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 11-16-2012, 02:59 PM   #61
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolutely! View Post
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?
We're not arguing, we agree. For a boxer to compete with genuinely elite superheavyweights they need to be above 200 pounds.

The question is could the likes of Dempsey and Walcott successfully put on the extra 2 stone without a huge detriment to style and ability?
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-16-2012, 03:03 PM   #62
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 Ovid***ile View Post
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.
I would also object to Haye being called a Cruiserweight, or indeed Cruiserweights being called small heavyweights at all when historically compared to older heavyweights (who were often naturally smaller men).

However, I don't agree that height should automatically determine what weight class you belong to. David Tua was five nine. Would you say he was a natural welter? Of course not.
Absolutely! is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 03:04 PM   #63
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 11,549
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolutely! View Post
Have I missed anything?
Yes, we need to talk more about my experience in the gym.

Here is me and my buddies a few years back showing off our fitness. I still have my fitness logs from back then if you are interested.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeMJOPlK-0E[/ame]
Seamus is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 03:11 PM   #64
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
We're not arguing, we agree. For a boxer to compete with genuinely elite superheavyweights they need to be above 200 pounds.

The question is could the likes of Dempsey and Walcott successfully put on the extra 2 stone without a huge detriment to style and ability?
I think Dempsey could, but I really can't say for certain. He seems to have the right sort of frame for packing on useable muscle weight. Walcott I reckon would be a CW today. Same with most of the other fighters mentioned. Jack Johnson might be able to bulk up his core (he seemed to be a bottom heavy fighter) and it might well improve his clinch-wrestling style of fighting. Marciano I think could pack on the muscle mass easily enough, but it would affect him detrimentally as a fighter.
Absolutely! is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 03:13 PM   #65
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 Seamus View Post
Yes, we need to talk more about my experience in the gym.

Here is me and my buddies a few years back showing off our fitness. I still have my fitness logs from back then if you are interested.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
You have very pert buttocks. I'm mildly aroused.
Absolutely! is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2012, 04:38 PM   #66
Bummy Davis
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 8,834
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.
Tyson was a short heavyset kid but remember he participated in the Olympics in the under 200lb weight limit and where he lost in the box-offs to Henry Tillman...Cus had him in training at a very young age and brain washed him that he was going to be heavyweight Champion of the world, Tyson always had power but Cus gave him belief.....but he did fight in the under 200 class trying to get into the OLYMPICS
Bummy Davis is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 02:04 PM   #67
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Tyson could never be a cruiser as an adult. now way.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-27-2012, 03:05 PM   #68
Jear
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 772
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Holy was around 205 for Douglas, Bowe I and Foreman and well under 220 for both Lewis fights. Lewis and Bowe are two of the very elite Superheavies si it makes me think the TOP smaller guys from yesteryear would still go ok
Jear is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2012, 06:49 AM   #69
Mendoza
Dominating a decade
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 13,771
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by lufcrazy View Post
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?
The key word is today. Not very is your answer. Here’s a good rule of thumb. Skilled super heavies with power almost always beat smaller opponents who are not power punchers. Exceptions to the rule would be an injury, or bad judging.



On a fair score card Holyfield is 1-4 vs. Lewis and Bowe.



If you want to use modern examples Adamek was completely outclassed by an olderVitali Klitschko. Byrd was badly beaten twice by Wlad, and was lucky Vitlai was injured. Chambers hardly won a round vs. Wlad. Hide lasted less than 2 rounds vs Vitali. Haye was scared of Wald. Jones would never fight Klitschko, and Toney wisely declined a chance for a title to meet Wlad, and then took a fight for less money and no major belt.



I don’t see how any of the below names, with the possible exception of Dempsey would have a realistic chance of victory. And I say this because Dempsey had great power, good mobility, good speed, and enough reach ( 77” ), and took the fight to his man. Out boxing super heavies with skills since 1990 is very rare. Only Bowe lost one decision and it was a razor thin one at that. Lewis, and Both Klitschkos never lost a decision.
Mendoza is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2012, 10:11 AM   #70
Seamus
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 11,549
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

I think it is certainly possible for a lighter heavy to get a bauble. However, as it did with even a great fighter like Holyfield, fighting giant, powerful dudes every time out will make for a rocky and uneven stay at the top. The wear and tear, the x factor of power, not only in punches but in the clinches and other action, and the durability make for formidable obstacles for a smaller fighter to overcome every time out. It would be something like Usain Bolt giving his opponents a 3 meter head start in every race. He is still going to win most of the time but it would be too much to win every time.
Seamus is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2012, 11:10 AM   #71
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

I reckon Dempsey and jersey could carry the weight well enough. Maybe schmelling as well.

I think if you get an elite 210 man vs an elite 240 man the weight isn't as guys a deal and it is more a matter of styles clashing to determine a victor.

Holy fought even with a prime bowe. Mercer took Lewis to the limit. Byrd had vitali quit on his stool. Haye fell short against wlad but was he giving it his all in the ring? Young beat foreman.

basically I think that providing you can break the 200 barrier and retain what makes you special, you have a realistic chance vs any heavyweight in history.
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-28-2012, 09:58 PM   #72
Decker
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,018
vCash: 1000
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
The key word is today. Not very is your answer. Here’s a good rule of thumb. Skilled super heavies with power almost always beat smaller opponents who are not power punchers. Exceptions to the rule would be an injury, or bad judging.

On a fair score card Holyfield is 1-4 vs. Lewis and Bowe.

If you want to use modern examples Adamek was completely outclassed by an olderVitali Klitschko. Byrd was badly beaten twice by Wlad, and was lucky Vitlai was injured. Chambers hardly won a round vs. Wlad. Hide lasted less than 2 rounds vs Vitali. Haye was scared of Wald. Jones would never fight Klitschko, and Toney wisely declined a chance for a title to meet Wlad, and then took a fight for less money and no major belt.

I don’t see how any of the below names, with the possible exception of Dempsey would have a realistic chance of victory. And I say this because Dempsey had great power, good mobility, good speed, and enough reach ( 77” ), and took the fight to his man. Out boxing super heavies with skills since 1990 is very rare. Only Bowe lost one decision and it was a razor thin one at that. Lewis, and Both Klitschkos never lost a decision.
My short answer was: in nearly all cases, not very effective.

Your post was a good, longer answer
Decker is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-23-2012, 04:45 AM   #73
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Seeing adamek last night (well this morning for me)... Leads me to believe that any great cruiserweight should be able to bulk up and make an impact and they should compete with other similar sized contenders.

Chances against a genuine shw great are piss poor though. The best chances belong to the the bigger framed guys (Dempsey etc).
lufcrazy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-26-2012, 11:48 PM   #74
Theron
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,299
vCash: 773
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Well i don't think size matters as much as none of the fighters wanting to actually fight!, they just do the bare minimum which makes one fighter look alot better the Klitschkos for example, it's not competitive cause they don't even try, maybe if they got in better shape and weren't walking statues and tried to bring the fight to other fiighters it might be better
Theron is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-28-2012, 06:24 AM   #75
lufcrazy
requiescat in pace
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: England, Up North
Posts: 22,447
vCash: 330
Default Re: how effective would the lighter heavyweights be today?

Hmmm that picture of Toney got me thinking. He doesn't look like a joke at all.

Granted it's only against a shot holy but Toney had a respectable hw campaign. Who was the tallest guy he fought? Ruiz was it or Guinn.

I am still convinced the classic guys of 180-190 cannot seriously compete as they were. But put them at 205-215 and it is a realistic goal.
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 08:46 PM.


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