Naturally bigger doesn't really count in boxing, if someone who is naturally smaller than you weighs heavier than you in boxing he's the bigger man in my eyes. GGG is naturally much bigger than Naseem Hamed but if the Prince was to fight tomorrow he would be a HW and bigger than GGG.
Yeah, the idea that we should assess a boxer's flabby body to decide he's whether "smaller" than he weighs, and therefore give him some sort of "p4p credit" for beating a "larger man" (who weighs less than him!?) is just not plausible. I mean, Andy Ruiz Jr looks flabby as hell to me, to get lean he'd probably have to lose 100 pounds - perhaps he's just a fat welterweight. Therefore he's probably pound-for-pound better than Floyd Mayweather because I really can't see Floyd going 12 rounds with Joseph Parker ....
It's a funny old game boxing, nothing is ever clear cut as your example shows. Adding weight on the whole surely has a beneficial effect to near enough every fighter. I mean who would win in FW Manny Pacquiao or the WW version, I know where I'd be putting my money. What about the CW version of Evander Holyfield or the HW version, the same again.
Adding weight has to be considered an advantage, generally, objectively. And if a bantamweight wants to FATTEN himself up to middleweight to his detriment that's on him. That's the choice he made. You go in the ring at a certain weight you are judged against men of that same weight. If he wins the middleweight championship, for an example, that's proof enough for me that he was legit middleweight anyway, so there's no need to give him the credit for being a bantam. Some boxers are just fat anyway, so there's no need to overcomplicate things. Boxing is divided into WEIGHT classes, not "body composition" classes. And we don't rate fighters in any division until they've achieve something in that division anyway. Let's be honest, if Larry Holmes had KO'd Spinks in 1 round in 1985, we'd consider that a meaningless achievement at heavyweight, not because Spinks at 200 wasn't a heavyweight in terms of his weight/size but because he wasn't a heavyweight in terms of accomplishment.
I agree with all your points but surely you agree that a fighter that has to cut weight (safely) should all things being equal, have an advantage over a fighter that has to bulk up in weight?
Yes why not, Liston would walk around at a much heavier weight if they carried the same amount of body fat.
If Byrd comes in heavier than Liston he's the bigger man. Liston is bigger-framed, in my opinion, but if Byrd wants to bulk up and make himself a few pounds the heavier man, he's gone and made himself the bigger man. Liston has the advantages for all sorts of reasons.
one of the biggest nonsenses that i did read. if you are naturally smaller and you add artificial mass it only will slow you down, it does not even make you stronger in a ring because you will have worse stamina. then the 230 fat pounder james toney was bigger than the natural 212 ali right? yes sure... what a bunch of crap
Bear in mind Toney moved up to fight "the bigger man" in Barkley. But Barkley would have had to move up himself to face "the bigger man" in Toney ten years later. It's a dynamic situation.