Is size the be all and end all

It is even simpler than that.

The fight would never be sanctioned, therefore the matter can never be tested.

That doesn't mean that the 180 ponder cant win, it just means that we can never know one way or the other.

 

True. The closest alternative question would be how many decent 200 pound fighters beat decent 240 pound fighters in the last 20 + years?

 

Even there you have the issue that nothing much exists between 200 and 210 lbs these days.

Guys who cant make cruiserweigth generally bulk up to 210lbs.

There are examples such as Eddie Chambers.

 

Yeah, but why not fight at 200? Why bulk up higher? Why don't fighters with a smaller frame max out at 200 and fight at HW instead of CW or lhw?

There are plenty of people who are the size of past hw greats out there, but they are all fighting at lower weights. Why not fight at HW if they thought they would win? Alot more money and fame.

 

Stamina and speed isn't as good.

 

Exactly.

 

for 12 rounds, stamina isnt good?

 

It's a matter of percentages.
Realistically they know it's going to be harder to win, and they can't win every fight, and a loss at HW could be career-ending for them. Even winning's going to take its toll.

 

Why would stamina not be good over 12 rds?

 

This Eddie Chambers?

This content is protected

 

To be fair, you get ex cruiserweigths breaking the heavyweight top ten in every era, and you get ex light heavyweights cracking the heavyweight top ten in every era.

 

And herein is the crux of the matter.

It wasn't the heavyweight top ten that the smaller guys couldn't beat in this era, it was just the Klitschko's.

Two men.

 

Very few of the big heavies of that era lost to smaller, former-cruiserweight type guys in their primes.

 

If the cruiserweight's want more fame and money. The smarter move would be to cut weight and fight Mayweather.

 

Just out of curiosity, has anyone actually stated on this board that size is the end all and be all... or even something remotely close?