Joe Calzaghe v Roy Jones Jnr 2002

I don't know, you'd have to ask Michael and Mackie. There must have been a valid reason. I've read a few things about Mackie over the years, and I've seen the two documentaries where he worked with Roy for the Ruiz and the Tarver fights. The guy's meticulous.


But again, this only happened once in 27 fights at the weight.


You're saying that he could easily have made 160.


So I want you to tell me how that would have been possible, and try and be specific.


If he had to lose 25 pounds, 8 of which was actual muscle, and he had a body fat percentage of only 4.6%, then how would he have been able to shed another 10 pounds?


Again, don't forget that you're only working from the Sears figures, which was his lightest.


He came in heavier than 170 for all of his other LHW fights. Mackie had him dropping between 20-25 pounds for each fight. The Sears fight was the full 25, and the others were in between.


It would have been physically impossible for him to have made 160.

 

I need a little clarification. As I recall it, Spinks cancelled a unification fight with Eddie Gregory because Gregory (or Mustafa Muhammad) didn't make weight. That made for a subsequent change away from same day weigh ins.

This could mean that the weighin in this case was the day before. Do you have any info?

Not that it matters that much.


Listen. Spinks weighed in 5 lbs below the limit, so its probably correct to assume that 170 was close to his best fighting weight. We can agree so far right?

We can also agree, that fighters (humans) normally gain weight as they grow older right?

And finally we should also be able to agree that weighing in the day before, gives you an added opportunity to rehydrate, compared to same day weigh in, if you have drained yourself to make the weight right?

So Spinks had his best fighting weight of 170 lbs 8 years into his Pro career. Now tell me:

1: Would his best fighting weight 8 years younger be lower or higher than 170 lbs?

2: since his best fighting weight was close to 170 8 years into his career, modern technique of IVs and supplements as used by Gatti, Bute, Dawson etc. would enable you to rehydrate more than 10 lbs if you chose to dehydrate to make a limit right?

 

BatTheMan,

I'd heard about this before, but to be honest, I didn't know any specific details. So I've just done a little research.

The weigh in was the same day of the scheduled fight.

It was early on a Friday morning, which was the 15th of July, 1983.

Eddie weighed in at 177 at 8.30am, and was given 2 hours to make weight. But he didn't even try to shed the 2 pounds, because he was convinced that the scales had been tampered with, even though it had been calibrated by the U.S. Department of weights and measures.

The bout was then changed to a 10 round non title fight, with both fighters having to take a large hit financially, because HBO were no longer willing to pay their agreed price for a 15 round title fight.

Spinks initially agreed to it, but after consulting with his trainer Eddie Futch, he then decided against it, and the fight was cancelled.

But again, that was his lowest ever weight at LHW. His other weights were between 170-175.

Yes.

Of course. But only if you can make the weight in the first place.

1. According to the Sports Illustrated article, Spinks's weight of 170 for Sears, was the lightest he'd weighed at LHW, since the Olympics in 1976. So when he turned pro in 1977, he fought above 170.


2. His best weight was always between 170-175.


Modern techniques of helping a fighter to rehydrate, can only be of use, if they can hit the weight safely in the first place.

But no modern techniques could have helped Spinks rehydrate from a 160 weigh in, because he could never have got to 160 in the first place.


We're just going around in circles.

I'm just repeating myself, quoting the same figures.


Again, Spinks lost 8 pounds of muscle and 17 pounds of fat, to hit 170 for Sears, which was the lowest weight he ever fought at professionally. His body fat percentage was really low at just 4.6%.

There's just no way he could have lost another ten pounds.


It would have been physically impossible, according to Mackie's figures.

Everybody has a limit.


Tell me how you think Spinks could have made 160?


What advantage would there have been in even attempting it?


How many fighters have you heard of that have had to cut muscle and not fat to make weight? There's only a small percentage.

You can have a large fight night weight advantage over your opponent, but how much of an advantage would it be, if you'd had to kill yourself to make the weigh in in the first place?


Losing weight can be extremely dangerous.


Look what happened when Oscar fought Pac.


Oscar could rehydrate to up to 10 pounds + for his fights.

Freddie Roach expected him to rehydrate up to around 15 pounds against Pac.

But he only rehydrated by 2.


His body was depleted.

