Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-15-2012, 12:03 AM   #1
DaveK
Vicious & Malicious
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,820
vCash: 1000
Default How big is too big?

How big is too big?

We have weight classes for a reason. I’m a firm believer that if you’re a “puncher” and have known knockout power, at 180ish, you can hurt just about anyone… Marciano and Satterfield are just two examples of the truth in that statement.

Much has been made of “natural” weight, which I think is a term greatly misused and misunderstood. I’ve heard lots of people say that basically the weight the fighter starts at is their “natural” weight… The most recent example is Jones is a “160-168lb fighter”… He matured into a LHW and walked around at (and into the ring) around 185 or so. I wouldn’t call that a “natural 160-168” lb’er…

There have been threads lately about Spinks vs Holmes and some members have asserted that Spinks was a shit heavyweight, based on his choice of opponents at the weight and his capitulation at the hands of Tyson. He very well could have lost against some of the lesser but available opponents at HW at the time, so call it smart management. He could very well have been successful.

Michael Spinks walked around at about 190-200lbs, I would guess, in his LHW days as champ. He simply stopped cutting weight and lifted some weights to get himself above 200lbs. He was a bit blown up for the division, so I would say he was a natural 190-200lb’er…

Ezzard Charles was a middleweight, then LHW, then a “HW”, which was a cruiser by today’s standards. Was he a natural middleweight? No. He matured into a 180ish-lb man… He was a natural 180lber, right?

I read an article where Bob Foster talked about Roy Jones and his decision to fight Ruiz, and he said when he moved up to fight heavy, someone gave him some concoction to drink to gain weight, and he said he got up to 190ish (can’t remember the exact weight he gave), and he said it made him sick so he stopped drinking it. He said he stayed around 178 or so. I would call Foster a “natural” LHW.

There’s no doubt that some LHWs cope better against heavier opponents; Charles and Conn come to mind. Charles was clearly bigger naturally than Conn, but there’s no doubting Conn’s durability or effectiveness, even with the absence of a punch.

I’ve also heard it said that Marciano would simply be too small for the likes of a Lewis or Klitschko.

So why does a guy like Spinks get relegated to a “blown up LHW” label while a guy like Marciano or Louis, 185lbs (or so) and 197lbs (or so) respectively, get a pass as legitimate heavyweights?

So to the original question: How big is too big? I feel Spinks would have a rough time with/give a rough time to Foster or Jones or any other highly-respected LHW on any given top ten list, but he could also trouble some smaller heavyweights like Charles, Patterson, Louis (screw you, I’m making a point), and many other guys in the 215 or less category. Obviously, there are stylistic exceptions to this generality, so don’t get crazy…

The lower you go down in weight, that one more pound makes a difference… It’s generally 7-8lbs for the normal-sized dudes… When you go lower, you’re talking 4lbs, which can be significant. By the time you get to Heavyweight, 30lbs or more can be the difference, but it only makes a difference when the gap in skill or conditioning/durability/tenacity is great. If the smaller man has power, skill, or conditioning, or worse, all four, he generally wins.

I think Marciano or Dempsey or Louis, the three that come to mind when thinking of smallish HW’s that can hang with modern, bigger heavyweights. I can easily envision any of them coping and succeeding against Ali, Frazier, Holyfield, etc, but have trouble seeing them succeed against Foreman, Liston, or Lewis, who was both big and good…

You can argue all day that Louis took out Simon or Buddy Baer or Carnera and that Dempsey whipped Willard, but anyone that’s being intellectually honest realizes the difference between those guys and the similarly-sized Lewis, Wlad, and Bowe, for instance.
Size isn’t size alone; skill and conditioning and tenacity comes into play. Yeah, size only matters as long as the bigger guy isn’t as fast or skilled or smart, athletic, or as conditioned, etc…

By my logic, the line lies at the 215-225lb mark. That is the separation, but not across the board; mind you, I’m talking about when it’s competitive stylistically and skill-wise/conditioning-wise.

I guess the question is, when all things are equal, how big is too big? The whole thing is juggling attributes and skills the guy you’re arguing for, but at what point do you say: ”You know, he’s better, even better pound for pound, but he can’t deal with that size… “
DaveK is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-15-2012, 12:13 AM   #2
TheSouthpaw
Champion
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 3,919
vCash: 500
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveK View Post
How big is too big?

We have weight classes for a reason. I’m a firm believer that if you’re a “puncher” and have known knockout power, at 180ish, you can hurt just about anyone… Marciano and Satterfield are just two examples of the truth in that statement.

