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, 09:09 PM   #46
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,295
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMGWTF View Post
""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?
You caught me? Really? The argument for low reps/high weights versus high reps/low weight for endurance have bounced back and forth to extremes over the last few decades. I should know because I'm old and have spent too many hours of my life in gyms. But seriously, the experts used to say the opposite of what they say now, and they probably will again.

All I know is that I'm Rocky's height with longer limbs and bigger frame and would never box at 210-220 (In the past I boxed between 160 and 180). That's just me. Maybe he is just some physical freak when he reaches bowling ball proportions. Somehow I doubt it.

Again, I don't have a degree in this stuff, just personal experience from 25 years of going to the gym almost daily, and reading all the articles and trends (they are always changing so don't tell me the latest and greatest is going to be seen as such in 10 years).

The Morrison comparison you made is all wrong from even a physical perspective. Firstly, Morrison was much bigger framed, a wide body with height at 6 foot 2 and respectable limb length at 77" reach. Secondly, he was a major roider. Thirdly, Marciano would never go for the pec implants.

OK, are we off topic enough yet?
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-15-2012, 10:56 PM   #47
Johnstown
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Johnstown PA
Posts: 2,850
vCash: 500
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

not sure if the rock could have carried another 40 pounds welll...Dempsey could have..given his body deminsons.
Johnstown is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:05 AM   #48
mr. magoo
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois USA
Posts: 13,600
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

I can say one thing with a fair amount of certainty. You can tell by reading threads like these, which posters have a background in fitness and which ones don't.
mr. magoo is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 04:05 AM   #49
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,581
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher View Post
Against the Klits all of them would be dominated. The like Corbett and Fitz wouldn't even be top light heavies or crusers today, boxing moved on too much

Charles and Walcott fought in a golden era of skill
You mean they were black.
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 04:24 AM   #50
OvidsExile
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Washington
Posts: 953
vCash: 500
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolutely! View Post
Chisora had just come off a win against Helenius and having given Vitali one of his toughest fights in years. He was considered, if not the most skilled fighter around, certainly one of the toughest. I'd say he's a pretty good example to prove my point, which is that Chisora represented the squat muscled up "true heavy" of the division, whilst a fighter like Haye was still considered a Cruiserweight with all the baggage that term carries. Haye ended up destroying him with ease, a feat which neither Helenius nor Vitali were able to achieve. His 210lbs were certainly sufficient enough to get the job done. Whether he was the bigger man or not (and I'd wager that Paul Williams had much the same dimensions, and perhaps a longer reach) he was outweighed by over thirty pounds by a man who'd withstood the best the superheavyweight power punchers of the division could throw at him.
I really object to calling Haye a cruiserweight just because he started his career low and fights superheavies. He has the same dimensions as Ali and Holyfield. Larry Holmes was 6'3 too but with 3 inches more reach. Ken Norton was that tall with just two inches more reach. Max Baer was about that size. Pinklon Thomas had an inch less reach. These are big natural heavyweights. Haye is bigger than Joe Louis, much bigger than Jack Johnson. Jack Dempsey and Marciano were true cruiserweights, only topping 6'1 and 5'11".

As for Paul Williams who is 6'1" with a 79 inch reach, he has exactly one inch more reach than Thomas Hearns, whose career trajectory he most likely would have followed. If you remember, Hearns fought low and then ended his career after picking up the cruiserweight title. He had phenomenal power at lower weight classes, and was one of the all time great punchers and that's because he didn't really belong in those divisions. He could have been a light heavyweight or a cruiserweight his whole career if he'd wanted. Just look how reed thin he was as a light middleweight. 6'1 is a good height for a natural cruiser, 6'2" is a small heavy, and 6'3" is a decent sized heavy. 6'4" is a big heavy like George Foreman, Buster Douglas, or Tim Witherspoon and anything taller is a superheavy.

Guys like Eddie Chambers 6'1", Chris Byrd 6', James Toney 5'10", Dwight Qawi 5'6", and Sam Langford 5'6" are the real sub-heavies who had to put on weight to compete.
OvidsExile is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 08:02 AM   #51
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,740
vCash: 330
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolutely! View Post
I'm perfectly aware that size does not overcome all. That was precisely my point.

Chisora, on paper, had certain advantages against Haye that were dependent upon his stockiness and bulk. The fight proved that those advantages were all just smoke. Haye not only had the skills to overcome Chisora's brute strength, but the power to knock him out as well.

