What was so bad with Dempsey vs Gibbons?

How many world class light heavyweights did Marvin Hagler beat?

that's right, none!

It is a bit of a leap of faith therfore to asume that he would beat Tommy Gibbons.

 

What if his existing owners on the forum refuse to share him with me?

 

There is a big difference between a fighter who fought most of their career at light heavyweight, and an ACTUAL lightheavyweight.

Gibbons was an actual lightheavyweight - He weighed 175lbs on fight night. In fact, he'd weigh a good ten pounds less than what most modern LHW's will weigh on fightnight. Some supermiddleweights would outweigh him.

Michael Spinks did fight most of his career at lightheavyweight, but he weighed in at 213lbs in his last fight Vs Tyson, and at 200lbs against Holmes, i.e., he weighed more than Jack Dempsey did for most of his career.

Michael Spinks was not a lightheavyweight Vs Holmes. Gibbons was an unranked lightheavyweight Vs Dempsey

 

You are on to something, and even today, How overweight is 39 year old 5"9 James Toney at 239 lbs, yet he stop Evander,and Gave Heavyweight Peter 2 good close fights(I thought he won the 1st one) a lot of times its how good the smaller guy is but also how he uses his Disadvantage? which could sometimes be an advantage

 

Yes but if you take a natural light heavyweight and bulk him up to 200lbs you do not end up with a natural 200lb fighter you just get a pumped up light heavyweight.

Chris Byrd bulked up to 210 lbs but he still couldn't knock a heavyweight's hat off and he might well have been better off keeping his weight low to preserve his advantages of speed and mobility.

Do you think for example that Billy Conn would have fared better against Joe Louis if he had bulked up to 200lbs?

 

How much film is here though,its also mostly old and from shitty fixed positions,hardly fair to use that to judge the man,id say the fight would be close as hell,i think your just a hater on the old guys from the past,no one can prove **** either way,but you keep going on about the old guys getting destroyed by anyone from the 70s or on,and i think thats pathetic.To knock a guy whos had 100 pro fights in a seriously hard era of history is weird mate,he was not a ****ing novice or a fool,grow up for gods sake,the guy was tough as hell.

 

So Hearns at 160lb qualifies as a "lightheavyweight" because he eventually fought at 175?

Now I need to go back and give Montell Griffin credit for beating top heavyweight contender James Toney.

 

:rofl Thats just pretty funny right there. We all know were Toney got the extral weight anyway. Burger King.

 

I'll know for sure as soon as you seem credible or a pig flies past my window.

Beating a 160lb fighter who, some two years later, weighs 175 doesn't qualify as beating a lightheavyweight. You're sniffing glue to think otherwise. Who the hell would claim that because Sugar Ray Leonard TKO'd a 147lb Hearns that Leonard owns wins over great lightheavyweights?

Oh! Well! Then let me amend my statement:

Who the hell would claim that because Sugar Ray Leonard TKO'd a 147lb Hearns that Leonard owns wins over great cruiserweights?

 

Yes.

Byrd bulked up to 210lbs for a reason.

Weight-classes also exist for a reason.

I don't believe in "Natural weight" - What is natural weight? Our weight is a product of our frame, diet and exercise. Are you telling me Spinks looks unnatural as 6'3 213lbs heavyweight? If anything Tyson is the one in that fight whose "weight" looks "unnatural"

Vargas walks around at close to 200lbs, but fights at 154lbs, so what is his "natural" weight? He doesn't have one. A natural size perhaps, but weight-training and nutritional breakthroughs has given modern fighters a better ability to "control" their weight. I'm not saying the fighters are better, but I think Roy Jones is a good example of how this has favoured modern athletes.

Oh, and I wouldn't deny that steroids have played a major role in the "weight regulation" of some boxers.