Much has been made of “natural” weight, which I think is a term greatly misused and misunderstood. I’ve heard lots of people say that basically the weight the fighter starts at is their “natural” weight… The most recent example is Jones is a “160-168lb fighter”… He matured into a LHW and walked around at (and into the ring) around 185 or so. I wouldn’t call that a “natural 160-168”

There have been threads lately about Spinks vs Holmes and some members have asserted that Spinks was a shit heavyweight, based on his choice of opponents at the weight and his capitulation at the hands of Tyson. He very well could have lost against some of the lesser but available opponents at HW at the time, so call it smart management. He could very well have been successful.

Michael Spinks walked around at about 190-200lbs, I would guess, in his LHW days as champ. He simply stopped cutting weight and lifted some weights to get himself above 200lbs. He was a bit blown up for the division, so I would say he was a natural 190-200lb’er…

Ezzard Charles was a middleweight, then LHW, then a “HW”, which was a cruiser by today’s standards. Was he a natural middleweight? No. He matured into a 180ish-lb man… He was a natural 180lber, right?

I read an article where Bob Foster talked about Roy Jones and his decision to fight Ruiz, and he said when he moved up to fight heavy, someone gave him some concoction to drink to gain weight, and he said he got up to 190ish (can’t remember the exact weight he gave), and he said it made him sick so he stopped drinking it. He said he stayed around 178 or so. I would call Foster a “natural” LHW.

There’s no doubt that some LHWs cope better against heavier opponents; Charles and Conn come to mind. Charles was clearly bigger naturally than Conn, but there’s no doubting Conn’s durability or effectiveness, even with the absence of a punch.

I’ve also heard it said that Marciano would simply be too small for the likes of a Lewis or Klitschko.

So why does a guy like Spinks get relegated to a “blown up LHW” label while a guy like Marciano or Louis, 185lbs (or so) and 197lbs (or so) respectively, get a pass as legitimate heavyweights?

So to the original question: How big is too big? I feel Spinks would have a rough time with/give a rough time to Foster or Jones or any other highly-respected LHW on any given top ten list, but he could also trouble some smaller heavyweights like Charles, Patterson, Louis (screw you, I’m making a point), and many other guys in the 215 or less category. Obviously, there are stylistic exceptions to this generality, so don’t get crazy…

The lower you go down in weight, that one more pound makes a difference… It’s generally 7-8lbs for the normal-sized dudes… When you go lower, you’re talking 4lbs, which can be significant. By the time you get to Heavyweight, 30lbs or more can be the difference, but it only makes a difference when the gap in skill or conditioning/durability/tenacity is great. If the smaller man has power, skill, or conditioning, or worse, all four, he generally wins.

I think Marciano or Dempsey or Louis, the three that come to mind when thinking of smallish HW’s that can hang with modern, bigger heavyweights. I can easily envision any of them coping and succeeding against Ali, Frazier, Holyfield, etc, but have trouble seeing them succeed against Foreman, Liston, or Lewis, who was both big and good…

You can argue all day that Louis took out Simon or Buddy Baer or Carnera and that Dempsey whipped Willard, but anyone that’s being intellectually honest realizes the difference between those guys and the similarly-sized Lewis, Wlad, and Bowe, for instance.
Size isn’t size alone; skill and conditioning and tenacity comes into play. Yeah, size only matters as long as the bigger guy isn’t as fast or skilled or smart, athletic, or as conditioned, etc…

By my logic, the line lies at the 215-225lb mark. That is the separation, but not across the board; mind you, I’m talking about when it’s competitive stylistically and skill-wise/conditioning-wise.

I guess the question is, when all things are equal, how big is too big? The whole thing is juggling attributes and skills the guy you’re arguing for, but at what point do you say: ”You know, he’s better, even better pound for pound, but he can’t deal with that size… “
Very well said Dave!..I agree with your view of " Natural weight "
TheSouthpaw is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 12:56 AM   #3
LittleRed
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yoknapatawpha
Posts: 3,092
vCash: 475
Default Re: How big is too big?

I think Spinks committed to heavyweight more than did Foster. There was no going back, whereas foster was willing to drop back down. I doubt Spinks walked around at 200 lbs; he had to work to get that big. I wonder...

As for Roy, yeah modern weights are tricky. He's probably a natural light heavy, lighter when he was younger, heavier as he got older. And hell, on this site at least, Roys weight is fight specific. Against middleweights he is 'too big and never really a middleweight.' Against heavies he's 's 'a natural middleweight.'
LittleRed is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 01:21 AM   #4
TheSouthpaw
Champion
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 3,919
vCash: 500
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleRed View Post
I think Spinks committed to heavyweight more than did Foster. There was no going back, whereas foster was willing to drop back down. I doubt Spinks walked around at 200 lbs; he had to work to get that big. I wonder...

