Matter of fact who would win between usyk and Tyson?

I agree that some CWs are bigger than ATG HWs from previous eras, such as Dempsey and Marciano.

Bruno and Bredis seems a strange example to cite, though, regardless of how you think a fight between the 2 would go.

Bredis was 6ft 1ins, had a 75ins reach and weighed 213.75lbs against Charr in an unlimited weight HW bout.

Bruno was 6ft 3ins, had an 82ins reach and for what I consider his peak performance, vs Lewis, weighed 238lbs. 2ins taller, 7ins loner reach and 24lbs heavier. I.e. the typical disparity (a little more in reach) you'd expect between a CW and LHW.

 

I have written a few times about CWs not seeming to rehydrate at quite the same % as other divisions.
After looking into it a bit, & when I repeatedly state why this is likely, I receive radio silence.
Again those who would weigh near or 220 or so are much more likely to want to move up, for obvious reasons of much greater potential for fame & bigger money.
Another incentive is likely that they then do not
Then they do not need to even go through any rehydration or worry about making any weight.

I agree that fear of being labeled a weight bully is not a major factor.
Because getting every possible advantage is a much bigger motivation.
I do not think it is possible to say nobody ever factors the concern for reputation into their decisions.
Especially since when we are talking about the larger degrees of rehydration, the question we are discussing of what is too much & performance may suffer comes into it too.

I absoliutely do not think that a muscular (water-rich) Holyfield at 218 losing almost 9% of his bodyweight to make CW would "severely diminish" his performance.
I think nobody can produce evidence that up to 10% of body weight de/rehydration DOES "severely diminish" performance.
Especially when we are talking @35 hours, as the time span you throughfully last enumerated/approximately describes.

Even at the top # you speculated at re: in-ring weight, 220-224, we are talking 11%.
I think it much more accurate to say something like...

"A muscular fighter like Holyfield losing & regaining 10% or just over of his bodyweight within 24 hours would have some risk of some decline in his performance compared to if he never shed & ragianed weight. But looking at how so many boxers perform at this % of weight movement, at least it is likely to be a net advantage in competing in the lower division".

And when we are talking about nearly 36 hours, I believe the odds are very high that a bulky fighter hitting @10% would NOT be severely weakened.

He double L, even guys who do lose

This content is protected

than that, like Crawford, & have less muscle/water even per square inch, are not generally "severely" weakened. And like Crawford may win or defend multiple titles doing so.

Anyway it is perferfectly fine if we disagree.
I do thinka thread that asks the question & tries to do a statistical survey & seeks anecdotes would overwhelmingly show that the 10% swing fighters do in almost exactly a day & a half rarely "severely weakens" them.
And that would include skinny 'mo fos too.
And those who do it less scien-terricially than we know the Mr. olympia & other lite athletes trained Holyfield would!

 

I'm sure putting that kind of stress on his heart with the juice on top of it contributed to the magnitude of his heart problems

 

The data i have reviewed shows that fighters at higher weights gain more between the weigh in and fight night in absolute terms, but less as a % of their body weight, than boxers in lower divisions, which is what you'd expect.

We agree being labelled a weight bully is not a major consideration for most boxers, yet the majority gain less than 10%? Why do you think that is?

 

One point worth making in all of this (not read to end of thread so it might have been made). When Evander was cruiserweight, the division limit was 190lbs. He never sweated down to 200 as it was never a weight limit for him.

 

Thanks Eddie, I understand that, though with respect I don't think it's relevant to the discussion. Entawoed, through a series of posts, has stated and/or implied that he believes the Holyfield that weighed in at 218lbs for Tyson 2, could have weighed in at 200lbs instead, and rehydrated to the same weight he actually was on fight night, "without problem".

 

An obvious problem for this matchup is Tyson weighed 200lbs when he was 13 years old so I don't think this fight would be sanctioned. Ultimately this would result into a hair-do contest where I give Usyk the edge.

 

You have that data? Is it a broad cross-section?
I am surprised if it applies to CWs, for the unique reasons I have been describing-mostly the temptation & advantages of mannah/moolah & renown as a HW.

