Size Importance

Weight classes are needed but there's absolutely no need for 17 classes.

10 would do just fine

 

Theres ONE guy under 220 in the top 20!

 

All champions of the past have had a significant size advantage over their opponents, Wlad has a size advantage, but at the same time is ten times more talented than his smaller foes. Also to clarify, Wlad has beaten and destroyed fighters heavier than he was, also taller than he was. The average size of the top ten of the heavyweights today is 220 pounds, Wlad fights around 230 pounds, not much of a difference anyway. Many boxers today around the same size as Wlad that will be knock out victims if they confront king Wladimir.

 

He just hates fighters from a certain background, there is no reasoning behind his statements. Ignore.

 

It was Dempsey who was knocked out of the ring Clemmy not Louis.
Pay attention.

 

Voted option 1, weight classes exist for a reason and that is why fighters moving up and beating top contenders are so impressive, (Though less so nowadays where weaker titlists are picked at each weight rather than moving up to face the top dog in the division.)

One of the issues with weightclasses currently is the amount of weight cutting going on, and that some fighters just seem to be naturally better at cutting.

Chavez for example, huge weight cutter who was lucky enough to not suffer unduly because of it in the ring allowing him to often be significantly larger than his opponents on fight night.

Good username BTW:good

 

size advantage is a big deal especially in the lower weight classes

You can have a highly skilful fighter like rigo but put him in with decent fighter at 130/140 he will get beaten up

 

The 'standard HW' division as you call it in the amateur ranks has a weight limit of 201 pounds, making it more or less the equivalent of the professional cruiserweight division. In fact, the average professional CW is probably slightly bigger than the average amateur HW since he has time to rehydrate up to 210-215 by fight time.

In other words, the same or even a bigger size differential is allowed in the amateur SHW division. And btw, i'm no Klitschko fan but as far as i know he hasn't fought a lot of cruiserweights (Haye, Chambers, who else?)

So you, sir, are showing yourself to be an ignorant ass with that post.

 

It's less significant in divisions where fighters have weight restrictions. At heavyweight not only are they taller but also heavier and so likely have a strength advantage as well.

But while size clearly does factor in, it is like any other attribute. Speed alone doesn't win fights, but it helps, power alone doesn't win fights, but it helps. Size helps but size alone does not decide the victor. Simply picking a fighter to beat another fighter based on size alone is re****ed as there are many other factors that can come into play.

 

Good points. I always say speed, power, size and so on are merely tools and they don't do anything for you unless you know how to use them. That's why all these basketball and football players who suddenly start boxing while in their 20's never become champs, no matter how big and athletic they are.

 

Agree but it only goes so far.

Like Floyd beat Canelo despite being at a weight disadvantage sue to his other attributes.

In any given fight one fighter has the advantage in one category say speed, the other in another eg power. Its who can impose their strengths the best.

But this only goes so far. As good as Floyd is to overcome the weight disadvantage against Alvarez could he do the same against say Ward or Kovalev? I don't think so even though you may rate him as the better fighter in every category other than weight/power.

 

i actually see the height as a great advantage in any weight division. it is not really an even playing field when there is so much height and reach advantage.

 

Weight is brutally imporant in lower divisions but I maintain my position that past a certain point it becomes a double-edged sword. Same with height. That limit would be 230+ and 6'5''.

I think it speaks a lot that the best wins of both Klitschko brothers are small heavyweights and blown-ups (Haye, Byrd, Adamek)

 

This thread and poll misses the point of proportional differences in areas of anatomy that contribute to the sport.

a small featherweight and a big middleweight is obviously going to be a mismatch weight class wise, because the difference in size is represented by significant proportional anatomical differences in bone and muscle size that contribute to boxing.

A light heavyweight and a "super"heavyweight represents a smaller proportional difference in these advantages, though still substantial.

A cruiserweight and a SHW the difference is smaller still - the differences being increasingly made up in fat and non advantageous bone/muscle mass. the advantage is less so.

Furthermore, larger body masses knock on effect is reduced cardio ability, and in a cardio sport that's close to suicide if you get too big. Some people think that 8 foot tall monsters in the future will be the best boxers ever - that's not going to be the case, they will be held back by impossible loads on the heart muscle (which only reduces in efficiency/stroke load the bigger it gets, invoking a double loss in cardio ability in increasingly larger giants - its a double loss since their hearts are already struggling to supply a more massive body on top of suffering reduced efficiency due to minor increase in heart size). those 8 foot tall monsters wont even make it into convention, unless boxing matches are reduced in length, an environment in which they can then thrive.