It seems to me that it's been arbitrarily decided that no fighter under 200 lbs could ever beat a fighter over 200 lbs. I.E. a 199.99 lbs fighter automatically loses to a 201 lbs fighter because the 201 lbs fighter is a "heavyweight" and the former is "just a cruiserweight". To me, that's a very erroneous assumption. At about 180ish to 200 lbs, that's enough size to beat any man of any size. In theory. At that point I believe that it comes down to the specific fighters in mind. Now, some size differences are insurmountable no matter how you slice it. For instance, Willie Pep was pound for pound much more skilled than say Earnie Shavers. Or Floyd Mayweather was much more skilled than Ron Lyle. But the size difference between Pep and Shavers or Mayweather and Lyle would be too much to overcome. Unless Mayweather and Pep could manage to avoid every single punch thrown their way for 12 or 15 rounds. But more likely than not, they'd be brutalized. However, you get a fighter like Jerry Quarry, who today could be a modern day LHW or cruiserweight. Even at 195 lbs, he still had enough skill combined with solid punching power for a fighter his size to beat a 210 lbs Shavers or 220 lbs Lyle. Even in the 70s, he was considered a credible threat to a powerhouse like George Foreman. Ironically, if he and Lyle were fighting today, the automatic assumption would be that the 220 lbs Lyle steamrolls the 195 lbs Quarry ASAP. Depending on who you are talking about, I can see the smaller man winning. I can see a 185 lbs Ezzard Charles outboxing George Chuvalo or Ron Lyle much like Patterson and Quarry did. I'd favor the cruiserweight version of Evander Holyfield (from Qawi 2 to Deleon) over an Earnie Shavers, Mac Foster or say Cleveland Williams. On the other hand, there are big men whom I think a smaller fighter would find it extremely difficult to beat. Lennox Lewis and a young Mike Tyson come to mind. Not simply because of their weights or in Lewis case, weight and height. But because of that, combined with the other skills and attributes that they brought to the table. So I don't think all 180ish to 200 lbs fighters and all 200+ lbs fighters are created equal. Riddick Bowe stated that he thought Jersey Joe Walcott would have given him a tough time. And remember, Walcott at 6' 196 lbs wasn't much smaller than the 6'2 205 lbs version of Holyfield that took Bowe to the brink and back. Bowe did state that he think he'd have stopped Walcott late, but it would have been a come from behind win likened to Louis/ Walcott 2. Bowe states it here This content is protected
Why is 180 big enough to beat any man but not 160? Doesn't make sense, size is size. Your chances of having adequate other attributes to overcome size advantage go down the further away you are from the opponents size. I.e. 180 has a better chance against 200 than 160 does, but 160 has a better chance against 180, than 180 does against 220. So, in ultimate answer to your question, no one actually argues that size means EVERYTHING. When someone says fighter x is too big for fighter y, it's a shorthand way of saying Y's skills are inadequate to overcome the size advantage of x.
No it's not everything but the saying a good big un will beat a good little un rings true in the majority of cases.
A 6'6 250 lbs POWER puncher will ALWAYS beat a tiny 220 lbr!!!! I won the NYC White Castle Arm WRESTLING championship so I would KNOW!! How's that for a Galvatron impression?
Obviously it is a massive decider, no pun intended. But if it were the end all be all then Evander Holyfield never would have beaten Bowe or Douglas.
Correct. And Holyfield was 205 lbs. Now, I don't think that if Holyfield was 195- 200 lbs, suddenly Douglas vs Holyfield would be like a 10 year old fighting his dad. And he gave away approximately 50 lbs vs Foreman and dominated. Can we really say that if he gave away approximately 60 lbs instead and weighed 198 pounds that he would have been steamrolled?
You've got to ask yourself this, the fighters in theory come into the ring where they feel the most comfortable at a weight where they have the best chance to win. Holyfield obviously felt better at the heavier weights after losing to Bowe at 205lb. It goes for nearly every HW, why didn't Lennox Lewis stay at the same weight he destroyed Ruddock at? The examples go on and on......... At the end of the day it matters, if not all HW fighters would come in at the lightest weight possible.
It is undeniable that some fighters have been extremely successful at overcoming size disparities. It could fairly be said that they were exceptional fighters, and generally exceptional finishers.
You think so? Because the lower you are in weight, the more significant a discrepancy becomes. Law of diminishing returns or w/e For instance, 300lb vs. 320lb is negligible. But 20lb vs 40lb is double in size. Both are a 20lb difference.