.

Before use of weights and deliberate bulking up became the norm, there were very few heavyweights who were over this weight for most of their careers, and it would be the same if the current crop employed the training methods of the 30s.

To dismiss a heavyweight of the period before 1970, because he weighed less than 200lbs on a training routine more like a modern endurance athlete, is just crass.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by Boilermaker

Why is the 200lb weight/weight drain so important. only really seem to effect heavyweights who drop down in weight when they are above or below the mythical 200lb (used to be 190 lb) line. For example, if Eddie Chambers who has ballooned up in weight were to drop back to 200 lbs he would be in great shape and a chance to beat the best heavyweights. If he gets in shape and fights at 195, he is just a cruiserweight who should never be fighting at heavyweight. If he fights a cruiserweight at this weight, and he loses then he is weight drained.

A fighter like Tua puts on 100lbs in between fights, but when he comes back he is expected to do so 100lbs lighter without becoming weight drained. Most people say Tua is 20lb overweight even at fighting weight nowadays and he should lose that weight. Yet, if a fighter like Roy Jones puts on 30lb to fight heavyweights and then takes it off, he is weight drained.

How is it that modern fighters and contenders can not stay in shape all year round, year after year, and balloon in between fights, yet not become weight drained?

Why is it that 240lb overweight heavyweights are expected to drop 30lbs to fight other heavyweights, but 210lb overweight heavyweights are not expected to drop 30lbs (fighting as cruiserweights) to give themselves the best chance to beat heavyweights.

Why does a cruiserweight champion like Huck have to go up in weight if he fights a heavyweight. Is it because he is not fighting at his best weight? And he would be a much better fighter at the higher weight.

Now i think about it, is there a fighter alive, who actually fights at their best weight, or is every single modern champion fighting below their best weight, because there are so many weight divisions to choose from.

Most fighters try to fight in their lowest possible weight class in terms of how much they can dehydrate to make weight. So they effectively are in shape at 10lbs above their fighting weight but then drain down to their fighting weight another 10 or more pounds. They then are big and strong at the weight

Losing bodyfat/water isn't too hard, when you do that and lose muscle you suffer.

Exceptions to this have been Mayweather, Pacquaio (at 147 - before he was a weight drainer) and Barrera

Originally Posted by janitor

To dismiss a heavyweight of the period before 1970, because he weighed less than 200lbs on a training routine more like a modern endurance athlete, is just crass.

1. Crass is the wrong choice of word
2. For boxing and boxing endurance strength is key, something you don't seem to get your head around. You can still win being a smaller man but it's harder and not the benefit you make it out to be
3. Not that many pre-70s boxers were the endurance/stamina machines you claim them to be, in fact many post 70s boxers will have better endurance, you ignore this

[Boilermaker]

PP,

You make it sound very dangerous to be honest. Fighters dehydrating so much cannot be good for their health or their optimum performance levels, according to modern nutritional theory, can it?

In fact given what you say, that it is up to 10lbs dehydration, do you think that in reality, since most fighters schedule their fights at least 3 months in advance, that weigh ins should really happen say every day for a week before a fight or maybe even 3 times a day, so as to avoid the dangerous dehydration problem?

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

1. Crass is the wrong choice of word
2. For boxing and boxing endurance strength is key, something you don't seem to get your head around. You can still win being a smaller man but it's harder and not the benefit you make it out to be

Lets start with the question of whether we are comparing like for like.

Would the pre 70s heavyweights have come in at thae same weight, if they had been made to lift weights/take steroids?

Would the post 70s heavyweights have come in over 200lbs, if they had trained to reduce weight at all costs?

Is the 200lb concept a product of modern training practices?

3. Not that many pre-70s boxers were the endurance/stamina machines you claim them to be, in fact many post 70s boxers will have better endurance, you ignore this

I know who my money would be on in this respect.

[luke]

Originally Posted by Boilermaker

PP,

You make it sound very dangerous to be honest. Fighters dehydrating so much cannot be good for their health or their optimum performance levels, according to modern nutritional theory, can it?

In fact given what you say, that it is up to 10lbs dehydration, do you think that in reality, since most fighters schedule their fights at least 3 months in advance, that weigh ins should really happen say every day for a week before a fight or maybe even 3 times a day, so as to avoid the dangerous dehydration problem?

or just do weigh ins on the day off the fight, to stop this cutting weight and putting it on bs, the fighters gaining 30lbs for fight night are so obviously using some form of PED. and they are just conning there main fans, the casual ones, the people on this site and other boxing forums, are pretty wised up but my friends dont understand how chavez jr and bute are the weights they are come fight night, and they think im wrong with my numbers.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by Boilermaker

PP,

You make it sound very dangerous to be honest. Fighters dehydrating so much cannot be good for their health or their optimum performance levels, according to modern nutritional theory, can it?