Joe Louis famously was concerned about being a weight bully against Conn, even though there was no rehydrating in those daaaze!
It may well have made it tougher for him to beat Conn the first time.
Wonder if Foreman would have performed even better in his first career without Saddler's fooliosh dehydrating.

Most gain less than 10% because of a combination of reasons.
Fear of overdoing it. Wanting to leave some space/cushion/margin for error.
Again, diminishing returns above a certain point.

Also I keep sayin' that for those with less muscle (meaning less available water weight to tap), it is not as easy.
In fact ironically although fat is generally the easiest thing to shed that you do not need above a certain amount-the few below HW who have significant fat cannot lose much in a short time...
But the irony is that for a day or so, muscle has thus can surrender somewhat more water.

Anyway your Crawford example is well into the double digits, some go further-& amazingly with as relatively little muscle as he had!

 

Yes I have a spreadsheet (yes, I'm a sad, sad man) of various recorded weigh in to fight night gains.

From memory you're correct, there are either no or very few CW examples.

The average gain across all weights was 8%, so I concede not far from the 10% you mentioned in the very first post I quoted in this thread.

There are a lot of LHWs recorded though and the % of their bodyweight gain was lower than 8%. In this very thread there have been 26 x LHW gains cited. 1 of those 26 was a 9% gain or higher. 5 of the 26 had an 8% gain or higher. I strongly expect the average % gains at CW would continue to marginally decrease.

All that said, it wasn't your 10% (or 9% specific to Holyfield) that I objected to. It was the use of the word "easy" and phrase "without problem". I won't encourage you to attempt to lose and regain 10% of your bodyweight in c.36 hours, firstly without professional assistance you wouldn't manage it and secondly I wouldnt want you to attempt something so dangerous to your health, but if you really gave it your very best shot (I.e. properly researched the techniques and got as low as was physically possible), I promise you that you would not find the experience easy. I've heard many boxers describe weight making as the hardest part of their chosen vocation. That's a vocation where they put their bodies through hell every day and get punched in the head, hard.

I don't wish to be offensive, but if I'm truly open with you, I find it extraordinary that anyone could claim losing and regaining 10% of bodyweight in c34 hours would be "easy", when frankly common sense should be enough to realise it would be an extremely difficult experience.

Thank you. I think we're nearing some middle ground. I agree, the majority of boxers don't deydrate and rehydrate for and from weigh ins at +10% of the bodyweight, for fear of overdoing it and the cons outweighing the pros, in terms of their performance levels.

On average, its at about 8% (a little more below LW and a little less above MW) where the extent the negative weakening impact of the cut and gain, is greater than the positive impact of being as big and heavy as possible.

 

OK thanks, nothing wrong w/having intense spreadsheet interests!

I have been saying it would be "relatively" easy-as in most boxers can do it in @36 hours without extreme suffering.
And I was first referring to a muscular man Holyfield-all other things being = that is easier than say Crawford.

You used it as an example of how hard it was-well calculate how tough it was if he hit "only" 9%-would you not agree that this was clearly significantly easier than what he really did? Just subtract this from how much he really lost & regained...

And then consider that he is much skinnier than Evander, so it is likely to be more taxing even at the same % change.

I am not at all offended; just realize that it is reasonable to see (& feel if you try it) things at different levels of difficulty-wich anyway is a descriptive term, not scientific.
Take wrestlers who historically have done more dramatic shifts, I believe in 24 hours (that in itself makes it somewhat harder)-so many would find it "relatively" easy. As opposed to how much they really lost in what time period.
Especially if they have more muscle mass.

Of course you or I could likely pull a theoretical Holyfield-or slightly more at 10%-at least if we had done the proper research-a little less sure if you are very lean...
But give us a bazillion or say 10K + & the knowledge-sure we could!

Again I am saying "relatively" easy.
If you have 8% as an

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Here's where we aren't on the same page - If "most" boxers could gain 10%+ from weigh in to fight night "relatively easily" as you claim, most would. But most don't.

