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

OK, I’m blocking you if you can’t force yourself to give an honest answer to an honest question.

You’ve said numerous times that weight doesn’t matter. So when I ask you to pick a great bantam vs. an average heavyweight belt holder, you dodge it by making it about weight-draining because you absolutely constitutionally cannot just tell the truth and say ‘yeah, Inoue isn’t beating a heavyweight, so in a case like this weight does actually matter.

Nice talking to you. Goodbye.

 

Putting Inoue in with Valuev is indeed "reductio ad absurdum" - but there is a legitimate question somewhere in that direction.

Let's take Devin Haney. He rehydrates to over 160 pounds while fighting at Super Lightweight. If You don't believe it gives him an advantage - it means that You believe He could move up to Middleweight or even Super Middleweight and without adding any weight - be just as successful as He was at 135 and 140.. fighting guys who come into the ring not around 150 lbs like most of his prior opponents - but 180-190 lbs like many Middleweights and Super Middleweights do.

 

If someone walks around at same weight as Marvin Hagler and comes into the ring as heavy as Marvin Hagler - all while having similar level of body fat - how is He not the same size as Marvin Hagler? (Very possible that Hagler was walking around heavier and getting his weight down in the training camp, I don't have any information on that - so just take it as a more open question of what constitutes size).

On first page You mentioned Aaron Pryor - who was fighting in the era of same day weigh in and You suggested that He wouldn't be at disadvantage against modern Super Lightweights just because They'd be heavier in the ring. I think it's a fallacy.
Pryor doesn't have a body of modern Super Lightweight - and competing at Super Lightweight today, assuming He wouldn't be bulking up himself - would mean him fighting much bigger opponent than He was accustomed to in his day.

If You don't believe that's a factor - I think it's not any different than questioning the point of weight-classes in general - and pointing out fighters like Pacquiao and Mayweather who beat bigger man as a counter-argument to any examples of bigger man beating the smaller man.

 

It's possible - but hardly a proof of anything. There are fighters who are able to demolish much bigger opponents - since as We already established there are a lot of factors at play which decide the outcome of boxing match and size is just one of them.
Pryor at his time was competing at weight-class with fighters more or less around his size. There was a reason He wasn't moving up to Welterweight, clearly He believed that size is a factor - and Super Lightweights of today are at the very least the size of Welterweights of his time.
That's natural size too, not some "muscles filled with water" - and one has to be blind not to notice the average size difference of fighters competing in any given division today in comparision to 40 years ago.

 

Mind You - it was You who mentioned Hagler. I think it's indeed a bit of a stretch to compare Haney to Middleweights of the 80s. That's 3-4 weight-classes.
On the other hand I do believe that Errol Spence - for example - was certainly Marvin's size or bigger while competing 2 divisions below in modern times and it's pretty consistant type of difference I see between fighters of today and those from the 80s.
The reason why the impact of size may not be reflected in the winning statistics too well may likely be down to the fact that basically everyone cuts weight and most of the time the weight difference is not big. Then those who can "afford" not to do it are often the great ones who know They can overcome size disadvantage like Floyd and Pacquiao in recent times.

Does anyone believe that fighters like Brandon Rios or Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. could be as effective as They were without the size advantage They enjoyed? There's a reason a lot of fighters with that kind of, more limited, style struggle after moving up.

I also don't quite understand what Your point is regarding weight-lifting or bulking up. If someone adds 20 pounds of muscle to his frame, does that not make him bigger and stronger?

 

Also - one more thing worth noting, regarding the example that Kizer gave in the article:
"A concrete example: Orlando Salido was stripped of his featherweight belt before his fight against Yuriorkis Gamboa on the Rios-Peterson card because he gained more than 10 pounds between the weigh-in and the fight, which violated an IBF regulation.

“Rios won his fight handily,” Kizer said, “but Yuriorkis Gamboa weighed less than Orlando Salido and it didn’t put him at a disadvantage. Gamboa won the fight.”

Both fights are on Youtube so I checked.
Rios had 12 pounds over Peterson at the time of the fight, while both Gamboa and Salido weighed in at 140 pounds. That means that even if Gamboa made the second-weigh in, He still ended up adding as much weight by the time of the fight as Salido did.

Also - one more thing regarding the study. There are 3 possible results, right? Win, lose... or draw.
Which would mean that if heavier fighter wins 50% of the time - at least some kind of advantage was shown even there. With some share of draws, the lighter fighters winning % had to be in the 40s.

 

Does Celestino Caballero have bigger frame than Mike Tyson?
One only needs one look at them in the ring to not have any doubt - and if that wasn't enough, Ray was calling fights for PBC. Not sure if it was in the context of Spence specifically - but He was also talking with disbelief about how much weight fighters today were putting on and He said that He himself would put on maybe 5 pounds at most from the weigh in to the fight.
Saying that at Welterweight Spence at 165 is not any bigger than 152 lbs Leonard is pretty wild statement imo - and based on some big misconceptions. If We talk about some fleeting "natural weight" it's also not particulary relevant. We can say that "manufactured" weight is not the same as natural weight, which is fair enough - but it's still contributing to extra strength and disputing that is putting basic biology and physics in doubt.

I'm also not sure how much weight lifting are fighters really doing - and how much bulking up effect it has for fighters who are cutting calories, thus obviously in catabolic state. I believe it's moreso functional training and way of maintaining muscle mass while cutting weight - for the guys who stay within one division.

We could if Keith said that lighter fighter won 50% of the time, but He didn't. As it is We can assume that perhaps He was sloppy with his delivery - which doesn't speak to well of his data overall, particulary while the information on Salido and Gamboa He brought up was also at the very least misleading.

 

It's hardly logical conclusion in a sport where there are 3 possible outcomes and - judging by average betting odds - some 4% of matches end up in draw. If Bigger men won 50% of the time, We get 3-4% of draws - it means that lighter fighter won 46-47% of the time.
It is possible that They disregarded the fights that ended up in draw, but I don't see why They should? After all draw for a lighter fight should be looked as case in point that the size was not decisive, if that's what They wanted to study.
If You google Premier league home advantage statistics - You get 46% home win - 22% Draw - 32% Away win (For some season). Obviously if You hear that Home Team wins 46% of a time - You won't assume that Away team wins 54 % of a time.

Allright, thanks for talking and I'll rest my case - although to be honest I got the same feeling as while talking to people who try to prove that men don't have advantage over women in sports and They also hold on to any kind of evidence They can, even if it clearly defies common sense.
If someone wants to believe in something, nothing can stop him from it. It's also worth pointing out that Keith comes across far less confident in this assertion than You do. He said He's not convinced it gives fighter an edge. I certainly believe it's a bit overstated and overexaggerated - but to say that size does not matter at all, well - that's another kind of argument.