I made the following proportion-index to help me think through heavyweight comparisons, from the size standpoint. The numbers on the right are in 18/23 proportion to the numbers on the left. The idea is that it's perhaps a bit easier to grasp size differences if their proportions can be related to something more like the mid-range of human size. 235Ilb 'Boxer A' vs 190 Ilb 'Boxer B' can be a bit hard to get a hold of; asking how a 184 Ilb 'Boxer A quality/type' would do against a 149 Ilb 'Boxer B quality/type' is another way of looking at it. 250.0 195.7 247.5 193.7 245.0 191.7 242.5 189.8 240.0 187.8 237.5 185.9 235.0 183.9 232.5 182.0 230.0 180.0 227.5 178.0 225.0 176.1 225.5 174.1 220.0 172.2 217.5 170.2 215.0 168.3 212.5 166.3 210.0 164.3 207.5 162.4 205.0 160.4 202.5 158.5 200.0 156.5 197.5 154.6 195.0 152.6 192.5 150.7 190.0 148.7 187.5 146.7 185.0 144.8 182.5 142.8 180.0 140.9 177.5 138.9 175.0 137.0 172.5 135.0 170.0 133.0 167.5 131.1 165.0 129.1 162.5 127.2 160.0 125.2
Well, I'm dropping 21.74% of the real weight. The question's I'm trying to provoke are something like "Would you take an approx. 181 Ilb George Foreman type/quality fighter over a approx. 146 Ilb Rocky Marciano type/quality fighter?" What I'm trying to get around is the flattening of perception that comes from all these guys having been termed 'Heavyweights', and trying to foster a recognition that, for example, Foreman's weight proportioned to Marciano's approximately as a small Cruiser's proportioned to a large Welter's. I'm not trying to deduce a HTH outcome; I just want to make a little tool for making it easier to grasp the size differences involved, before giving ones opinion as to a HTH. Now, I think (to take the above example) there are many scenarios one can consider, aside from the 'plucked from each others primes' scenarios. You can consider boxers from the standpoint of 'if they'd come along at the same time', or in similar environments -- medicine and nutrition (both as a matter of general culture and specific to sports), training, length of matches.... you can speculate as to how size differences might widen or narrow in different scenarios. ----------- 250.0 195.7 248.0 194.1 246.0 192.5 244.0 191.0 242.0 189.4 240.0 187.8 238.0 186.3 236.0 184.7 234.0 183.1 232.0 181.6 230.0 180.0 228.0 178.4 226.0 176.9 224.0 175.3 222.0 173.7 220.0 172.2 218.0 170.6 216.0 169.0 214.0 167.5 212.0 165.9 210.0 164.3 208.0 162.8 206.0 161.2 204.0 159.7 202.0 158.1 200.0 156.5 198.0 155.0 196.0 153.4 194.0 151.8 192.0 150.3 190.0 148.7 188.0 147.1 186.0 145.6 184.0 144.0 182.0 142.4 180.0 140.9 178.0 139.3 176.0 137.7 174.0 136.2 172.0 134.6 170.0 133.0 168.0 131.5 166.0 129.9 164.0 128.3 162.0 126.8 160.0 125.2
From ca. 200 lbs on there is a stop, it doesn´t matter from there on if you weigh 300 lbs or 400 lbs, we aren´t at a weight pulling contest or a bench press contest where mass counts...
It's a mathematical oversimplification of the complex, biological truth. Because of scaling, power, durability, etc, does not increase linearly as you add mass.
Hi, ChrisPontius I'm somewhat inclined to agree. I suspect that, if you had a population of 10,000,000 160 Ilb guys (plus or minus 3% weight), and a population of 10,000,000 240 Ilb guys (plus or minus 3%) weight, each population equaly interested in developing as boxers, each with equal access to being developed as boxers, I suspect the 160 Ilb population would produce (on average, or in their top ten specimens, ect) would produce the better quality fighters. I suppose that, when I speak of an 'X' type/quality of fighter, I am asking readers to make use of their beliefs as to what weights humans tend to function most efficiently. If they think 50th percentile 243 pounders (give or take a few pounds) are, in their punch-resistance, power, stamina, ect, only as P4P good as 40th percentile 190 Ilb boxers, they should use these beliefs as a guide, so that e.g. in scaling down a 90th pcntl puncher (at 243 Ilb) to 190 Ilb, they should imagine that scaled down version as something less than 90th pcntl (relative to 190 Ilb). How much less, if less at all, I leave to each posters speculation. Anyways, thats what I mean by an ' 'X' type/quality' of fighter. --------- As far as a weight where 'any more doesn't matter' -- well, I think that, if quality were held constant, weight would most always help. Of course, that's a big qualifier. My problem with 'over 200 Ilb doesn't matter' is that, since there are probably a lot more guys who weigh around 200 Ilb than around 225 Ilb, and since the rewards of prestige and money for fighting in the heavyweight division are quite attractive, why don't we see the heavyweight division largely dominated by fighters at the extreme low end of its spectrum? Also, the 'over 'X' Ilbs doesn't matter' argument has been with us for a LONG time . . . . . during which immutable 'X' has gotten larger and larger and larger . . . . as has the lower limit of the heavyweight division.
I agree mostly. Over 210/220lbs, there is not that much increase in punching power or durability, it seems. However, reach can differ. For instance, Lewis at 245lbs in my opinion punches about as hard as Tyson at 215lbs, but has a gigantic reach advantage over him (and most other former champions).
