Keith Kizer: fighters who add more weight don't have an advantage

[url]https://www.ringtv.com/124365-weigh-ins-day-before-vs-same-day/[/url]

Keith Kizer said that fighters who come into the ring on the night of the fight heavier than their opponents have no advantage and he can provide numbers to back that up. Thoughts?

 

My take away is that a modern day weight bully I.E. Devin Haney can't be given automatic bonus points in mythical H2H matchups over the likes of a say Aaron Pryor for example just because he rehydrates a lot. There are no grounds factually to assume that he or any modern fighters like him would have an advantage over older fighters according to Kizer. Its another boxing myth that needs to be called out more.

 

I noticed that when a weight bully wins its always oh he weighed more. But if he loses its always oh he was too weight drained. Doesn't that seem incredibly superstitious? I mean isn't that line of reasoning a little convenient? You're doing it even now. You're highlighting specific examples of it to confirm the bias we have about it but not looking at the overall pattern which doesn't indicate any advantage at all.

 

Thats exactly how stats work and if fighters that weigh more did have an advantage we would see it bear out significantly in wins. Instead we see that fighters that weigh more statistically do not win more. There you go again giving into superstitions and dogmas instead of facts.

 

Yeah it would be nice to see a major modern day study. But failing that a guy like Kizer would be the next most credible thing as he would have easy access to all this data directly. Unless you believe him to be biased. I don't believe he would be. You bring up good points, but again, its not really based on anything real. Its really just a hunch. If, in the 90's, weighing more statistically improved win percentages we should see that bear out on some level if even marginally. But we do not. A very small improvement to win percentage in the 90's by weighing more could arguably be incrementally improved on further in the 00's and 10's by weighing even more than that, yes, but since we never see any uptick to win percentage show up back then on even a small scale, it doesn't follow that we should see an improvement to win percentage show up later on a larger scale. In other words if win percentage always scales up along with weight, and this is a universal law, we should also be able to go back in time to the 90's and see that law express itself back then as well, if only on a smaller level. But again we never do. Which leads me to believe that it doesn't scale up, and zero times zero is always still zero.

 

I don't see how the factors that affect weight cutting in the 90's don't also affect weight cutting today. For example theres just as many lower paid fighters and higher paid fighters. Still the same amount of lower skilled to higher skilled fighters. Theres no reason to believe that would be different. And if weight cutting techniques have improved (we don't know that, its another hunch) you would still have to prove in the first place that weighing more improves win percentage, which when we look at the 90's we see that weighing more doesn't impart even a slight improvement to win percentages. We still have absolutely zero evidence of this at all.

 

Kizer has all the data available to him. So its kind of the best evidence that exists. Compare that to the evidence that weighing more helps fighters which is zero and is essentially equivalent to an old wives tale that people have just blindly and superstitiously believed in without ever questioning it.

 

And then when they lose which they often do then you'll just say oh he was weight drained. Right? Your belief is unfalsifiable and has the same scientific merit as believing in magic.