Keith Kizer: fighters who add more weight don't have an advantage

Even if Kizer did have all the data available to him (and I doubt that is the case) that wouldn't make it the "best evidence".

The statistical validity of the statement made in the article remains in considerable doubt until certain aspects of the study are understood, e.g., sample selection methodology, size and representation of the sample, the range of weight divisions included, the range of weight differences considered, the range of skill/class levels included, the types of training methods of the fighters included, the match conditions included etc, etc.

And the above doesn't take into consideration the methods and rationale for defining what constitutes the thresholds for meaningful differences in weight and delineation points between skill/class levels, and how other variables will be measured etc.

I think the points being raised lean towards it being a rather inconclusive matter, one way or the other.

 

Even if they lose it doesn't mean they don't have an advantage. Height and reach is an advantage but if a fighter beats someone who has a height and reach advantage doesn't mean those things don't matter.

 

I'd suggest the assumption that a heavier weight is [always] an advantage is also problematic and circumstantial.

 

The trick with cutting big amounts of weight is recovering from it by the time of a fight - and imo the improved understanding of the process can certainly help with it.
I believe (Some historians here could correct me if I'm wrong on it) They also moved weigh-ins further away from the time of the fight since, which would also make it easier to recover.

I mean... doing that kind of statistical comparision is very easy. You just need data - and I believe California commision does weigh fighters in on the day of the fight, that's where We got the data on the Haney vs Prograis fight.
Even We could go back to late years of HBO and Showtime - when it was still a custom to give fight night weight on every bout - and do our own "study" and see how often the winner is the fighter who weighs in more (For the HBO and Showtime level fights)
My issue is that I don't think it's good way of proving whether extra weight gives You an advantage, for a reason that was already mentioned - multiplicity of factors at play. You can win despite or regardless of weight disadvantage.

It's pretty obvious that at some level the advantage exists - it's not some myth that leads to situation where there's probably no single fighter in the world's top 10 in any division below Heavyweight who does not cut some weight. You're going to go into the ring with a fighter 20 pounds heavier than You, You're going to feel it.
Then perhaps in reality the difference for most fights is more marginal - within 5 pounds - and at that level it probably doesn't mean much indeed.

 

Given the context in which the study was referred to in the article, that has been precisely my point. But, as subsequently added, it is inconclusive in either direction.

It is an obvious assumption. But this is no more validated by the percentages than the interpretation of there being no advantage.

Again, it comes back to what constitutes a scale of meaningful differences for each and every weight division, along with a myriad of other variables.

 

You’re going to find out real quick people around here don’t take to kindly to stats…they also don’t take kindly to saying weight isn’t a big as a factor as they think it is. About to be ww3 around here

 

The point is that data alone is not evidence. Technically, it is not even information until it has been processed. Moreover, Kizer isn't referring to data as a resource at his disposal. He's clearly described at citing a study that took place before he was even appointed Head of the Nevada Athletic Commission.

It is a shame Rosenthal didn't provide more details about the study itself, or that Kizer didn't provide Rosenthal more details to report.

As it stands, it's just a casual reference made in an article about someone citing a study to prop up their views on day-before weigh-ins - without an actual citation being provided.

The fact you have strayed into imagining that Kizer himself engineered an analysis of the data and, at the same time, have had to make multiple assumptions about what that imaginary data analysis might look like, should inform you about the size of the gaps that currently exist in the actual evidence at hand.

 

It’s a disingenuous premise: the fighter who gains more after the day-before weigh-in isn’t the same comparison as two fighters who come in at (or maybe a bit below) the division limit on a day-of weigh-in with no way to really rehydrate and refuel after a long, monitored and purposeful weight-cutting. Then actually fight at a couple pounds above that weight after eating normal (and probably relatively light) meals.

So if two fighters come in at 147 and one steps in the ring at 165 and the other steps in at 160, perhaps that is a negligible difference and one coming in at 170 might well have pushed it too far and be sluggish (everyone’s body is different, so I’m just throwing out figures for example).

