How big is too big?

Very well said Dave!..I agree with your view of " Natural weight "

 

I think Spinks committed to heavyweight more than did Foster. There was no going back, whereas foster was willing to drop back down. I doubt Spinks walked around at 200 lbs; he had to work to get that big. I wonder...

As for Roy, yeah modern weights are tricky. He's probably a natural light heavy, lighter when he was younger, heavier as he got older. And hell, on this site at least, Roys weight is fight specific. Against middleweights he is 'too big and never really a middleweight.' Against heavies he's 's 'a natural middleweight.'

 

I dont doubt Spinks walked around at 200 lbs....sounds right to me:bbb

 

It's not just size but also styles. A guy like Joe Louis would have problems against big skilled heavyweights not just because he was smaller. Like Ali said, Louis moved like a mummy. Louis didn't have the footwork and he wasn't exactly Mayweather in the pocket either.

 

There's a reason there are no 180lb or 200lb HW champs today

Smaller guys suffer from

1. Less power - no Satterfield didn't have quite enough power against HWs
2. LEss durable - smaller men rarely have the same punch resistance
3. Reach/height - the smaller man has to overcompensate
4. Being pushed around- pushing someone around the ring is much easier when you're bigger than them. The smaller man gets pushed on his backfoot, he loses his power on his backfoot and momentum. The smaller opponent will find it 1000% harder to push a big man back because he doesn't have the weight momentum
5. Getting tired from being leaned on
6. Not being able to rest - every boxer takes rounds or time off to take breathers. It's much easier to do this when you're taller heavier, than when you're smaller

 

Anyone over 200 pounds has a fighting chance against a man of any size.

There may be exceptions to the "rule", such as 185 lb Rocky Marciano or 190 lb Dempsey, but we did not see this put to test against 240 lb men of the Klitschko or Lewis quality.

 

Excellent topic. Boxing has weight classes for a reason. Here’s how I see it. Size in boxing is a big asset as long as it does not take away from stamina, speed, and flexibility. A fighter’s best weight depends on their bone structure and build.

For example, the Klitschko’s and Lewis fight at 240-250, and for them, that is a fine weight.
Ali and Holmes were at their best around 208-215. When they were over 220, they were not quite as good. If you want to look at Joe Louis, his best weight was 197-207. Anywhere above 210, and he did not look quite as good.

If you adding 30 pounds to Louis, Dempsey or Marciano so they can match up with modern day super heavies, they are going to lose some of their stamina, speed, and flexibility. Defense would also suffer.

The days of in shape heavyweight champions under 6’1” and 210 pounds are over. Outside of a puncher’s chance, there is just too much to overcome in terms of reach height and weight, unless they are fighting a moderately skilled big man who lacks both speed and power ( Example Valuev )

 

I do wish we had an in shape 6'1", 210 lb champion in Povetkin.

 

I have ALWAYS maintained this - fighters ARE what they level out at, in their prime years...

their lighter weights fights they were merely passing through, likewise the heaviest they fought at the end of their careers equally doesn't make them a bonified fighter at that weight either.

I believe too fighters should only be ranked at 1 weight, for overall career assessment i.e, Armstrongs a WW, SRR is a MW, Fitz is a L-HW, any successess ABOVE their natuaral weight only adds to their capability & greatness, but they are Among the Best at their real weight on the Ratings tables... this also opens up placement for other equally deserving fighters who might miss a slot because someone like Fitz gets counted in 2 or 3 divisions.

Not accurate really!

 

Armstrong was never a welterweight in size. Even at 30 years of age he weighed 135. The majority of Ray Robinson's prime was spent at 147 lbs, he only started campaigning as a middleweight when he was 30 years old.

Ignoring Robinson's accomplishments as a welterweight, only because he happened to fight as a middleweight while largely past his prime, is just not really a valid system of ranking fighters at all when it comes down to it.

 

lower achievements aren't ignored, they ADD to greatness, higher weight successes do the same and in fact more to a fighters legacy - but fighters should only be ranked at 1 division, and SRR was a MW, Amstrong had most of his fights at WW too, but I agree with you that he was a small welter, but a WW none-the-less.

and this reality should stand for ALL fighters!

 

I do not see the reason why that should be.

Trying to pick what division they should be ranked in is difficult enough and would create a problem in itself between differing opinions. Should Robinson be rated as a welterweight or a middleweight? I certainly don't see any sense in preferring his middleweight work to his welterweight work. He was a welterweight between ages 21-29, which most agree are usually a boxer's prime, and a middleweight between 30 to 45. He is also generally seen as the greatest welterweight of all time, while only a top 5 middleweight at best in most people's rankings.

When a fighter put in work in separate weight divisions, those achievements should be acknowledged. Beating a welterweight while fighting as a welterweight shouldn't count as middleweight achievements. They should count as welterweight achievements. It's just far more simple.