ESB Weight Obession: Class vs Mass

Heavy hands is a freak of you tube, he says that he is 1,85m and 92 kg, he says that he hit harder that marciano, mcclean, foster, hearns because he is bigger lol.

This freak said that marciano would win tyson, but marciano lost joe frazier lolllll

He suffered bullyng from kid, he feels like a *****, he is a warrior tecleboard.

He only know insults people lolll


Dont feed the troll:hi:

 

fijate si se sabe que eres un crio de edad de instituto que predicas mentiras que yo jamás dije, yo jamas dije que golpeara más fuerte que marciano, simplemente lo añades para darle peso a tu argumento, eres patético crio, patético..tienes que ser mas feo, el pringado de tu barrio por seguro, mira dame tu correo quiero verte por cam y da la cara, quiero verte l a cara de payaso que tienes, eres un pringado virgen, que suerte tienes de que seas d e mi zona, si no te mataba a patadas en l a cabeza pobrecito.
tú vives para esto, estas feliz con tu paquete de golosinas en casa como un gordo esperando para que te responda para volver a responder una y otra vez, ere sun cachito de mierda... asi de simple.. por cierto estaS QUEDANDO COMO UN COMPLETO IDIOTA, NADIE TE VA A TOMAR ENSERIO PORQUE NO SABES INGLÉS, PARA GENTE QUE ENTIENDE EL IDIOMA HABLAS COMO UN MONGOLITO, POR ESO NI ME PREOCUPO PORQUE NO SABES EXPRESAR SIQUIERA TUS MENTIRAS, LA GENTE TE IGNORA JAJA, ESPERO QUE TODA TU PUTA FAMILIA MUERA de cancer o de sida jaja, para salir tú de ahy debe ser una familia de completos fracasados jaja.
you are exactly the same joke on youtube and here... a nobody...


learn english, ****ing dumb ass

 

For whatever it's worth, Lennox was often around the 220s [221 for Weaver] until after it became clear the 15 round distance was not coming back.

Some precedents might be helpful for purposes of reference regarding winning weight limits at HW during the Queensberry era over the classic championship distance, and prior to the naturally evolved 15 round standardization of that limit.

Back in October 1979, boxing experts did not believe Big John Tate could carry 240 pounds against Coetzee outdoors in Pretoria and win over 15 rounds, but it was Gerrie who faded late as Tate took the clear UD, and celebrated his succession to Ali's resigned WBA crown with an energetic knee pumping place jogging jig when the official decision was announced and his hand was raised. Off-hand, Tate-Coetzee produced the heaviest winner of a world class heavyweight fight over the 15 round limit I can think of after the acromegaly enlarged Carnera's successful defenses against Uzcudun and Loughran. [Willard was reportedly 238 and a half for Johnson in Havana, easily the heaviest weight of any world class winner over a distance greater than 15 rounds during the Queensberry era, if my historical references are remotely accurate.]

Tate was later down to 232 for the losses to Berbick and Weaver, while Bugner came in at 230 for his non-effort in the scorching midday heat of his title challenge rematch against Ali in Kuala Lumpur.

A balance might need to be struck between limiting body weight for better stamina, and height for punch resistance, if the championship distance was still in place. If Lennox weighed 220 for stamina and conditioning requirements over 15 rounds, then would his punch resistance be adversely effected by the reduced mass for withstanding punishment? I wonder if Michael Grant, as heavily hyped as he was, may still have simply been too tall to have the required punch resistance necessary to compete successfully at the championship level.

Not offering strong opinions here, just throwing in some considerations for contemplation. Could Lennox be durable enough between 220 and 230 to be as successful in championship competition as he was with the shorter 12 round limit allowing considerable greater weight and muscle mass, while placing less of a premium on mobility? Or would he need to take up basketball instead of boxing? [Bugner at 230 in June 1975 was considerably less mobile for Ali II than he'd been at 219 for Ali I in February 1973.]

 

Tyson Fury is the best heavyweight in history after Valuev. Buster Mathis and Butterbean also rank highly. In Tommo's list.:roll:

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

You had better get used to seeing things through my eyes, because above the level of the casual boxing fan, there are a lot more people who think like me than think like you.

Most people here myself included do not agree with the rankings or Tracy Callis, but most people recognises that he is one of the better boxing historians out there.

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/callis-rankings.htm

 

Rudimentary skills? Louis's skills **** over Haye's and both Klits! All your bull**** about body fat percentage and chubby ex fighters astounds me. You then laud Chisora who lost to Fury only because he had several rolls of fat hanging off him!

Your whole argument is "bigger is better" when it patently is not. Size is a factor, but it always was! What about size impeding certain skills and abilities? These huge guys struggle to fight at a fast pace, so smaller heavyweights of the past could bring that and manoueverability into the equation.

Calling Ali a Cruiserweight is crazy! He is a big man; so was Louis. They were naturally big and didn't do weights or use creatine and god know's what else! They trained for 15 rounds and could fight 15 rounds. They weren't pumped up like Haye or Holyfield, but were naturally bigger men.

I would back Louis, Ali, Frazier, Holmes etc over these chumps today.

 

Woah! Those rankings from that link are not even close. I'm sure that this historian fellow brings a great deal of knowledge to his assessment but it's still lacking in objectivity. And while he probably knows more about boxing and history than I ever will, I feel as though he lacks the greater gift of common sense. There is knowledgeable and then there is accurate.

I love that heavyweight ranking 1.Jim Jeffries 2.Jack Johnson 3. Jack Dempsey 4. Joe Louis. Right around there I stopped and thought, "Well, maybe his favorite letter is J."

 

Like you I agree with his rankings, but this is a very knowledgeable guy, who has come to very different conclusions to us.

There is an infinite range of boxing opinions out there, and some very astute observers attached to all of them.

Historians generaly come down on the side of the old timers. This top 20 list is an average of those presented by members of the IBRO.

1. This content is protected
   This content is protected
2. This content is protected
   This content is protected
3. This content is protected
   This content is protected
4. This content is protected
   This content is protected
5. This content is protected
   This content is protected
6. This content is protected
   This content is protected
7. This content is protected
   This content is protected
8. This content is protected
   This content is protected
9. This content is protected
   This content is protected
10. This content is protected
    This content is protected
11. This content is protected
    This content is protected
12. This content is protected
    This content is protected
    This content is protected
13. This content is protected
    This content is protected
14. This content is protected
    This content is protected
15. This content is protected
    This content is protected
16. This content is protected
    This content is protected
    This content is protected
17. This content is protected
    This content is protected
18. This content is protected
    This content is protected
19. This content is protected
    This content is protected
20. This content is protected
    This content is protected

Updated March 2005

This content is protected

 

Wow. If that ain't playing the "elitist card"...

You must see the contradiction inherent in being a historian of any bent, that is, if your conclusions do not side with the more arcane, the more obscure, then your value and the value of your knowledge has been diminished. This syndrome is rife in academia, even with its safeguards, and moreso in a an unregulated field like this.