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 10-16-2012, 07:41 AM   #16
thistle1
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,977
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatA View Post
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.
understood, but in keeping with the theme of the thread, I agree, a fighter IS what he levels out at - again (generally speaking), as a younger fighter, one merely passes through a lower weight division, as an older fighter, one is past his peak weight, too hard to make weight, at the end of his career and so on, again this is not that fighters true weight!

so you rank him at his level best (what ever weight that is for that fighter), and ALL successes add to their ranking & greatness, it's not really that hard!
thistle1 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-16-2012, 03:18 PM   #17
choklab
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 4,945
vCash: 500
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post

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 )
How big is too big? I would say anything artificial is too big.

A lot of the increase in size is down to training trends and matching what the best in the division at anyone time are doing. Boxers don’t like giving away both weight and height unless the money is right or they can even things up by using a new diet.

At one time there used to be 5’7’’ middleweights. Where did they go? Into the 140lb division! To me, there is no coincidence that that when the best heavyweight is 240lb the rest of the contenders start bulking up.

There once was a time where being a giant never was an advantage. They just got hit more and tired out quicker.

I hear talk of Lewis Bowe and the Klitchcos being such natural giants but all of them but Vitali won fights under 225 pounds! Taller heavyweights are now cutting less weight than they used to because the shorter ones are so encumbered with artificial weight that there really is no speed disadvantage.

Isnt Boxing is about being able to beat people of comparable size and ability? If there is a weight class out there that depends on beating those of less ability with an artificial size advantage it is proof that the success of the champion owes more to beating those of less ability than of the size advantage itself doesn’t it?

Last edited by choklab; 10-16-2012 at 05:39 PM.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 03:42 PM   #18
DaveK
Vicious & Malicious
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,820
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

I thought I'd resurrect this one, as it seems to have the same theme as what's been going on lately here...

It started to get off track- The real question isn't "how big is too big" in terms of how physically big a guy is and still effective, it's "how big is too big" in terms of how much of a weight/size disparity is too much when all things are equal?
DaveK is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 04:10 PM   #19
fists of fury
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: March for Revenge
Posts: 5,725
vCash: 1887
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mendoza View Post
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 )
I like this post in general, but I want to bring up one or two points.

Firstly, Lewis at 240+...was he really any better than than the Lewis of 228 that fought Bruno, Mason & Ruddock?
I will be in the minority for saying this, but I felt that the 240+ Lewis actually took some steps backwards from his lighter self.
At the lighter weight he clearly still carried a lot of firepower, but was a much better mover on his feet and generally sharper.
The heavier version of Lewis still carried the weight fairly well, but he became flat-footed and often lazy.
Perhaps some of the added weight was a natural progression as he got older, but it seemed to me that there was an emphasis on added size once he started with Steward.

Even Wlad against Puritty...he only weighed 224 there (I think, but it was definitely in that range) and I thought he looked tremendous, and punched with authority. Now okay, 224 for a man of his frame is probably a bit light, but what about 234? Would he not be lean and mean at that weight?

I'm not second-guessing a great trainer like Steward, but I never could figure out why he'd take a fighter that to me seems to have everything he needs, but then slap 20 pounds on him?
Did either fighter need added strength? Did the added weight really do anything for their punching power, which was already formidable?

I saw the change less in Wlad than I did in Lewis. To me, Wlad carried the weight better.
To be honest, I never really liked Lewis at 240+. Once he hit over 250, then that was really pushing it.

My second point is that I think it very much depends on the level of competition for a 6'1" 210 lb. fighter. I wouldn't say those days are gone.*

Once Wlad retires, then I don't really see any significant threat out there for a smaller fighter. Maybe a giant like Fury could maul him and overwhelm him with size, or maybe he could get made to look oafish by a well-conditioned, fast, smaller man like a Holyfield or a Chris Byrd.

*Then again, considering this obsession with bulk, they may be.
fists of fury is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 04:16 PM   #20
Ted Spoon
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 963
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

Perhaps we will get some great 7', 300lbs boxers yet, but for whatever was good in Nikolai Valuev, his lack of gun powder was evident. He couldn't get his body into his shots. He is the ultimate antidote to all those vague commentators who blurt out a boxer's poundage when they start swinging.

More tellingly, men of 250lbs are handicapped also it seems (albeit to a lesser degree). Lennox Lewis, Riddick Bowe and the Klitsckho brothers, for example, all lacked the bodily movement and stamina of a Muhammad Ali or a Larry Holmes. There is quite an obvious trade-off for physicality and power in this case.

There's never been more emphasis on size than there is today which is attributable to the jab-n'-grab method of the men at the top and the can't-fight-a-lick method of the men below. Dereck Chisora actually has some solid features about him with his bobbing style, but he is a poor, a very poor man's Joe Frazier.
Ted Spoon is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 04:42 PM   #21
choklab
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 4,945
vCash: 500
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveK View Post
I thought I'd resurrect this one, as it seems to have the same theme as what's been going on lately here...