As for Roy, yeah modern weights are tricky. He's probably a natural light heavy, lighter when he was younger, heavier as he got older. And hell, on this site at least, Roys weight is fight specific. Against middleweights he is 'too big and never really a middleweight.' Against heavies he's 's 'a natural middleweight.'
I dont doubt Spinks walked around at 200 lbs....sounds right to me
TheSouthpaw is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2012, 08:36 PM   #5
DaveK
Vicious & Malicious
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,820
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

Any other takers?

Lots of people have clicked, but only two have replied...
DaveK is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 03:13 AM   #6
rusak
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 894
vCash: 500
Default Re: How big is too big?

It's not just size but also styles. A guy like Joe Louis would have problems against big skilled heavyweights not just because he was smaller. Like Ali said, Louis moved like a mummy. Louis didn't have the footwork and he wasn't exactly Mayweather in the pocket either.
rusak is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 04:11 AM   #7
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,545
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

There's a reason there are no 180lb or 200lb HW champs today

Smaller guys suffer from

1. Less power - no Satterfield didn't have quite enough power against HWs
2. LEss durable - smaller men rarely have the same punch resistance
3. Reach/height - the smaller man has to overcompensate
4. Being pushed around- pushing someone around the ring is much easier when you're bigger than them. The smaller man gets pushed on his backfoot, he loses his power on his backfoot and momentum. The smaller opponent will find it 1000% harder to push a big man back because he doesn't have the weight momentum
5. Getting tired from being leaned on
6. Not being able to rest - every boxer takes rounds or time off to take breathers. It's much easier to do this when you're taller heavier, than when you're smaller
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 04:16 AM   #8
McGrain
Diamond Dog
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 36,418
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

Ask my girl.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH
McGrain is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 06:32 AM   #9
TheGreatA
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,098
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

Anyone over 200 pounds has a fighting chance against a man of any size.

There may be exceptions to the "rule", such as 185 lb Rocky Marciano or 190 lb Dempsey, but we did not see this put to test against 240 lb men of the Klitschko or Lewis quality.
TheGreatA is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 06:39 AM   #10
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,807
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveK View Post
How big is too big?

We have weight classes for a reason. I’m a firm believer that if you’re a “puncher” and have known knockout power, at 180ish, you can hurt just about anyone… Marciano and Satterfield are just two examples of the truth in that statement.

Much has been made of “natural” weight, which I think is a term greatly misused and misunderstood. I’ve heard lots of people say that basically the weight the fighter starts at is their “natural” weight… The most recent example is Jones is a “160-168lb fighter”… He matured into a LHW and walked around at (and into the ring) around 185 or so. I wouldn’t call that a “natural 160-168” lb’er…

There have been threads lately about Spinks vs Holmes and some members have asserted that Spinks was a shit heavyweight, based on his choice of opponents at the weight and his capitulation at the hands of Tyson. He very well could have lost against some of the lesser but available opponents at HW at the time, so call it smart management. He could very well have been successful.

Michael Spinks walked around at about 190-200lbs, I would guess, in his LHW days as champ. He simply stopped cutting weight and lifted some weights to get himself above 200lbs. He was a bit blown up for the division, so I would say he was a natural 190-200lb’er…

Ezzard Charles was a middleweight, then LHW, then a “HW”, which was a cruiser by today’s standards. Was he a natural middleweight? No. He matured into a 180ish-lb man… He was a natural 180lber, right?

I read an article where Bob Foster talked about Roy Jones and his decision to fight Ruiz, and he said when he moved up to fight heavy, someone gave him some concoction to drink to gain weight, and he said he got up to 190ish (can’t remember the exact weight he gave), and he said it made him sick so he stopped drinking it. He said he stayed around 178 or so. I would call Foster a “natural” LHW.

There’s no doubt that some LHWs cope better against heavier opponents; Charles and Conn come to mind. Charles was clearly bigger naturally than Conn, but there’s no doubting Conn’s durability or effectiveness, even with the absence of a punch.

I’ve also heard it said that Marciano would simply be too small for the likes of a Lewis or Klitschko.

So why does a guy like Spinks get relegated to a “blown up LHW” label while a guy like Marciano or Louis, 185lbs (or so) and 197lbs (or so) respectively, get a pass as legitimate heavyweights?

