"but it wasn't his natural weight" is a popular excuse for a loss or bad preformance in these parts. It's clear that there is such a thing as natural weight and at 6'0" I should weigh a certan amount. If it is my natural weight. Than it shouldn't be effected by any lifestyle. I can work like Floyd & Manny, or sit around watching TV eating candy bars. If it's natural it shouldn't matter. So tell me what's my natural weight?
Do you train? I don't think someone who trains would ask this question. Why do you want to know? (not trying to sound rude, just wondering if you're asking as a fan, or an actual fighter). There are too many factors to consider, but in simple terms I think it's a weight that is not too light that it would require a truly drastic weight cut, and not too heavy that it slows you down or is too much for your relative fitness level. It's kind of relative to your fitness level, comfort level and power among other things.
I sat=y if your walkin around any heavier than 154 or just lighter than 160 then the MW division is where you belong.
your natural weight is what you weigh healthily, without fat or too thin. IF it's fighting weight, depending on your build, you might sqeeze down to MW, BUT you are more likely a S-MW cum L-HW... in the past you would have been a L-HW cum HW, personally I'd like to see a return to this honesty, you could start the trend to a return to Pure Fighters, compete at a lean cut of your natural weight, say 10lbs, be vocal about it and slowly return boxing to Real Fighters, rather than all this dishonest exploitation!!! Good Luck.
I knew an NFL head coach (and longtime assistant) who once told me that every player on a pro football roster knew his ideal weight within a pound or two, and that their performance would suffer if they came into training camp too heavy or too light -- a lineman might need to be around 314 pounds and another around 307, and one linebacker 243 and another 229, give or take, but each guy had an optimal weight. I'd say it's the same for every boxer, although that weight can go up (and rarely down if they were always in shape) as they grow and age. Oscar de la Hoya's natural weight when he started as a pro might have been 130 or 135, but it changed as he matured. Even so, I think it peaked at 147 and anything after that was above his natural weight at the time. Duran might reasonable go from lightweight to welter or even junior middle, but beyond that he was able to perform only to a certain level (which was often very, very high by most standards) due to experience and ungodly natural skill. If 160 was a natural weight for him when he fought Hagler, he might have the stamina to pull it off -- which he did against Barkley only because he still had enough speed and guile to defeat a crude middleweight. And OP, if you're 6-0 even then your natural weight is 163 1/2 -- but that's just you. A more thickly muscled guy might be heavier at his natural weight.
I would need your curent weight, fat % and preferably tale of the tape, in order to give a valid answer.
Either 118 pounds (Pintors' weight) or 348 (Supper fighter Tony TNT Tubbs 8th grade weight.) You choose, but I would choose 118
Some people are thicker set than others. In general, natural weight seems to be dictated by bone size and area for potential growth. Two people can be the same height and follow the same routine and diet yet weigh forty pounds apart, or more. Take Panama Al Brown, for instance. 5ft 11in, 118lbs. Small hands, wrists, ankles, narrow hips/shoulders etc... Now he could have ate like a body builder and followed a workout to match and put on, what, 20lbs? 40lbs at a push? And he'd still, with all that effort, have weighed less than Mike Tyson at a similar height, who may only have been following a traditional boxing routine and diet.
Here is my answer in the form of a puzzle... What TWO things do all these boxers have in common and in what ONE thing are they ALL different? Carlos Zarate Salvadore Sanchez Roberto Duran Barney Ross Tony Zale Dick Tiger Tommy Burns
1) They're all former world champions 2) They're all 5'7" or 5'8" 1) Their weights are all over the goddamn map. It really just depends on what kind of frame you have (how long your arms are, how broad your back is, what kind of bone structure you have, etc.) There are a ton of factors determining what your "natural weight" is. Tyson was only 5'10" or 5'11". De La Hoya was 5'10.5". Two very different body types and frames led to two very different natural weights (Tyson was best between 210 and 220, DLH was physically at his best between 135 and 147). Unless you're really stocky and heavily built, or alternately a stringbean, your natural weight at 6'0" is probably anywhere from 154 to 168.
Depends on your build and genetics. Tommy Hearns is taller than Tyson yet no where near as big. Also depends on how much fat you have and several other things, like age. etc.
Well Done, sir! That is exactly what I was pointing out - all within an inch of 5-8 and from Banty to Cruiser/heavy. It isn't the weight, it is how you carry it. And no one can tell you that without a lot more info than your height