The idea that a fighter can "bulk up" and this somehow makes them a better fighter is such nonsense, yet still gets bandied about by fans as if it's a gospel truth. I'm not against strength training per se; in fact I think it's an integral part of training. Rather, I'm against the idea of adding muscle mass willy nilly and somehow hoping it'll lead to magical gains as a result.

A skilled and athletic 210lbs fighter can potentially beat all but the best superheavyweights. The limit might be even lower than that, I don't know. Of course there is a limit, a point where lack of size genuinely becomes a problem, but I don't think Cruiserweight is it.
That's precisely my point.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 09:42 AM   #52
Boilermaker
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 3,977
vCash: 685
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher View Post
Against the Klits all of them would be dominated. The like Corbett and Fitz wouldn't even be top light heavies or crusers today, boxing moved on too much

Charles and Walcott fought in a golden era of skill so could outhustle less skilled big men, but against the Klits? No chance.

Dempsey no chance against the Klits, wins some and loses some against the HW top 30
There is a picuture of fitz walking around at 200lbs plus and while he is in a suit so it makes it difficult to tell, he certainly looks like he would be nowhere near as overweight as say a 200lb James Toney. He could carry he weight without any problem. Only difficulty is that it would sacrifice his speed and probably his power in the later rounds, which would be important.

Watching Wlad against Wach, and i thought it was a pretty good performance, it is hard believe that anyone could give any big hitter a decent punchers chance against him. Dempsey, louis, Foreman (who is proof of what an overweight , old and out of shape big hitter can do), at the higher weight i think might start underdogs, but even if it was walk around out of shape weight, i would still give them a decent punchers chance.

Wlads chin is definitely the most worrying i have ever seen for such a great fighter.
Boilermaker is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 11:47 AM   #53
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMGWTF View Post
Alot of trainers and fighters are thick. Plain and simple.


It makes me cringe to hear the term bulking up when used in the context of sports or athletics.


Bulking up which is what bodybuilders do, it WILL absolutely make you slower, and less enduranced. Its utterly insane to "bulk up" if you are a boxer.


You can put on weight the right way though. Its clear not many people know how or what im talking about.
No offence but you don't have a clue what you're talking about and boxers have always bulked up - Jack Johnson, Sam Langford, Floyd Patterson and Jack Dempsey

There's simple reasons - you don't get pushed around, you can push your opponent around more and you have more weight behind your punches

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
You caught me? Really? The argument for low reps/high weights versus high reps/low weight for endurance have bounced back and forth to extremes over the last few decades. I should know because I'm old and have spent too many hours of my life in gyms. But seriously, the experts used to say the opposite of what they say now, and they probably will again.

All I know is that I'm Rocky's height with longer limbs and bigger frame and would never box at 210-220 (In the past I boxed between 160 and 180). That's just me. Maybe he is just some physical freak when he reaches bowling ball proportions. Somehow I doubt it.

Again, I don't have a degree in this stuff, just personal experience from 25 years of going to the gym almost daily, and reading all the articles and trends (they are always changing so don't tell me the latest and greatest is going to be seen as such in 10 years).

The Morrison comparison you made is all wrong from even a physical perspective. Firstly, Morrison was much bigger framed, a wide body with height at 6 foot 2 and respectable limb length at 77" reach. Secondly, he was a major roider. Thirdly, Marciano would never go for the pec implants.

OK, are we off topic enough yet?
I suppose you could use Tyson and Tua as examples of guys who carry the weight, Toney to. Is Marciano a mesamorph to carry that weight that weight, I'm not sure
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 12:04 PM   #54
Bummy Davis
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 9,450
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Boxing does not produce the lighter and experienced lighter Heavyweights anymore...Guys like Ezzard Charles,Joe Louis,Walcott,Dempsey,Marciano,Langford,Harold Johnson,Archie Moore...the amount of fighters and fights with experienced raised the game back then and remember these guys for the most part were all lean muscle ...all of them today would be heavier,even with out the normal genetic growth of the decades, weight training is taught in school sports changing the natural weight of men
Bummy Davis is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 12:45 PM   #55
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,295
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher View Post

I suppose you could use Tyson and Tua as examples of guys who carry the weight, Toney to. Is Marciano a mesamorph to carry that weight that weight, I'm not sure
Tyson was 200 pounds at age 13. He was naturally that size, no lifting, no space age training, probably living on fast food and government cheese. From pictures of a young Tua, the same seems to be the case. Their muscle mass was natural and not fabricated or even overly encouraged.