So to the original question: How big is too big? I feel Spinks would have a rough time with/give a rough time to Foster or Jones or any other highly-respected LHW on any given top ten list, but he could also trouble some smaller heavyweights like Charles, Patterson, Louis (screw you, I’m making a point), and many other guys in the 215 or less category. Obviously, there are stylistic exceptions to this generality, so don’t get crazy…

The lower you go down in weight, that one more pound makes a difference… It’s generally 7-8lbs for the normal-sized dudes… When you go lower, you’re talking 4lbs, which can be significant. By the time you get to Heavyweight, 30lbs or more can be the difference, but it only makes a difference when the gap in skill or conditioning/durability/tenacity is great. If the smaller man has power, skill, or conditioning, or worse, all four, he generally wins.

I think Marciano or Dempsey or Louis, the three that come to mind when thinking of smallish HW’s that can hang with modern, bigger heavyweights. I can easily envision any of them coping and succeeding against Ali, Frazier, Holyfield, etc, but have trouble seeing them succeed against Foreman, Liston, or Lewis, who was both big and good…

You can argue all day that Louis took out Simon or Buddy Baer or Carnera and that Dempsey whipped Willard, but anyone that’s being intellectually honest realizes the difference between those guys and the similarly-sized Lewis, Wlad, and Bowe, for instance.
Size isn’t size alone; skill and conditioning and tenacity comes into play. Yeah, size only matters as long as the bigger guy isn’t as fast or skilled or smart, athletic, or as conditioned, etc…

By my logic, the line lies at the 215-225lb mark. That is the separation, but not across the board; mind you, I’m talking about when it’s competitive stylistically and skill-wise/conditioning-wise.

I guess the question is, when all things are equal, how big is too big? The whole thing is juggling attributes and skills the guy you’re arguing for, but at what point do you say: ”You know, he’s better, even better pound for pound, but he can’t deal with that size… “

Excellent topic. Boxing has weight classes for a reason. Here’s how I see it. Size in boxing is a big asset as long as it does not take away from stamina, speed, and flexibility. A fighter’s best weight depends on their bone structure and build.

For example, the Klitschko’s and Lewis fight at 240-250, and for them, that is a fine weight.
Ali and Holmes were at their best around 208-215. When they were over 220, they were not quite as good. If you want to look at Joe Louis, his best weight was 197-207. Anywhere above 210, and he did not look quite as good.

If you adding 30 pounds to Louis, Dempsey or Marciano so they can match up with modern day super heavies, they are going to lose some of their stamina, speed, and flexibility. Defense would also suffer.

The days of in shape heavyweight champions under 6’1” and 210 pounds are over. Outside of a puncher’s chance, there is just too much to overcome in terms of reach height and weight, unless they are fighting a moderately skilled big man who lacks both speed and power ( Example Valuev )
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 06:44 AM   #11
TheGreatA
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,098
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

I do wish we had an in shape 6'1", 210 lb champion in Povetkin.
TheGreatA is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 06:44 AM   #12
thistle1
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,982
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveK View Post
Ezzard Charles was a middleweight, then LHW, then a “HW”, which was a cruiser by today’s standards. Was he a natural middleweight? No. He matured into a 180ish-lb man… He was a natural 180lber, right?
I have ALWAYS maintained this - fighters ARE what they level out at, in their prime years...

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

I believe too fighters 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 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!
thistle1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 06:46 AM   #13
TheGreatA
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,098
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
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
Old 10-16-2012, 07:14 AM   #14
thistle1
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,982
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

lower achievements aren't ignored, they ADD to greatness, higher weight successes do the same and in fact more to a fighters legacy - but fighters should only be ranked at 1 division, and SRR was a MW, Amstrong had most of his fights at WW too, but I agree with you that he was a small welter, but a WW none-the-less.

and this reality should stand for ALL fighters!
thistle1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-16-2012, 07:28 AM   #15
TheGreatA
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,098
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thistle1 View Post
lower achievements aren't ignored, they ADD to greatness, higher weight successes do the same and in fact more to a fighters legacy - but fighters should only be ranked at 1 division, and SRR was a MW, Amstrong had most of his fights at WW too, but I agree with you that he was a small welter, but a WW none-the-less.

and this reality should stand for ALL fighters!
I do not see the reason why that should be.

Trying to pick what division they should be ranked in is difficult enough and would create a problem in itself between differing opinions. Should Robinson be rated as a welterweight or a middleweight? I certainly don't see any sense in preferring his middleweight work to his welterweight work. He was a welterweight between ages 21-29, which most agree are usually a boxer's prime, and a middleweight between 30 to 45. He is also generally seen as the greatest welterweight of all time, while only a top 5 middleweight at best in most people's rankings.

When a fighter put in work in separate weight divisions, those achievements should be acknowledged. Beating a welterweight while fighting as a welterweight shouldn't count as middleweight achievements. They should count as welterweight achievements. It's just far more simple.
TheGreatA is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013