In fact given what you say, that it is up to 10lbs dehydration, do you think that in reality, since most fighters schedule their fights at least 3 months in advance, that weigh ins should really happen say every day for a week before a fight or maybe even 3 times a day, so as to avoid the dangerous dehydration problem?

It depends bare in mind the body is something like 80% water (or is it 90%?). It can be dangerous or done properly you can cut 7-10lbs and gain it all back without too much fuss. Here's a water cutting course

5days-2days before weigh in - drink 5-6 Galons per day (your body gets used to excreting allot of water by doing this)

36hours before weigh in - cut all water and only eat dry riveta and occasionally chew an ice cube. For a few hours before sleep stay in a steam room until you're 2lbs above desired weight. Diuretics can also help force extra water weight out of the body. Goto sleep, the next morning you should be at weight, if not get in the stean room/diuretics/enema

You can actually cut about 10% of your bodyweight doing that safely. Most boxers aren't that smart though

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by janitor

1. Would the pre 70s heavyweights have come in at thae same weight, if they had been made to lift weights/take steroids?

2. Would the post 70s heavyweights have come in over 200lbs, if they had trained to reduce weight at all costs?

3. Is the 200lb concept a product of modern training practices?

4. I know who my money would be on in this respect.

1. Some of them did lift weights such as Firpo/Archie Moore. Jeffries/Willard/Firpo were strong men. Obviously steroids increase size

2. No but you constantly perpetuate the myth that pre 70s HWs tried to constantly reduce the weight. Many tried to bulk up such as Jack Johnson, Floyd Patterson and Jack Dempsey was a light heavyweight who ate his way upto 190lbs, in shape or not

3. In some cases, but most HWs would be 200-230lbs regardless, see Tyson, Lennox, Bowe, Klits. Only a few bulked up, much like Jack Johnson and Floyd Patterson

4. Really, what are the amazing feats of endurance that weren't actual bullshit like JEffries going for a half marathon with a dear on his back? We had a conversation about Fitz's once and his training times for his roadwork weren't particularly. Most light heavyweights and lower weight athletes complete similar workouts. The Klitschko's supposedly do 2:30min 800m intervals, who's going to top that?

[luke]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

1. Some of them did lift weights such as Firpo/Archie Moore. Jeffries/Willard/Firpo were strong men. Obviously steroids increase size

2. No but you constantly perpetuate the myth that pre 70s HWs tried to constantly reduce the weight. Many tried to bulk up such as Jack Johnson, Floyd Patterson and Jack Dempsey was a light heavyweight who ate his way upto 190lbs, in shape or not

3. In some cases, but most HWs would be 200-230lbs regardless, see Tyson, Lennox, Bowe, Klits. Only a few bulked up, much like Jack Johnson and Floyd Patterson

4. Really, what are the amazing feats of endurance that weren't actual bullshit like JEffries going for a half marathon with a dear on his back? We had a conversation about Fitz's once and his training times for his roadwork weren't particularly. Most light heavyweights and lower weight athletes complete similar workouts. The Klitschko's supposedly do 2:30min 800m intervals, who's going to top that?

the main thing is diet, the boxers of old, drank, probly didnt sleep right, and ate the wrong kinds of food, take marcianos diet, the amount of heavy carbs the guy ate on a daily basis, is enough for a bear, the only meat he ate was hog, and your body finds it very hard to actualy use the protine from it.

[janitor]

[quote]

Originally Posted by PowerPuncher

1. Some of them did lift weights such as Firpo/Archie Moore. Jeffries/Willard/Firpo were strong men. Obviously steroids increase size

The only examples of fighters of this period using weights that I am aware of, involves use of dum bells.

This would almost certainly not have been aimed at adding bulk, but more at adding speed.

2. No but you constantly perpetuate the myth that pre 70s HWs tried to constantly reduce the weight. Many tried to bulk up such as Jack Johnson, Floyd Patterson and Jack Dempsey was a light heavyweight who ate his way upto 190lbs, in shape or not

There are odd exceptions, but generaly the aim was to train like an endurance athlete.

You should consider the fact that some fighters of this era drank ridiculous amounts of water to add weight e.g. Henry Armstrong.

3. In some cases, but most HWs would be 200-230lbs regardless, see Tyson, Lennox, Bowe, Klits. Only a few bulked up, much like Jack Johnson and Floyd Patterson

Lewis, Bowe and the Klitschko's would have been "real heavyweights" in any era, but they might have been nearer 220lbs.

