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

I actually heard not that long ago (On major TV network) a person saying that increased testosterone level does not affect athlethic performance - and He was also citing some study "proving" that. I won't say in what context it was said, since it's politically sensitive and this forum is not a place for that - but I think everyone can guess .

 

First off, if there’s data and a study (informal or otherwise), why not present the methodology and information gathered for peer review to make conclusions? You know, like how scientists do before they claim ‘I did an informal study and I think candy cures cancer.’

Second, the question here is not (or should not be) any of the following:

1. Does the heavier guy in the ring always win? (Of course not, we know this from heavyweight fights alone.)

2. If two guys massively cut weight, does the one who rehydrates/revitalizes his body a couple pounds more than the other have a massive advantage? (It’s moot — they both did the same thing, so they’re both presumably revitalized/rehydrated to as close to full recovery from weight cutting as possible.)

3. Does being marginally heavier in the ring (or even massively in some cases) negate a difference in class/ability so that the bigger guy is now somehow the better guy? (At a certain point, it probably does — I think we all know Valuev probably beats most flyweights and lightweights, etc, even ATGs — but it’s not a ‘cure’ for a major difference in ability and no one holds that it is; Henry Armstrong beat bigger guys but he was one of the best P4P fighters of all time and those guys he beat, while some of them were pretty good, were not at his level. An average welter doesn’t beat an ATG junior welter just becaues he’s 5 pounds heavier.)

Third, let’s get down to brass tacks (what the noted philosopher Don Henley called ‘the heart of the matter,’ because this is the only thing that REALLY matters: Does a fighter who correctly cuts weight and rehydrates have an advantage over one who doesn’t. That’s what this is, or should be, about. Otherwise we just have a guy citing (unreleased) data that being the heavier guy in the ring isn’t the be-all/end-all to determining results … which we already knew (again, look at heavyweight results for all the date you need to seee this is true).

Let’s take two middleweights. Similar records, similar amateur pedigree, similar ability and similar opposition. What would be, on paper, an even fight. Flip a coin.

Fighter A walks around pre-training camp at 185 — not fat or bloated, just fit and in good shape. He does a two-month camp and makes 160 on a day-before weigh-in cutting weight, then rehydrates to 180.

Fighter B walks around at 163. Always fit, pretty much stays in the gym. Does not cut weight. Just rains as normal and scales 160 on a day-f weigh-in and steps into the ring at 162 1/2.

Looking at them, it’s apparent Fighter A is more thickly muscled and just all-around bigger and stronger-looking, although he seemed kind of frail at the weigh-in he’s fully rehydrated when he steps into the ring.

Which guy has an advantage? Gun to your head, which are you picking? Whose punches have greater effect, given that physics tells us mass x acceleration = force? Do the punches of the guy who is 180 in the ring have a greater impact than the guy who is 162 1/2? Physics dictates that they do, unless Fighter B’s speed (actually acceleration) is massively better than Figher A’s, which we’re going to discount given they’re of similar ability with nearly identical results against nearly identical opposition.

Finally, let’s ask one more obvious question: If there’s no advantage gained by cutting weight, why do they do it? If you’ve ever cut weight (for boxing, wrestling, whatever), you know it’s an excruciating exercise. It’s unpleasant. Nobody says ‘I think I’ll starve myself, work out past the point of exhaustion, drain as much water out of my body as possible … because it’s fun and I like the way I feel when I do it.’

No, they do it because they perceive an advantage and figure it’s worth it no matter how painful and unpleasant it is.

Now maybe they’re all wrong, but wouldn’t someone have figured it out by now and wouldn’t boxers and trainers adjust and stop doing it? Wouldn’t guys who walk around at 163 be the best middleweights in the world and those weight-drained 185-pounders all be losing and out of the rankings?

The whole basis of this thread (and the article/‘informal (i.e. non-scientific) study’ on which it is based is a silly house of cards because it only answers the obvious question that we knew the answer to anyway (see questions 1 and 2 above).

 

Also just look at MMA fighters they cut way more weight then in boxing, why? Because being the bigger man gives them an advantage.

 

OK, I assume you think Inoue is a better fighter than Valuev. Does that mean you’d pick Inoue to beat him?

I don’t look the other way when the lighter fighter wins. I addressed it more than once — a weight advantage does not necessarily overcome a difference in class/ability. Ray Robinson at welter beats an average middle. I don’t think he probably beats an average heavyweight … if he would, why the hell didn’t he do it and make history and make more money? Was he just an idiot? (And why didn’t he beat Maxim … because the bigger guy better withstood the heat and he gassed.)

But ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, a pick-em fight where you think their abilities are equal — you picking the middleweight or the cruiserweight?

 

I think trainers and boxers know more about it than a commissioner. He’s not a scientist. He doesn’t have a study done by the scientific method, published and subject to peer review. He has data.

If the commissioner of FIFA said he had an ‘informal study’ that led him to conclude that a team of 12-year-olds would beat the World Cup champions, would you accept that as true, lol?

 

I think you're basically right, but one comment:

I wouldn't be totally surprised if there was a training method that actually made little difference, but pro boxers stuck to because of tradition. Pro trainers were dehydrating fighters apparently into the 1970s, and got extreme with it earlier in the 19th century.

