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

So many variables. Everyone handles extreme weight draining/rehydration differently. It may leave some guys at a disadvantage if it leads to them being weaker and with less stamina than they normally have at their walk-around weight. For guys who take to it well, maybe it's an advantage, but that would really depend on what kind of fighter they are and how the fight proceeds.

I'm guessing the way it works the best is for a guy who takes to dehydration/rehydration well and does because he's stupid tall for the weight class. Like 6'4" Hamzah Sheeraz fighting at 160. I'd be surprised if he could make LHW on fight night. He's not doing it just to have some extra weight to shove guys around with, he's doing it because he HAS to. Look at his physique. He's shredded down real low. The weight is just coming from his height.

 

I do my best, thanks.
By the way - do anabolic steroids give advantage in sports like many track and field contests, weight lifting, boxing... or it's a myth as well? After all, the gold medalists are usually not the ones getting caught.

 

Allright, I decided to look at pubmed and guess what. Other studies have been done too.
Here's one where clear advantage for the fighters who "regained more relative body mass" was found in both Boxing and MMA:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36473482/
"Results: Among 708 MMA athletes included, winners regained more relative body mass (8.7% [3.7%] vs 7.9% [3.8%], P < .01) than losers. In 1392 included male boxers, winners regained significantly more relative body mass (8.0% [3.0%] vs 6.9% [3.2%], P < .01) than losers. Each percentage body mass increase resulted in a 7% increased likelihood of victory in MMA and a 13% increase in boxing. The relationship between RWG and competitive success remained significant in regional and male international MMA athletes, as well as boxers. WD predicted victory in international mixed martial artists and boxers. WD predicted victory by knockout or technical knockout in international MMA athletes and regional boxers."

Conclusion: This analysis of combat-sport athletes indicates that RWG(Rapid Weight Gain) and WD(Weight Differential) influence competitive success. These findings raise fair-play and safety concerns in these popular sports and may help guide risk-mitigating regulation strategies.

 

I don't see how you can create a sound statistical study on this subject. There are too many subjective parameters. Is fighter A a better boxer than B? Who is in better shape mentally as well as physically? How do the styles matchup? Is their ring experience equal; have they faced equally skilled opponents?

 

Thanks, good data. It's not too surprising that it may not matter for youth Amateur Boxers - Amateur boxing is a bit different sport, also with different weigh-in system (You weigh in before every fight during the tournament - and the weigh in is done on the day of the fight, I believe - leaving less time for recovery).
The IBF data is interesting though. One thing to keep in mind is that on that level We usually deal with two fighters who rehydrate to roughly same weight, big differences are relatively rare which is why people still remember Gatti vs Gamache for example - and here I think We could have more variety on lower level, perhaps, leading to different results in study done on regional level?
Then another thing is They did it with one governing body which has a mandatory second weigh-in, so it limits potential discrapency to certain range as well.

I still don't think it proves the parts of your assertions I found problematic - which is that 10-15 pounds in weight (So a weight difference that could be expected between fighters from the same day weigh-in era and today's era competing in same division, like Super Lightweight) would not be a consistant disadvantage for a lighter fighter.

 

I think it can be more beneficial in sports with grappling involved, though. Body mass and strength are probably more important in those sports.

 

Yeah, as I wrote in the previous post, it's not really a surprise that extra mass and strength would give more benefit in a sport where grappling is a part than in boxing. That's also probably why you have most of the really huge weight cutters in MMA.

 

How much do you think Sheeraz weighs on fight night? Considering he's 6'4", he's got to be walking into the ring at 175+.

 

Allright, I'll try to address it.
1)

To be more precise the data that You chose to highlight suggest that it's not a consistant advantage - while other data(Much bigger study, looking at 1392 professional fighters), suggest something else.

2) I don't see a point of using ATG like Floyd as example. We could just as well use him and Pacquiao to prove that weight-classes don't matter.
Diego Corrales had very succesful career as a big Super Featherweight and Lightweight. The reason that it didn't matter against Floyd is a testimony to Floyd's abilities. If You're trying to prove that smaller man can beat bigger men, I don't think anyone in here would dispute that. Point is that it's consistantly more difficult (which is why You'll struggle to find a single fighter in world's top 10 who does not cut some weight - not necessary to be bigger, but at least to not be too outsized which would happen if He didn't cut weight at all. This is also why We won't have a lot of data on how often the fighter with 15+ pounds advantage wins, below heavyweight. At least on high level - it's too rare).
Corrales eventually moved up to Welterweight and couldn't do anything against Clottey - fighter not quite in Floyd's league - who outweighed him by 10 pounds.

3)

That is a solid point. I think often time fighter who are not in great shape and take fights on short notice can be forced to drop a lot of weight late and then regain it and for them it's not necessary an advantage.

It could mean that statistically, at least on higher level and within the curent realm (Which is important, since again - basically everyone cuts some weight, thus We're for the most part comparing "average-conservative" weight cutters with extreme weight-cutters, not weight-cutters to fighters who don't cut weight) - extreme weight-cutting is not as big a deal as some make out to be - it works out for some, it doesn't for others. It's not a great predictor of success on it's own and "It should just be looked at on a case by case basis." like You wrote - fair enough.

