Matter of fact who would win between usyk and Tyson?

If you are going to quote me at least do it honestly. You've whipped out the quotations marks and made that phrase up.

A stronger example of high handed would be running around threatening to report people if they didn't respond to demands. Now that's high handed.

The reason i have been short and prompt is so as not to be dragged intoa long boring drawn out back and forth on something that can easily be capped. It hasn't worked evidently.

I can barely understand that. It's multiple times harder to understand than the simple point i made about cut in half or whatever it was. Everyone else understood my point clearly. If it was complex in any way i would have been happy to repeat it.

That's not the crux of the debate. The debate was very confined and simple which is why i don't want to waste any more time unless some concrete examples are thrust forth and then it can be expanded.

As per my last reply above.

As per my last reply above.

As per my last reply above.

 

A poster further on the previous page cited 26 x weigh in to fight night weight gains at LHW. 1 of those 26 had, in both absolute terms and as a % of body weight, the weight gain necessary for Holyfield from Tyson 2 to have weighed in at 200lbs and been the same weight as he was in reality on fight night.

A 1 in 26, or 3.8%, chance seems about right to me. Not the "without problem" you originally quoted.

 

I thought it was clear that I was not distorting what you said, but that effectively what you said amounted to saying don't dare respond to me unless you give me what I demand. Besides that I never said it was common to make that weight shift at CW-& repeatedly said why it seems not to be-I felt it was obvious I was not, & would not, lie about exactly what you said.
I'll make sure to qualify things more for you if you-like me in other contexts-can be so literal.

It is

This content is protected

high-handed to threaten to report someone for verbal abuse & cruelty or mockery that is done at an anonymous distance & brings down the forum.

This content is protected

 

You mean 1 of 26 had the % of weight gain that you believe Holyfield weighed on fight night?
So not 9%, but 11%?
I do not know if 1 in 26 guys is representative across the board for how common it is to do anything over 10%.
But the flaw in logic I see is that even if it is this uncommon, why does that say how hard it is?

For one not everyone-not necessarily even most-are trying to maximize the weight swing.
While there is some advantage, there are other reasons guys might not want to do so much-beyond being labeled a "weight bully".
They may not think it gives them additional advantage past a certain point, not worth the extra effort or dininishing returns, or some other reason.

Also again guys less muscular than Holyfield-like Crawford-all other things being equal will have a harder time.
Like Holyfield would-when he was at CW, & certainly LHW.

Anyhow it is a matter of a few pounds-in how difficult we think it is.
I am just adding amount of muscle-& having excellent trainers like a top fighter would tend to have-into the mix.
To some extent discipline & hard work too: Holyfield would be totally dedicated to the effort.
Oh & the icon reminds me-using PEDs or diuretics would tend to help...

 

I mean 1 in 26 of the LHW weigh in to fight night weight gains posted earlier in this thread were 18lbs+ or a 9%+ increase.

Boxers at world level get every advantage they can. The reason most don't put on 18lbs+ from weigh in to fight night is because its extremely difficult to dehydrate and rehydrate to that extent and/or likely to be detrimental to their performance.

 

Jesus, i'm out at this point.

 

Yes I knew you meant 1 in 26 LHWs in that specific case-I am saying I do not know if that low of a % holds true overall in boxing.
Maybe, but I do not know-& I think perhaps the lower divisions tend to do it or more...More frequently.
At least I hear more examples of folks pulling a "Crawford"!

In most divisions 18 lbs. is more than that 9% figure.

I gave reasons why folks will not see or seek every possible pound of weight loss & gain as an advantage.
Granted that difficulty in doing so is a big reason folks do not push too hard.
But just wanting to not feel like or be a perceived as a weight bully, or feeling the returns are diminishing or nada at a certain point, or something else like advise given...

Boxers like anyone can do or not do something for multiple reasons besides difficulty & risk to performance.
You think what % very difficult or detrimental?

EDIT: I long understood that when wrestlers were weighing in the day before, it was 24 hours: & up to 10% was the limit of what is advisable.
So if it is just about the day & a half you described, this should be somewhat or noticeably easier right?

Because I suspect we differ by like 3-4%.
Crawford down to 135 then back to 153 lbs...That spread of *raw numbers/18 lbs* is Gonna be harder than if he was a bulky HW for sure!

We can ask some serious boxers who have done it-taking into account build & program: they are likely to know better than us!
And amount of muscle + protocol followed effects how easy or hard it is.

 

If you have examples of CWs weighing 218lbs+ on fight night, please share. Having researched and collated data on weigh in to fight night weight gains over the past 6-months, my opinion has changed as my knowledge has improved. I welcome more data and am open to further changing my opinion if that data warrants it.

I'm extremely confident that the vast majority of boxers don't limit the amount of weight they gain post weigh in for fear of being labelled weight bullies. Nor does the potential of such a label play any impact in the weight division they choose to compete in, imo. At the elite level boxers are typically obsessively driven to squeeze out every last marginal advantage that they can.

I agree diminishing returns play a part in why an 18lbs+ weigh in to fight night gain is relatively uncommon. If in your original post on the matter, had you typed words to the effect of- "it is physically possible that Holyfield who weighed 218lbs for Tyson 2 to have weighed in at 200lbs instead, and still rehydrate to the same weight he actually fought at, but his performance would likely have been severely diminished as a result"- I would not have quoted your post to state I disagree.

 

We have plenty of examples at lower weights of 18 pound weight cuts though like Crawford at 153 which still contradict the notion that Holyfield couldn't do it

 

The reasonable conclusion from the available data really is simple and inarguable - Holyfield from Tyson 2 weighing in at 200lbs and rehydrating to the same weight that he actually was on fight night, would not be an unprecedented gain, but the extent of the gain would be in the minority.

That's what I said at the outset of this debate. If you or anyone else can cite data that contradicts my statement in the above paragraph, I'd be genuinely interested in it.

 

Sometimes less is more is what I've learnt just seems like this debate is going nowhere.

 

Oh i'm hearing you. Heavily depends who is on the other end obviously.

 

What about Holyfield from fight 1 when he was only 215?

It also seems like as you move higher in weight 15 pounds would be easier to take off because it is a lower and lower percentage of weight.

 

I'll happily answer that, provided you first provide an estimate of what Holyfield, who weighed in around 12-noon on 8th November 1996 at 215lbs, weighed around 9pm on fight night, 9th Novemver 1996?

Consider - 1) How your own/most people's weight typically differs from 12 noon to 9pm; and 2) Holyfield's body will have become accustomed to burning huge amounts of calories during camp, yet between the weigh in and fight night, he would have been consuming energy rich food whilst resting.

 

For people claiming Usyk is unproven at heavyweight I think its worth considering that the cruiserweights of Usyks era might be better than many heavyweights of earlier eras. Just because they chose to compete at cruiserweight in their own era doesn't mean they wouldn't beat 80s heavies like Williams Berbick Tubbs etc who were much close to them in size than many of the top contenders today.

Why should someone like Bruno be a favorite over Bredis?