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 11-15-2012, 12:13 PM   #1
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,870
vCash: 330
Default how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

I'm talking very generally here but in recent times we've seen guys pile on muscle and become a threat in the he division to varying degrees of success.

Holyfield, hide, Byrd, Toney, Jones, adamek, Huck, chambers and haye.

Some reached the top and almost all cracked the top 5 at some point.

Should it be assumed that today guys like marciano, Dempsey, Paterson, Corbett, fitz, Charles, Walcott and others could campaign successfully as 200+ fighters?

I'm not saying all would beat wlad but I'm asking whether all could carry the weight as easily as others have done.

I mean if Byrd can reach the pinnacle of the division in the post 90's era should we assume that others could as well?
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-15-2012, 12:24 PM   #2
Boxed Ears
Smugly Savvy Feelings
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pazinfowit, Esperantia
Posts: 24,956
vCash: 26664
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: People vastly overrate heavyweight size. There's a reason why it took so long to even bother with cruiserweight and why there is now no super heavyweight division. And why some of our best heavyweights either came from cruiserweight, or are the same damn size as your average cruiserweight on fight night. No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, the size differences, sometimes very big ones, but there is way too much made of it. Styles and skill levels mean more at these weights than anything else, at the highest level.
Boxed Ears is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 12:33 PM   #3
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,870
vCash: 330
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxed Ears View Post
I've said it before and I'll say it again: People vastly overrate heavyweight size. There's a reason why it took so long to even bother with cruiserweight and why there is now no super heavyweight division. And why some of our best heavyweights either came from cruiserweight, or are the same damn size as your average cruiserweight on fight night. No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, the size differences, sometimes very big ones, but there is way too much made of it. Styles and skill levels mean more at these weights than anything else, at the highest level.
I agree to an extent but using marciano as an example, if he is giving away 70+ pounds in weight he will definitely lose to wlad. If he could train up to say 220 and be a power punching tank, I'm suddenly not so sure :
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 12:38 PM   #4
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,760
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxed Ears View Post
I've said it before and I'll say it again: People vastly overrate heavyweight size. There's a reason why it took so long to even bother with cruiserweight and why there is now no super heavyweight division. And why some of our best heavyweights either came from cruiserweight, or are the same damn size as your average cruiserweight on fight night. No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, the size differences, sometimes very big ones, but there is way too much made of it. Styles and skill levels mean more at these weights than anything else, at the highest level.
If Vitali Klitschko were 6'2", 215 lbs, theres no way he'd be around still kicking ass at age 41.
mr. magoo is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 12:38 PM   #5
LittleRed
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yoknapatawpha
Posts: 3,269
vCash: 475
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Let me ask a hypothetical. Let's say Julian Jackson had James Toneys skills. His defense, his ability to counterpunch, add his chin. Let's say he doesn't bulk up. How far does 160lb Jackson go? Is he more or less successful than Bob Fitzsimmons?
LittleRed is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 12:40 PM   #6
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,870
vCash: 330
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleRed View Post
Let me ask a hypothetical. Let's say Julian Jackson had James Toneys skills. His defense, his ability to counterpunch, add his chin. Let's say he doesn't bulk up. How far does 160lb Jackson go? Its he more, our less successful than Bob Fitzsimmons?
I dismiss anyones chances if they weight that low. I'm wondering whether it's a safe assumption that they could successfully bulk up.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 12:50 PM   #7
LittleRed
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yoknapatawpha
Posts: 3,269
vCash: 475
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Oh. I think that depends. Are steroids allowed?
LittleRed is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 12:56 PM   #8
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,870
vCash: 330
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleRed View Post
Oh. I think that depends. Are steroids allowed?
Lets say modern training. By that I mean if you assume modern big guys are using steroids then assume these guys can. If you assume they're clean then assume these guys would be clean.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 12:57 PM   #9
Boxed Ears
Smugly Savvy Feelings
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Pazinfowit, Esperantia
Posts: 24,956
vCash: 26664
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. magoo View Post
If Vitali Klitschko were 6'2", 215 lbs, theres no way he'd be around still kicking ass at age 41.
You're right. No one in their forties kicks ass unless they're massive. This is a very good point. Also, he'd fight exactly the same way if he were five inches shorter and forty pounds lighter. Of course, you can't prove or disprove what you're saying. It's a guess, even if it's spoken as a statement of fact. We have no more idea of what Vitali would do at 6'2, 215 than if we made Baby Jake the same size as Bob Foster. It's all meaningless jibber-jabber when you float stuff like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
I agree to an extent but using marciano as an example, if he is giving away 70+ pounds in weight he will definitely lose to wlad. If he could train up to say 220 and be a power punching tank, I'm suddenly not so sure :
These discussions rarely go anywhere, do they? I'm out. It's going to be the same thing every time. PP's going to come in with his modern training and nutrition, it's going to descend into a weird Klitschko argument and then we'll get some trolls and then Seamus is going to post something about Meehan and I'm going to crack some jokes about how big Liston wasn't. I've got to go for a BM.
Boxed Ears is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 01:08 PM   #10
OMGWTF
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 353
vCash: 535
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxed Ears View Post
I've said it before and I'll say it again: People vastly overrate heavyweight size. There's a reason why it took so long to even bother with cruiserweight and why there is now no super heavyweight division. And why some of our best heavyweights either came from cruiserweight, or are the same damn size as your average cruiserweight on fight night. No, I'm not saying it doesn't matter at all, the size differences, sometimes very big ones, but there is way too much made of it. Styles and skill levels mean more at these weights than anything else, at the highest level.
This.