 

If Spinks was so much smaller 8 years earlier, why was 170 his lowest weight? The MW limit he fought in as an amateur is 165... The man was naturally 190, with less body fat than a pro QB... When cutting strategically with Mackie's help, the lowest he ever weighed in at professionally was 170, with 4.6 % body fat... And had already taken off 8-9 lbs of muscle to get there..

Every fighter is different, that man didn't have a MW build, and had he killed himself to get there, he would not have been the Michael Spinks we know, and would not have been world championship caliber there in my opinion. I am sure anyone but Dailey would agree...

I am not sure I can call Bat "Dailey"

Bailey is much more factual, and wouldn't turn a blind eye to basic science...

 

But he had the best sceitific advisor right? So he was prepared for a fight at 175 lbs and came in way below the limit. So 170 lbs was definetely better than 175. We can agree so far right?

Of course it could. Plenty of MW's today is fighting at weights in excess of 170 lbs. We can agree on that as well right? After all it is factual.





I deleted the rest of your post. No need to reply on that as we where adressing old points. I suspect you agree.

 

BatTheMan,

You're like a dog with a bone.

It was for ONE fight out of 27, with an extremely low body fat percentage. There was no fat to burn at the end, so he burnt away muscle according to Mackie.

So how would he have got to 160?

I want to tell me how he could have done it.

Yes plenty of MW's today rehydrate in excess of 170 pounds.

But they have to hit 160 first, before they rehydrate. That's the difference.

How could Spinks have hit 160 in the first place?

How many 160 fighters do you know, who've had to lose actual muscle to make weight?


Based on the evidence at hand, it wouldn't have been safe for him to even have attempted it.

It would have been completely illogical.

:good

 

It would have defied all logic for him to have even attempted to make 160.

I just hope that the day never comes where I'm debating with them both at the same time.

 

You dont really get it do you?

Spinks made 170 for a 175 limit bout. He did it most likely without Draining himself. Drain him and then he makes 160 and is easily 170+ come fightnight.

 

You've got to let it go.

What don't you understand about the fact that he only weighed 170 for one fight?

The other 26 fights at the weight were ABOVE 170.

Spinks made that 170 bout by losing 25 pounds, that included burning muscle.

So to hit 160, he'd have had to lose 35 pounds, that included cutting even more muscle.

His body fat percentage would have been dangerously low.

It's just ridiculous.


You're just arguing, either for the sake of it, or because you don't want to back down.


Let's look at things logically.

If he'd burnt away another 10 pounds of muscle, because there was no body fat left, what sort of condition do you think he'd have been in?

Chavez Jnr isn't burning muscle.

So he can get to 160, and then he can rehydrate by large amounts.

But a guy burning 18 pounds of muscle?

How would he rehydrate?

Do think after the weigh in, everything would be fine, and he'd get a load of weight back and be healthy and strong?

If he'd have cut all that muscle, the chances are he wouldn't put a lot back on.

Draining somebody who's losing body fat, is different to draining someone by cutting muscle.

If by some miracle he'd have managed to hit the weight, would it have been safe for him to fight?

What would his body fat percentage have been cutting another 10 pounds?

You're under the impression that he'd have had this huge advantage on fight night and that everything would have been fine.

Do you seriously think it was plausible, and he could have kept doing it over and over?

Do you seriously think at 6'2, walking around naturally between 187-192 pounds, that he could easily have hit 160 for 27 fights??

Come on.

 

Weighing in at 170 for a 175 lb fight trained by a scientific expert, means that Spinks was not drained at the weight. Drain him and he makes 160.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMKejnHCqTA
Go to 06:42

 

keith holmes was also 6'2" as well and fought jmw late in his career. there is very little logic why spinks wouldve weighed in five pounds under the limit at 4.6 body fat if he didnt have to.

 

Kelly Pavlik is a flabby drunk in between fights..

His body size is NOTHING like Spinks', who's natural weight in between fights was a solid 190 with 8% body fat.. Spinks was all muscle, he would have had to lose a significant amount of muscle to get down to 160.. It would have defied all logic.

 

Also Bat the question I asked..

If Spinks was such smaller man earlier in his career, why was 170 the LOWEST he has ever weighed in at?

 

He cut 25 lbs by training and lost muscle... He would have lost MORE muscle draining the last 10 with 4.6% body fat.. Mackie had a point to get him right under the 175 lbs limit, I am not sure of his reasoning but it wasn't by accident, and it wasn't easy on Spinks.

What don't you get? What is the point of draining and then hydrating when you have just taken off more muscle? That is how fighters come in weak and drained, even today.