 

Eh we have some difference of opinion.
Although there are reasons I discussed that boxers may not go to their limits-or the limits of "relatively easy".
I do not hear you disagreeing that in a video where Crawford illustrates the difficulty of doing this, that if he did not go beyond 9%, it would be much easier.

And someone built like Holyfield at least noticeably easier.
Tyson marginally more so, since even with EVander's PEDs & fanatical training, he had much less lower body muscle mass than Tyson.

 

Agreed, my opinion is that, as has been cited from multiple sources in this thread, 33 of 50 boxers across all weights gaining less than 10% and 25 of 26 LHWs gaining less than 9%, constitutes most boxers gaining less than 10%, particularly in the higher weight categories. My opinion is that, that is a fact.

Are you asking me if Crawford had cut and gained less weight, he'd have found the experience less difficult? If so, yes, I think that cutting and then gaining less weight would have been less difficult for him. I said several posts ago I think we're at cross purposes with our interpretation of the word "easy" in this context, and that you were using it to mean achievable and me the literal definition of without difficulty. You stated you were using the literal definition too, but I really don't think you are. Crawford could have clearly achieved a 9% gain without pushing it to the max, but it would obviously have not been without difficulty/discomfort. That's before I point out I said "most", not "all", boxers.

Anyway, we are now going round in circles and we've derailed the Usyk vs Tyson thread enough (my fault, our exchange began when I quoted your post).

I'm happy for you to have the right of last reply, so I'll conclude my input where I began it:

• Despite the obvious advantages, most boxers gain less than 10% body weight from weigh in to fight night. This is proof enough, if further proof beyond what common sense should tell you, that a 10% gain is categorically and demonstrably not easy, albeit it is achievable for a significant minority of boxers.
• Holyfield weighing in at<200lbs for Tyson 2, rehydrating to the same weight he actually was on fight night and being in the same physical condition, would not be unprecedented, but would have made him an outlier (1 out of 26 based on data published in this thread).

If you have any sources, data or facts that contradicts the above, I'll happily rengage with you, if not, I've enjoyed our exchange, its served to reinforce the views I initially expressed, as detailed in the above 2 x bullet points.

 

Thanks for your gracious affect & attention to detail Greg.
I do not seek the last word, just respond in a targeted way when I feel something needs to be added, clarified or corrected.

First "easy" is subjective, hazy-but I repeat that I have been saying "relatively easy".
That it is not anything like minimal effort to do it, just well within Holyfield's capacity.
It is not 1 of 26 guys who do almost 9% overall, as illustrated by you describing 8% as being an average from your highly detailed spreadsheets (which I assume are accurate in substance & a very meaningful sample size.

I think you have conflated a couple things to come to a conclusion that is not supported by strict logic.
That is, what most people DO is not the same as what is achievable.
That the average is @8% does not show 9 or 10 to be prohibitive-& I presented a bunch of reasons why folks would not push the envelope, or believe they need to.

Wrestlers even at the high school level routinely do 10% or more.
And within 24, not near 36 hours.
Tons has been written about it, & those who go beyond this-at least significantly-have real risks.
These are not pros with the access to trainers that Holyfield had, nor usually with as much muscle (estra water to drain).

Most of what we disagree on is just a matter of degree & interpretation.
I must stress I say "relatively" easy for Holyfield.

The only strong or dramatic difference I have had is any notion that Holyfield losing & regaining just about 9% of his body weight-or slightly more-would leave him in a very weakened state.

This being only slightly more in percentage than is typical-& with mucho muscle & great trainers...
And considering that the average boxer is nowhere near greatly weakened...
This tells me Holyfield could have been great as a modern CW.
With more success than he had at HW.
Likely continuing at least the level of dominance he had as an under 190 lbs. limit CW-& for years.

But that would literally not have paid for him to do.
Nor been consistent with his admirable ambitions.

Only if that Holyfield (& 218 was more than his average HW prime weight) ran into Usyk would he have something less than great dominance.
And it is off the subject we are discussing, but Usyk also could have stayed at CW & had much easier dominance...

Thank you for your patient consideration of all these details!

 

"Are you talking to me?"

Better than picturing DeNiro's mug, check out the derriere in my profile pic. Is that purrrfect or what?