In Marciano, we are talking about re-constructing a physique of an athlete in his mid-20's. It's just a different story.
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 12:56 PM   #56
Unforgiven
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 12,581
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
Tyson was 200 pounds at age 13. He was naturally that size, no lifting, no space age training, probably living on fast food and government cheese. From pictures of a young Tua, the same seems to be the case. Their muscle mass was natural and not fabricated or even overly encouraged.

In Marciano, we are talking about re-constructing a physique of an athlete in his mid-20's. It's just a different story.
Marciano could have carried more muscle, perhaps 20 to 30 extra pounds.
But he'd still have short arms.
And I don't think his feet were fast enough.

I think Marciano had a bigger frame than James Toney. And Toney didn't look too bad at 217 against Holyfield.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Unforgiven is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:11 PM   #57
dyna
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,363
vCash: 1551
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bummy Davis View Post
Boxing does not produce the lighter and experienced lighter Heavyweights anymore...Guys like Ezzard Charles,Joe Louis,Walcott,Dempsey,Marciano,Langford,Harold Johnson,Archie Moore...the amount of fighters and fights with experienced raised the game back then and remember these guys for the most part were all lean muscle ...all of them today would be heavier,even with out the normal genetic growth of the decades, weight training is taught in school sports changing the natural weight of men
Joe Louis outweighted most of his opponents...

The division was smaller back then.
dyna is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:38 PM   #58
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus View Post
Tyson was 200 pounds at age 13. He was naturally that size, no lifting, no space age training, probably living on fast food and government cheese. From pictures of a young Tua, the same seems to be the case. Their muscle mass was natural and not fabricated or even overly encouraged.

In Marciano, we are talking about re-constructing a physique of an athlete in his mid-20's. It's just a different story.
I know he was but I thought you were arguing leverage mechanics of a shorter man with shorter arms?

I think when you're talking about muscle mass not being 'fabricated' you're talking about the muscle in the right places for boxers, ie the core/midsection/back/shoulders/legs and not bicep/chest heavy with little stamina. That is achievable when increasing body mass, see Holyfield, or Jack Johnson for that matter

Another thing you have to remember is, you didn't have many fat kids in the ghetto in the era Rocky grew up. If he was fed better he'd be stockier/stronger, maybe even taller and longer. People are products of their eras, my dad who grew up in poorer times is 5'7, I'm 6'0 and my 3yo daughter is as tall as most 5-6yos yet has a 5'0 grandmother. To be fair on the genetics front she also has a 6'0 great grandfather and a 6'0 great great grandmother. But I'd stand by the argument that people are bigger and stronger because of general economic prosperity and I doubt my daughter will ever try to stick bits of old soap together like 1 of her great grandmothers did
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 01:42 PM   #59
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 12,295
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post
Marciano could have carried more muscle, perhaps 20 to 30 extra pounds.
But he'd still have short arms.
And I don't think his feet were fast enough.

I think Marciano had a bigger frame than James Toney. And Toney didn't look too bad at 217 against Holyfield.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
Yeah, but style-wise, Toney set his feet in concrete and worked in the pocket, probably the exact opposite of Marciano. Toney could get away with being a fat-ass because of his mastery of this style. Marciano needed to be what he was in order to win with the style that he had mastered, constant forward movement, ducking at the waist, high power punch output. At 217, he's not going to be effective doing that... at least in my opinion.
Seamus is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 02:55 PM   #60
Absolutely!
Fabulous, darling!
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: A cut above my left nose
Posts: 3,225
vCash: 500
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
That's precisely my point.
Honestly, I'm not quite sure what we're arguing about here. We all more or less seem to be on the same page.

- Bulking up for the sake of bulking up is mostly worthless.

- Strength training (which can result in increased muscle mass) can be beneficial if the strength training is geared towards improving your natural attributes.

- Not all fighters have the frame to carry increased muscle mass, nor the styles to benefit from it.

- A smaller fighter who happens to be very skilled and athletic can overcome a bulkier fighter using speed and explosivity.

Have I missed anything?
Absolutely! 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 07:10 AM.


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