When is a fighter the bigger man?

jesus... you are without a doubt one of the dumbest guys ever around here.
tyson had bigger frame than spinks, he was shorter but naturally wider and thicker, however foreman was naturally bigger(not only taller, you dumb ****), david haye weighed also 220 pounds packed of muscle, but do you think that he was naturally bigger than ali? despite ali weighed 212 in his prime? his bones specially of the legs were bigger than david's the point is that sometimes some fighters are lighter for certain fights but they could carry much more weight cause a big wide frame. you got **** in the place of a brain

 

See for me it's a variable. Hagler was the bigger man in the early 80's, by the late 80's he wasn't.

I know personally as a man who's relatively fit, I can carry 15 and half stone and still keep a relatively low bf % (14%) and I can be relatively strong compared to those who don't go to the gym, but then a few months later I can be 12 and a half stone at a slightly lower bf % (12%) and not drastically weaker. My bench would drop from say 3 reps at 105 kg to 3 reps at 95 kg. I don't feel any healthier at a certain weight, I just fluctuate depending on the season.

I do think size is overstated quite a lot. It's more about the composition of the fighter. Arreola being fat didn't help him against Adamek.

 

You prove my point there. Well price is a strong word but you argue it well.

Weight varies over time. We judge a man as he fares against those "his size" where size is the weight at the weigh in. Some achievements look better if a man is more proven at that size, Floyd beating Marquez at the time wasn't impressive, Marquez went on to spark PAC out and suddenly it doesn't look so bad.

Golovkin beating Brook doesn't look that impressive, if Brook goes on to be MW champion it suddenly doesn't look so bad.

Should Pacquiao still be considered a Flyweight? Of course not. Hell I don't even think he should be considered a FW, both him and Floyd chose to fight as a WW for their prime's and that's how they should be remembered as a WW.

 

Agree about Spinks. That was a fantastic win. But if almost all of Hearns big success came against smaller men, I can't see how that doesn't affect his p4p rating. P4p is after all about factoring for size.

 

yes

 

For me, there's not one clear cut answer about this.

I see it as a p4p-achievement if a fighter has success at a lower weight and then puts on a lot of weight and have success in a higher division. I someone goes from say 122 to 154 and wins a title there, I count it as a very impressive p4p-achievement even if he weighs as much as his opponent in the ring. The reason being that I think it's hard not to lose effectiveness when one puts on substantial weight, even if its muscle.

Of course, it's even more impressive if he wins the title while still giving up a lot of weight. Also if the 30 pounds he has put on is all fat. Then he's just a fat 122-pounder beating a world class 154-pounder. I can't help but being impressed with that. I can't see why it should be less impressive than if he did the same thing without the extra 30 lbs of pure fat.

On the other hand, if we're talking about someone who's at his best at say 170 lbs in the ring, but cuts and drains down to 147, then I can't say it's a great p4p-achievement for him to "move up" to 160 and have success there.

 

This. You can have a tall stringbean with broad shoulders fighting a relative midget, but if shortie weighs 10lb more, then he's the bigger man.

 

Tyson only out weighed Spinks by 6 pounds. Spinks towered over Tyson, didn't really look small in proportion, and their weight wasn't far off. Tyson naturally would be stockier but not necessarily bigger. If you look at these two guys together and didn't know about the 6 pounds, you wouldn't call Tyson bigger. I do agree if it starts to tip over 10 pounds and it's obvious it's all muscle on one guy..just depends.

[url]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/3c/14/75/3c14758b1b944134ca0489ba71fda789.jpg[/url]

[url]https://i.ytimg.com/vi/IHV9RcxJrSk/hqdefault.jpg[/url]

 

I don't think there was any perception that Hearns built a legacy on beating bigger men. Shields, Benitez, Duran...nobody thought these guys were bigger than Hearns. Hill was a huge win at LHW, but I don't think anybody really saw that as a small man overcoming a big man.

[url]http://static.boxrec.com/thumb/2/25/Hearns_vs_hill-530x317.jpg/450px-Hearns_vs_hill-530x317.jpg[/url]

 

Well Ken Norton was only 2 lbs heavier and 1 inch taller than jimmy young in their fight but it looked lke hercules fighting a teenager. His frame was much bigger and he was all lean sculpted muscle.

 

the fighter A is bigger

 

norton did not have specially big frame, he was muscular but his bones were slim. examples of big framed guys are foreman, jefries, david tua, max baer, carnera etc