But by absolute measurables, these guys today who shrink down to 147 when they weigh a healthy (not fat or bloated) 180-ish outside of camp are basically probably the same size men who would have been fighting at 175 (and maybe even heavyweight in some cases) decades ago. They’re bigger and stronger than the Ray Leonards and Roberto Durans and Ray Robinsons of yesteryear.

Tell me a guy who’s that much bigger (probably a bit taller, almost certainly more thickly muscled) has NO advantage over those welters of yesteryear? Then why didn’t Ray pop up and whup Marciano’s ass and take Walcott and Ezzard and even Joe Louis while he was at it? There would have been more money in it.

The obvious question is this: If there’s no advantage in it, why do guys do it? It’s like baseball players caught on PEDs in the 1990s saying ‘steroids don’t help me hit a curveball’ … ummm, then why are you taking them since your ability to hit a curveball is directly related to your livelihood to make millions rather than working on a dock somewhere? It certainly helped some of them to hit a curveball farther as noted by how top home run hitters just happened to be on the gear, lol.

Explain to me, scientifically, how Gatti had no advantage of Gamache. Explain to me, scientifically, why we have weight divisions in the first place — it’s because history has proven there are points in weight where a larger person has an advantage over a smaller person. It’s why Inoue isn’t fighting Usyk, why Monzon and Hagler stayed at middle rather than just weighing in at 160 and cleaning out the light heavyweight division and then trying to take over heavyweight.

An ‘informal’ study is not anything upon which to base conclusions. It’s not science. It’s rubbish.

 

Let’s put it this way:

Take this Kizer fella and give him a choice.

We’ll find two fighters with nearly identical records who have fought nearly identical opposition. Basically an even fight on paper. Both are weight-cutters who walk around at 165 before entering camp and they’re fighting at 140. They’re going to weigh in at 6 p.m. the day before and fight at around 10 on fight night.

Now Kizer gets his pick of winner. If he’s wrong, his family is going to be tortured in front of his eyes while he’s tied to a chair then killed, then he’s going to be tortured and then murdered. If he picks right, he gts $100M.

After they both come in at 140, one of them is going to be monitored up until fight time and isn’t allowed to scale more than 143 in the ring. The other is allowed to fully rehydrate in any way he chooses and come into the ring as heavy as he wants.

Which one do you think Mr. Kizer is going to pick, based on this informal study?

Based only on what I’ve presented here in this scenario, which are you picking?

 

Please reread my post. I said right off the bat that if two people cut weight and rehydrate, there may be a negligible difference.

If the entire thesis here is just ‘whoever weighs the most in the ring doesn’t always win,’ well of course I agree with that. Duh. We don’t need this data — we can look at heavyweight fights where there are big disparities in weight and it’s not just ‘heavier guy always wins.’ It’s not the only factor in who wins a fight.

Two two examples you gave are both cases where there’s a gap in ability/talent/class (as in an higher-class fighter) against opponents who were not close to being their equals. Being a few pounds heavier doesn’t negate a difference in ability, or at least it doesn’t always.

That’s why it’s disingenuous. It shoots down a ‘theory’ that nobody ever, ever put forth.

But you can’t look me in the eye and say a world-class middleweight doesn’t beat a world-class featherweight. So weight does matter.

What about my gun-to-your-head example? Let’s say two guys cut weight and one of them rehydrates after the day-before weigh-in and is significantly larger (for instance a welter who is 163 when he gets in the ring), and the other guy does not (the other guy weighs in at 147 and is 149 in the ring) … if they’re of equal ability and your very life depends upon it, which are you picking?

It’s not a hard question to answer. But it’s one I expect you to avoid answering because you know as well as I do that you’d take the bigger guy. The fellow who cuts weight and doesn’t rehydrate is at a huge disadvantage … he’s weakened versus an opponent who isn’t.

 

The above is really a case in point. You are ignoring the salient points about the weakness in the so-called "evidence" and we are just going around in circles, at this stage.

I don't doubt that there are studies out there and I would like to see those that have at least been published and undergone some kind of review. But, until I see them, I do doubt their veracity.

At the same time, I don't believe the heavier boxer always wins. That is an equally uninformed position.

Kizer is a Lawyer, not a scientist or statistician. All he was doing in the article from The Ring you've posted was selling an argument to Rosenthal.