But no - on average, fighters in any given weight class today, are clearly bigger in my opinion (It's surprising to me that anyone watching fights from the 80s and then today might not see it honestly) and even if We accept that it's "just muscle".... Well, additional muscle mass does make You stronger, even if You gained it by strength training. That's kind of a point.
Thus, again - where I see a logical fallacy is when You make a leap to the assertion that weight basically doen't matter at all(As long as You make weight) and fighters from the 80s who were competing(in the ring) at weight typical of what You see at least 1, if not 2 divisions below their weight today (And against other fighters similar to them in size), would be just as succesful it their "nominal" division today (So 140 pounder from the 70s-80s, as a Super Lightweight today), fighting much bigger men.(That's assuming They wouldn't bulk up, but fight at much lower weight than what's to be expected of a fighter today).

If You want to be a pure empiricist about it fine. Technically We don't know - but the data that You put forward certainly does not "prove" that in any way. It's a different scenario.

 

I'll answer, but You are in same position, with conflicting data/results and You should answer the same question. How do You explain that by far the biggest study We found, done on professional fighters, found meaningful relationship between Rapid Weight Gain and Weight differential and likelyhood of victory?
You can't just ignore it because it doesn't fit an agenda, You at least need to acknowledge it and give potential explanation.

For my part: If You remember, the article that You first brought up with the quote from Keith Kizer was concerning the timing of weigh-in.
In amateur boxing, it's still done the same way it was done in professional boxing before, fighters weigh in on the day of the fight (Unless something changed recently or there are some different local customs I'm not aware of).
It's not surprising that here, putting on extra weight in those circumstances isn't that beneficial. The less time You have to recover, the biggest price You have to pay for it and the more difficult it is to cut and put on a lot of weight and gain advantage from it (Which is why extreme weight-cutting was more rare in the times of same-day weigh in).
That's in addition to a fact that amateur boxing is less physical in general.

Thus, only relevant study I see is the one done with the IBF.
I see couple problems with it:
1) They did not check the weigh of fighters as They were entering the ring, by the sound of it. They just compared the weight from first to second weigh-in. Second IBF weigh-in is done on the morning of the fight (AFAIK). It still leaves a lot of time for fighters to put a weight on from that time to the time of the fight in the evening.
One example here would be Salido and Gamboa fight mentioned by Kizer in the article. Salido didn't make weight at the second weigh-in, which is why He was stripped - but by the time of the fight, both weighed in at 140 pounds according HBO.
This would count as loss for heavier fighter in the study - but it would be misleading in the context of what We're trying to really figure out.

2) On championship level the difference is probably not big on average (That's how I remember it from when Showtime and HBO would gave us the weights regulary).
The study could tell us that fighters who puts on 15-20 pounds do not have statistical advantage over fighters who put on 10-15 pounds from the weigh-in, which I think is very possible (Particulary if there's going to be a share of fighters who "killed themselves making weight", which then has to be outweighed by those who make it right and make it work, to only "break even" statistically).
What it doesn't tell us is how it would work if We'd compare fighters who cut and add back on 1-5 pounds with fighters who put on 15-20 pounds, which can be a 3 division difference.

There are still other problems with it. Isn't it the case that only elite fighters are trying to compete while at that big weight disadvantage? While lesser fighters often wouldn't even be sanctioned by commision to compete under those circumstances? That leads me to third point.

3) It's something which was brought up by other members already. Single factor analysis is basically always wrong. To see the impact of weight differential, We'd need to create some objective criteria which would allow us to account for all the other factors which are in play in determining the result of a boxing match.
Are We assuming that fighters who are cutting more and fighters who are cutting less are on average just as talented and skillful?
It's something that I'll not be able to prove and don't think there's a way to account for it in a study in general - but I believe fighters who cut more are usually the less talented ones, those who can't compete on skill and thus are trying to compete with more talented fighters by aiming for physical advantage that being the bigger man can provide.
Haney is a bit unusual in that regard, since weigh-cutting is usually associated rather with pressure fighters and sluggers.

If I'm right - and We get roughly 50/50 success rate between heavier and lighter fighters, it could mean that weight advantage is meaningful, just statistically balanced by the superior abilities of fighters who don't cut that much on average.

I'll also still dispute it's all about muscle. Mexicans and Thais are big weight cutters for example - and those are usually not very muscular fighters and weight training is still not very popular among them. Emannuel Navarrete, Brandon Rios, Chavez Jr, Srisaket etc. They are just naturally big guys who walk around 20-30 pounds above their "nominal" competition weight, cutting a lot of weight to squeeze themselves into lower division.

In any case, solid discussion. You certainly raised an interesting question and made me think about things I didn't consider. I just believe that You probably take your interpretation a bit too far and perhaps overlook some implications of what You're proposing.
If weight differential in the ring doesn't have any impact (Assuming fighters weigh in in the same range day before) - then every single fighter today should be able to move up at least one division and without putting on extra weight to fill into new weight class (As They usually do today. Like Crawford said "As I move up in weight, the weight moves up on me")... and be just as succesful as in their current division.
Is this possible? I guess, but fighters and trainers certainly don't believe it. There's a reason everyone cuts some weight and the 10 lbs+ seems to be a standard.. and the fighters who jump through weigh classes succesfully end up on top PFP lists.

... but hey, respectfully. It was interesting.