I'd expect boxing training methods to generally be very good, since fighters and trainers obviously know what they're talking about. But some weird, pointless stuff might have fallen through the cracks. And survived because either (1) it didn't hurt, so people didn't ditch it, assuming it helped; or (2) helped a little based on the placebo effect.

 

Do you think between two equal talents, a 185-pound fighter has an advantage over a 160-pound fighter?

That’s what this comes down to. And that’s why we have weight classes.

If one rehydrates, revitalizes and recuperates fully so he’s at his normal weight and the other guy is 25 pounds lighter at his normal weight — if there is not a difference in class/ability — you don’t see any advantage to that?

You think Alexis Arguello at 130 is on equal footing with Thomas Hearns at 154, right? That’s what you’re saying here.

You’re letting an ‘informal study’ that is not done by scientists, not due to peer review and the data of which you have never even seen (nor has anyone else as far as we know, as it hasnt been made public) do an awful lot of heavy lifting for you.

How about you tell us all about this study. Which fighters were involved? How many? What was the difference in class between the ‘lighter’ winners and the ‘heavier’ losers?

 

Who said anything about Tommy Hearns being weight-drained. I’m saying let Alexis come into the ring at 130, fully fit, and Hearns do the same at 154, fully fit. Neither is weight-drained. You keep telling me that being the heavier/bigger fighter has no bearing on winning, so I’m assuming you figure Arguello beats Hearns or at least is on completely even terms, right?

You say you have numbers to back it up. Please give us your data — what fights, what were the weights, etc. Full list, all of it. If you have it, produce it.

Is Inoue more talented than Valuev? We’d all say he is. So why isn’t he fighting heavyweights? Who wins that one?

Where do height and reach come into this? Are you now saying there’s scientific evidence that a taller fighter with a longer reach always wins, lol? Well, I can dispel that — so if someone who weighed less has ever won a fight means that weight has nothing to do with outcomes, then obviously if shorter fighter with shorter reach have ever won a fight then you’re bring up a moot point.

 

No, I haven’t. Because it does. As I’ve stated repeatedly, that’s why we have weight divisions.

Answer my question: The best Inoue vs. the best Valuev. Inoue is the better fighter and you’ve said repeatedly that the better fighter should win regardless of weight. Well, are you picking Inoue here?

For the third time, I’m talking about Thomas Hearns weighing in at 154, fighting at 154 and not cutting weight vs. Alexis Arguello weighing in at 130 pounds, fighting at 130 and not cutting any weight. You say weight isn’t an advantage: so you’re taking Arguello here and Hearn’s 24-pound weight advantage means nothing, right? The fact that Thomas Hearns is much bigger makes no difference according to you.

Kizer provided zero numbers. He mentioned an ‘informal study’ (not a scientific one) in the 1990s (so probably three decades ago) that might have involved four fighter or 4,000 for allow we know … because no such study has ever ben released and he did not provide the data. He said 50% but not 50% of what, nor which fighters (if one was a pound lighter and an ATG and the one-pound-heavier guy was a .500 journeyman, that would skew the numbers because of the difference in ability/class — not to mention without knowing which fights, how big the differentials in weight were or the outcomes, we don’t know how many of those fights were robberies or bad stoppages or won on cuts or whatever. A lot of variables for your “numbers” when he supplied absolutely no numbers … just a single example.

Furthermore, Kizer never says a damned thing about ‘weighing more is no factor in who wins a fight.’ He’s talking specifically about cases where BOTH fighters cut weight and BOTH fighters rehydrate, and one weighs more in the fight. Not in the many types of examples I’ve brought up — one cuts and rehydrates and one doesn’t.

Taller fighters with longer reach sometimes win and sometimes lose to shorter fighters with shorter arms. So what scientific evidence are you relying upon when saying this makes a difference or would impact your pick?

So I’ll ask again and if you don’t answer I’m done with you:

1. Two fighters of the same ability, same record against similar opposition fight. They are the exact same height with the exact same reach since you decided to bring that into the equation (has nothing to do with weight and no scientific evidence that height or reach wins fight, but you insisted so there it is). One walks around at 185 in good shape, has a two-month camp, weighs in day before at 160 … rehydrates to 180 by the time he steps onto the ring. The other walks around at 163 in good shape, is always in the gym, trains two months for this fight like he trains every day anyway, doesn’t do any weight cutting and weighs in day before at 160 … and steps into the ring at 163.

Which one are you picking? Fighter A (180 in ring after rehydrating) or Fighter B (163 in ring)?

2. Thomas Hearns weighs in at 154 and fights at 154. Alexis Arguello weighs in at 130 and fights at 130. Weight cutting isn’t a factor, just weight differential. So it’s Hearns vs. Arguello. Who do you honestly think wins?

3. Nikolai “Sugar” Valuev vs. Inoue. Both come in at their most comfortable weight. Which one wins?

Answer my three questions and let’s see if you are really willing to commit to what you keep saying, that weight doesn’t matter.

Here’s another if you feel frisky:

4. Willie Pep vs. Joe Frazier. I’ve never seen a P4P ranking list that had Joe higher than Pep, so it’s agreed by experts far and wide that Willie was the better fighter. So featherweight vs heavyweight here, do you go with Frazier (who after all, is merely larger and you say weighing more doesn’t matter) or Pep, the better fighter? Let’s make it 15 rounds.