Ali & Norton Weigh in...On the Johnny Carson Show.

Maybe you have seen a bunch of boxer talk show appearances, including the heartening & positive videos of Ali & Frazier, including when they collaborated to hold Dick Cavett aloft on his show.

Here we see Ali musing about Aliens, if you like accelerate to where they take off their robes to "weigh in" within 4 daaaze of their highly competitive second bout.

If you like speak about their competition-people can honestly see things differently, but many are also unconscious to their bias-either in hero-worshiping, or reactionary-although with Ali, as great as he was, the former is more likely to be the prejudice-whether in what the refs allowed, judges saw, & the public-who in his first incarnation was most against him-wanted to believe.

But what I want to focus on is their size & muscularity.
Norton was trimmer than usual, speaking about "starving", even with his high protein diet, looking at him in other fights, + noting him somewhat heavier while still low body fat, must have shed some muscle.
Ali had trimmed down appreciably, mostly losing fat.
He predicted shedding more before the fight, but did not.
It is funny that at first he suggests he would be leaner & that is better, when Norton was lighter he said "too skinny".

Both listed at 6'3", they fought at only 205 & 212 lbs.
What I wonder & solicit opinions about is, do you think these guys would have been even better if they trained to be still lean/low body fat, but at around 20 lbs. more of muscle each?
OR if not, is it because of one or both of these factors:
Guys are much bigger now, so at least against modern often SHW sized fighters they would need the extra strength?
And/or is it that with 12 round fights, current gloves, grappling allowed (although Ali already often did this in the 1970's)...That being heavier & stronger is necessary today?

For the last 30 + years, the ONLY fighter as light for his height or lighter that was a legitimate champion was Wilder.
And he is an anomaly, limited skills except massive power in his right hand, carried late, speed height & length-with essentially no legs.

You can also volunteer whether some very effective large men might have been at least a little better with less muscle for their heights-but I dunno if say Ike at a lean 6'2" 235, or his erstwhile opponent Tua at 5'10" 226...Have games & styles-though different from each other-that would benefit

This content is protected

being as heavily muscled.
Or the SHWs like Lewis & the Klitchkos...
But Lennox is an interesting case, because he essentially went from 6'5" & the 220's to the 240's later in his career-but both can be argued as potentially his prime, although what Steward developed for him-against large opponents-may have been best.

I just read things here for a while, then for a solid decade have been posting.
I have seen things get much better over time, with occasional regressions-but their are FAR less trolls, or people irrationally triggered, personally abusive, derisive, mocking, delusional about being victimized &/or anonymously Cruel...
Punishments have helped, & our policing, some are only deterred by punishment, not conscience, but let's keep it respectful & on point: here & in general.

So as per the poll, if we had a HW tournament across the ages (fight conditions & rules considered too) would Ali, Norton & most other earlier HWs be generally improved or hurt if they developed more typical, modern musculature?

 

But waiaiaiat a minute-you can make a good argument here, but we need to know what you mean.

People can vary greatly in what they can do "naturally".
Even without weight training or any PEDs, eating well & manual labor will make guys bigger than they would be in equally "natural" circumstances.
Especially if you are large framed, there is a broad range for natural.
And when you need to be in the unlimited division, should you even go for what is naturally feasible.

Lewis at his height & length did great in the mid 220's-& mid 240's.
Most think his prime came later in his career.
Can you say whether one is better against all comers?
Or for you does it depend upon the rule set & its enforcement?

Likewise for peak Ali & Norton: do you think at least against the bigger guys today, they would be best lean in the mid 220's or so, or the weight they were-against all comers?

Because neither of these weights would be unnatural if they made the effort.
Any more than road work, skipping & pad work is unnatural.
Ali hated training, but he had the structure to be larger.

Depending upon environment, a range is completely natural.
If you can get there naturally, & absent great effort...
What *tends* to be better un balance, & why?

 

Sorry I disagree.
You say I overcomplicate-but I posed some basic questions you do not address.
What is "overdoing" things?
Lewis did not overdo things when he weighed in the 220's or the 240's.
With his size & bone structure, either was "natural".
He was not overly pumped-did not even have as full a chest as 'roid Holyfield-at his larger size.

Especially naturally larger guys can be a range of perfectly healthy & natural sizes.
Even many say WWs can campaign a couple divisions higher & be perfectly natural-not just because they get older.

But with the limited divisions we gotta consider if it is worth it to go against bigger stronger guys.
When you are already HW it is different.

There just is not merely a single natural size for everyone.
Although I admit that some likely have less room for variation to be effective-Hagler likely was best around a non-rehydrated MW.