Tyson would not have been a real heavyweight.

4. Really, what are the amazing feats of endurance that weren't actual bullshit like JEffries going for a half marathon with a dear on his back? We had a conversation about Fitz's once and his training times for his roadwork weren't particularly. Most light heavyweights and lower weight athletes complete similar workouts. The Klitschko's supposedly do 2:30min 800m intervals, who's going to top that?

Lets start with results in the ring, such as Bat Nelson maintaining a ridiculous punch output for 40+ rounds.

Why would you criticise Fitz because his speed was slow in his roadwork? The best distance runners in the world train at slow speed, and it is thought advantageous to do so.

[janitor]

Originally Posted by luke

the main thing is diet, the boxers of old, drank, probly didnt sleep right, and ate the wrong kinds of food, take marcianos diet, the amount of heavy carbs the guy ate on a daily basis, is enough for a bear, the only meat he ate was hog, and your body finds it very hard to actualy use the protine from it.

There were some prety wooly dietarty concepts in swimming into the 70s!

[Butch Coolidge]

Mmmm. I feel that the thesis of this thread is a bit of a misconception. Like Huck doesn't necessarily go up in weight, he just doesn't have to dehydrate to make a weight limit so he stays hydrated that makes him seem heavier.


But the one thought provoking question I get from this thread is; will there ever be another heavyweight champion close to the 200lb mark? How long has it been since the heavyweight champion was less than 200lb?


If history indicates that a heavyweight around a certain weight or below a certain weight cannot win a heavyweight title doesn't that suggest a new weight category is needed?

[janitor]

Originally Posted by Butch Coolidge

Mmmm. I feel that the thesis of this thread is a bit of a misconception. Like Huck doesn't necessarily go up in weight, he just doesn't have to dehydrate to make a weight limit so he stays hydrated that makes him seem heavier.


But the one thought provoking question I get from this thread is; will there ever be another heavyweight champion close to the 200lb mark? How long has it been since the heavyweight champion was less than 200lb?


If history indicates that a heavyweight around a certain weight or below a certain weight cannot win a heavyweight title doesn't that suggest a new weight category is needed?

If any light heavyweight can bulk up to 220lbs today, then there will possibly never be another sub 200lb heavyweight, unless he started out as a welterweight.

[PowerPuncher]

Originally Posted by janitor

1. The only examples of fighters of this period using weights that I am aware of, involves use of dum bells. This would almost certainly not have been aimed at adding bulk, but more at adding speed.

2. There are odd exceptions, but generaly the aim was to train like an endurance athlete.

3. You should consider the fact that some fighters of this era drank ridiculous amounts of water to add weight e.g. Henry Armstrong.

4. Lewis, Bowe and the Klitschko's would have been "real heavyweights" in any era, but they might have been nearer 220lbs.

5. Tyson would not have been a real heavyweight.

6. Lets start with results in the ring, such as Bat Nelson maintaining a ridiculous punch output for 40+ rounds.

7. Why would you criticise Fitz because his speed was slow in his roadwork? The best distance runners in the world train at slow speed, and it is thought advantageous to do so.

1. Firpo was a strong man weight lifter. Willard/Jeffries seemed to do allot of old school lifting. Archie Moore was a proponent of weight lifting

2. No it wasn't you're making assumptions on this without any evidence, in fact despite having a love for the history of the sport you don't seem to read up much on it. Endurance has always been important but fighters have always skimmed on it or not gone all out on it. Strength and size has also always been part of the sport.

3. You don't gain weight by drinking water, you just pass more water

4. They debuted at around 220 without lifting weights, maybe they'd stay as low as 230. Maybe if they came from more deprived backgrounds they would never have grown into 220lb young men ofcourse

5. Tyson was 200lbs at around 13 and supposedly never did weights to get upto 225lbs as a 20yo, yet 'would never be a real HW'

6. 1 off example and again, no feat of endurance

7. Yet another incorrect statement. Marathon runners do run at fast times, ie race times or quicker in training. Fitz was a fit man, but he didn't have amazing stamina or endurance, some modern MW's will have been fitter

[Webbiano]

It is ridiculous. The thing that gets me is that people make excuses for Langford and Greb fighting at light heavyweight and heavyweight when they were pretty much at the best weight that they could fight at. Say Langford weighed 190 for the Johnson bout and people expect Langford will all of a sudden gain a load of power but his speed will not be effected. Truth is Langford earlier on his career outweighed many people when fighting at lightweight, but don't treat the victories the same way when it's the other way round.