Its natural to over estimate size and muscle, its either instinctual or part of societal/media nurture or both combined.

Only the educated and or experienced know this.

Any kid or adult thats never seen a bodybuilder before would assume he is much stronger than a much smaller less defined less muscualr athlete, but its the athlete that is much stronger.

Most people would assume with "common sence" that a bigger man would hit harder than a smaller man, but they dont realise some people are very explosive and this is not visible till they move quickly or KO someone.

Since this is a speed and power endurance based sport and not so much a strength based sport, and since bigger men are extremely likely to be slower and less explosive with less cardio, the size difference dosnt make a huge difference.

I would go as far as saying its a disadvantage to be huge due to a lack of speed and endurance. Hence why huge guys only rise to the top when the competition pool is very low (as do middleweights like roy jones and james toney) point is they wouldnt make it into the lime light if there was the same level of competition as the 80's 90's etc

Throughout Tysons career they were saying this next guys just too big for tyson, and theve been saying the same thing throught history with other fighters like Dempsey, Rocky etc and I bet they will continue to say the same things in the future. In answer to your question the old greats would do exceptionally well especially within their division but also still in the HW weight division.

Last edited by OMGWTF; 11-15-2012 at 01:23 PM.
OMGWTF is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 01:37 PM   #11
choklab
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 5,658
vCash: 500
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMGWTF View Post

I would go as far as saying its a disadvantage to be huge due to a lack of speed and endurance. Hence why huge guys only rise to the top when the competition pool is very low (as do middleweights like roy jones and james toney) point is they wouldnt make it into the lime light if there was the same level of competition as the 80's 90's etc


Being a giant never was an advantage untill the heavyweight division started to be about how big you can get. Thats when it gave the big old has beens a chance.

Heavyweights started to have a different training regime. People talk about skilled athletic giants - its not true. There are exceptions but mostly its a case of a slower pace suiting body builders and old men.

you can make a young man as slow as an older man if you put enough weight on him. It is harder to expose an older fighter now because the youngsters are carrying artficial weight. Experience counts if you control the pace ....and the pace is slow now.

I think If the best classic sized heavyweights trained before 1960s would still be good enough as they were.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 01:42 PM   #12
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,870
vCash: 330
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post


Being a giant never was an advantage untill the heavyweight division started to be about how big you can get. Thats when it gave the big old has beens a chance.

Heavyweights started to have a different training regime. People talk about skilled athletic giants - its not true. There are exceptions but mostly its a case of a slower pace suiting body builders and old men.

you can make a young man as slow as an older man if you put enough weight on him. It is harder to expose an older fighter now because the youngsters are carrying artficial weight. Experience counts if you control the pace ....and the pace is slow now.

I think If the best classic sized heavyweights trained before 1960s would still be good enough as they were.
It's always beenan advantage which is why we have weight classes.

I'm asking if the lighter champs from yesteryear could put on the weight successfully and compete.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 01:44 PM   #13
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,432
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
I agree to an extent but using marciano as an example, if he is giving away 70+ pounds in weight he will definitely lose to wlad. If he could train up to say 220 and be a power punching tank, I'm suddenly not so sure :
I hate to envision what a 5 foot 11 guy with stubby 67" arms, an extremely long torso and already thick legs, would look like with an additional 40 pounds on him. He would be an immobile fire plug, with less explosion, no stamina... a sitting duck for longer, speedier fighters to tee off upon...

Flawed concept.
Seamus is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 01:47 PM   #14
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 39,963
vCash: 75
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

I agree.

I also think that Eddie Chambers would be a better heavyweight if he was an in-shape 190-195.

Blubber means nothing.

To bulk up a guy like Marciano? Wouldn't work. Seamus is spot on.
Flea Man is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2012, 01:49 PM   #15
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,870
vCash: 330
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
I hate to envision what a 5 foot 11 guy with stubby 67" arms, an extremely long torso and already thick legs, would look like with an additional 40 pounds on him. He would be an immobile fire plug, with less explosion, no stamina... a sitting duck for longer, speedier fighters to tee off upon...

Flawed concept.
But would he though? We've seen guys putting weight on without much ill effect in terms of speed and stamina. Look at the guys listed in the op.
lufcrazy 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 01:03 PM.


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