Well that's true, he wasn't "tiny" compared to other small heavies of the past, just slightly below average. "Nearly half" in this case is literally 1 number short to make 50%. If nearly half of a sample size are 15 lbs heavier, you can't possibly make the claim he's close to the average lineal champ in size. See above. If nearly half are the equivalent of 1-2 weight classes bigger he was fairly small even by old school standards. I didn't say 8 lbs was a huge size difference, but when he's 8 lbs smaller than even smaller old school champions that tells you a lot. He's on the low end for size even amongst older champions. No matter how you dice it he's fairly small. I'm getting very frustrated at this point because I feel like you're either ignoring certain things or continuously missing the context. Charles was a freaking welterweight in the amateurs and spent the majority of his pro career at light heavyweight. Pointing out Charles is lower than Corbett isn't saying much because Charles wasn't that big to begin with. This is why I scoffed at Bitplayer's list of weights for champions at 21 years old because a handful of old school champions moved up in weight. It was a VERY different time period and you'd never in a million years see someone the size of Kell Brook keeping up with Heavyweights or even cruiserweights today. I have already gone over Patterson multiple times and I'm tired of repeating myself. He added weight to get up to heavyweight. The fact Corbett is comparable to guys like these in size doesn't help his case at all in proving he wasn't very small.
Nearly half means less than majority. Admit you were wrong and we'll be good. 15 lbs isn't 1-2 weight classes at HW. Dempsey wasn't small either, he was average when you look at champions. The point is that a lot of HW from older eras fought at lower classes as well. If you want to tell me that Corbett is small compared to modern HWs, that's obviously true but back in the 1950s a lot of HW contenders fought at LHW as well. That's how HW division looked like back then and you can't just ignore it and say "but Charles was small". Yes, he was - he was also the best HW fighter in the world at one point. This is true, but I never said that Corbett was big enough to compete at HW today. I only said he wasn't small for his era and later eras up to 1970s. I think you realized that you made a mistakez but you find it hard to admit. You wrongly stated that Corbett weighed at 160 lbs. Then you wrongly stated that majority of HW champions pre-Liston weighed 15 lbs more than him. It's fair to be wrong sometimes, as I said I don't want to prove here that Corbett was big - he wasn't. He wasn't small either, below average in terms of size but not really small.
Carnera, definitely. I have magazines from the late 1970s where some "experts" were still picking Corbett to beat Ali. I think some of that has died down now since the advent of the internet and Youtube. Before that, the opinions of guys like Nat Fleischer were taken as gospel. I think fans today have probably seen more boxing matches featuring history's biggest names than most of the "experts" back then ever did. Corbett was hugely overrated for a very long time. Like, nearly a century.
Did I say that the majority are all bigger than Corbett? You're once again skirting around the subject at hand. If nearly half are significantly larger than Corbett, then you would have to do the math on what the average/median weight is for old school lineal champions. That isn't going to help your case either. We were discussing how heavy Corbett is compared to the average, not how many of them have an arbitrary figure of 15 or more lbs above him. Using YOUR math, the average weight for old school lineal champions is 199 lbs. That's 21 lbs heavier than Corbett when he won the title and 14 lbs heavier than Corbett's average weight. So he's significantly smaller than the average HW champion. What is this nonsense? There are no additional divisions above HW. 15 lbs is 1-2 divisions in every division below HW. It does tell you a lot about how big Corbett was. But he's even smaller than Dempsey. We're going in circles lol. If you think Dempsey is "average" and Corbett is smaller what does that tell you? That Corbett is ****ing below average. This has nothing to with how good Charles was. The fact Corbett is comparable in size to guys who started in lower divisions and moved up should tell you he's obviously not a very large man even by the standards of the day. Except he was small for his era. Literally the very numbers and criteria you posted prove he was one of the smallest lineal champions and smaller than the average combined average weight of the old school champions. Being 14-21 lbs below the average weight means your weight is below average. Period. The only thing I said that was wrong was that Corbett weighed 160 and I already admitted that. I was off by 1 number. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. And he is in fact 14-21 lbs lighter than the average weight of all old school champions. Using the weights you provided. You're the one who's been refusing to admit you're wrong.
You said that the majority was bigger by 15-25 lbs, which isn't true. Below average and SMW are completely different points. But I'm not, because I never said Corbett was above average. I didn't give you any specific numbers, you did and they were wrong.
Ok, what I said wasn't 100% accurate because I was off by 1. Are you happy now? You're like the kid who reminded the teacher of the home work 2 minutes before the bell. AcKtUaAlLy This content is protected I dropped the smw stuff a long time ago lol. So now you're making things up? My god can you read? You DID give me specific numbers. I didn't say that you said he was above average. What you DID say was that his size/weight was average back then and he ****ing isn't. -I added up the average weights YOU posted. Is this your post? -I added them up and divided them by 16 to get 199 lbs. -If Corbett's weight of 178 when he won the title is accurate, then Corbetts weight is far below the average. Last I checked, 178 is below 199. 21 lbs smaller, or the equivalent of 1-2 weight classes smaller. -You estimated Corbett's average weight was 185. Last I checked, 185 is below 199, or 14 lbs smaller, which, again, is 1-2 weight classes smaller. He's below the average weight of the old school champions. Which means his size was below average. According to YOUR numbers. I have admitted I was wrong TWICE and you're still putting fingers in your ears and refusing to acknowledge this. I don't want to ever hear you lecturing me again. You were WRONG saying you never gave me specific numbers and you were flat out WRONG claiming his size was average for the era.
This is what I meant and I thought I was making myself very clear. Let the record show this. I was not trying to say Corbett was smaller compared to huge guys like Willard/Carnera, nor was I saying he was tiny even compared to the smaller heavies of old. My argument has always been that he was smaller than average even compared to old school heavies. And the data shows that is true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Out of 16 lineal champions, Corbett is the 4th smallest if you take their average weights, and he is 14 lbs lighter than the average lineal champion. That's below average unless I'm missing something. It's basic 4th grade math, English, and common sense. That's the gist of the discussion and what my argument has been from start to finish. That Corbett deserves to be underrated because he was both very small even by old school standards and look pretty bad on film. The former claim isn't up for debate and can be proven to be true mathematically, but the latter claim is an opinion.