It started to get off track- The real question isn't "how big is too big" in terms of how physically big a guy is and still effective, it's "how big is too big" in terms of how much of a weight/size disparity is too much when all things are equal?
How big is too big? If we have to pick a number I would say 240. Nobody outside of a few exceptions need to be 240. Take the best all time fighters who never weighed less than 230 and you could not include Lennox Lewis or Riddick Bowe or even Vlad. I think Vitali is it. The sum total of great fighter who never weighed less than 230. One great fighter is not a division. Superheavyweights are kind of a myth.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 04:46 PM   #22
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 20,568
vCash: 1000
Default Re: How big is too big?

There is a reason why we have weight classes.

Sanctioning fees.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 06:28 PM   #23
ribtickler68
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 672
vCash: 500
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rusak View Post
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.
Ali called Foreman "The Mummy", not Louis. Louis wasn't flawless, but his footwork got him close to his opponent. That's all he needed. Louis rarely lunged, so that proves the point.
ribtickler68 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 06:31 PM   #24
ribtickler68
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 672
vCash: 500
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by choklab View Post
How big is too big? If we have to pick a number I would say 240. Nobody outside of a few exceptions need to be 240. Take the best all time fighters who never weighed less than 230 and you could not include Lennox Lewis or Riddick Bowe or even Vlad. I think Vitali is it. The sum total of great fighter who never weighed less than 230. One great fighter is not a division. Superheavyweights are kind of a myth.
I thought Lennox looked and fought best when a bit lighter; maybe the Ruddock fight showed a "perfect" Lennox Lewis?
ribtickler68 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 07:06 PM   #25
choklab
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: bad to the bone and sexy
Posts: 4,945
vCash: 500
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ribtickler68 View Post
I thought Lennox looked and fought best when a bit lighter; maybe the Ruddock fight showed a "perfect" Lennox Lewis?
I agree,Lewis was a better athlete with sharper punches and reactions. Around that time I felt he could not decide to be a boxer or a George Foreman type bomber. He could do both. The problem was he would flit between slugging, sharp shooting and on occasion that funny Walcott waltz thing he did.

Once Stewart took over he squared up Lewis's feet more and did away with that clumsy over hand bowling ball right hand out of a side on stance. Manny concentrated on straightening out Lennox's right hands and working from more disciplined gameplans but by then Lewis was a more mature man and getting heavier. Lewis still was as effective but he had been better.

It's like Ali was proberbly as effective in 1974 as he was in 1964 but by different route. The experience made up for a half inch of timing, there was less waste.
choklab is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 11:59 PM   #26
Entaowed
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 200
vCash: 500
Default Re: How big is too big?

This is an interesting thread, thank you folks.

Now could we see a dominant 6' 10" power forward type of guy? That is the last height that is at all common, I think it could happen, if a great athlete like Dwight Howard has the fortitude & will. And it would be great to see a smaller guy clean up too.
Entaowed is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 12:43 AM   #27
frank
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 146
vCash: 500
Default Re: How big is too big?

Prime Tyson 5'10" 218lb had the power,speed,chin,defense and endurance to beat ANY current giant.
frank is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 01:06 AM   #28
obviousalt
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 933
vCash: 6860
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Entaowed View Post
This is an interesting thread, thank you folks.

Now could we see a dominant 6' 10" power forward type of guy? That is the last height that is at all common, I think it could happen, if a great athlete like Dwight Howard has the fortitude & will. And it would be great to see a smaller guy clean up too.
6'10 is way too tall for a come forward guy.
For a come forward guy having a body like Sam Peter is way more beneficial.(In shape 4 inches shorter than Wlad but still as heavy)
Being tall only means your body has more surface to be hit on if you don't use your reach.
obviousalt is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 01:19 AM   #29
Slavic Thunder
newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 29
vCash: 500
Default Re: How big is too big?

Valuev was to big IMO. It's the weakness of the heavyweight division, that allows this man to win a title and then keep it for as long as he did. I know of his record and knockouts. He was slow and clumsy IMO, and for all his size couldn't punch.

If a contender was out there any good they should have been able to knock this guy out. But they didn't, and to his credit he was a champion. 1 of 4 available titles. Actually more if you include a few others. The heavyweight championship is de-valued.
Slavic Thunder is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 01-08-2014, 04:39 AM   #30
fists of fury
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: March for Revenge
Posts: 5,725
vCash: 1887
Default Re: How big is too big?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Entaowed View Post
This is an interesting thread, thank you folks.

Now could we see a dominant 6' 10" power forward type of guy? That is the last height that is at all common, I think it could happen, if a great athlete like Dwight Howard has the fortitude & will. And it would be great to see a smaller guy clean up too.
I used to think that 6'6" was about the upper limit where a fighter could be well co-ordinated, move reasonably well, and have decent enough overall skill but some fighters like Vitali have passed that mark. Even Fury doesn't look too bad at 6'9". So I have no idea.

Your observation about Howard is spot on too. The man is massive (6'10", 265 lbs.) and a brilliant athlete. I was shocked at how well he could run the 200m too.
I don't know if he'd be a good fighter, but he is a very, very good athlete. That is always a good base to build on.

One thing I will say though, is that the bigger they become, the less variety we will see in terms of style and technique.
There is no point in such a large man bobbing and weaving, or trying to dance like Ali, or fighting inside.

I find that quite sad.

Last edited by fists of fury; 01-08-2014 at 04:50 AM.
fists of fury 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 08:15 AM.


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