Your Unshakeable Boxing Opinions

People literally can't be bothered to maintain interest in anything besides the heavyweights for more than a day at a time. Conversation always ends the same, in arguments about size and whether or not todays athletes are bigger. Same ****, different day.

Like eating nothing but the same food every meal for the rest of your life. But, hey, I guess some people like that.

 

I'm cool with topics that start off about the heavyweights - you can dip in and out as you see fit - but if people want to get into an indepth conversation about PEDs and the size of heavyweights, it feels like there's happily a new thread to start there all of its own.

So, any different unshakeable opinions people?

 

I agree. I'm not cool with people turning literally everything into a discussion about heavyweights and their size respective of division.

 

The percentage is 1% today. One percent. It’s always been within 1%. You can’t get much less.

no I think you have utterly confused yourself here. Please don’t pretend I suggested PEDs make people taller.

An overwhelming majority of Big men (men as big as now from the 1% of the population) used to be unsuitable for boxing. Traditional training just did not get enough out of them. Often they just gassed out if they were heavy. The steroid era changed this.

the era where boxer can pass the age of 40 and still be world class, where tall heavyweights can fill out in proportion to smaller men without suffering any of the trade offs in speed and stamina, where smaller men can improve punch power as they “grow” through the weights...an era where fighters fail drug tests because of more testing must answer a few questions.

well the percentage of boxers within the population within the eras could be key. For arguments sake a population can go up three times but if the population of boxers shrinks within it then you are not increasing the numbers of big men at all. Say 10% of men try boxing from a three times larger population then compare that to a era where there were three times less people but 80% of all the men tried boxing. We don’t know if this is true but it would be interesting to find out.

 

Ezzard Charles was a heavyweight in as much as Gene Tunney and Floyd Patterson were.

 

Ezzard Charles beat Archie Moore 3x under the 175 limit. Name me a 175lb in history with better wins than that?

 

Semi-shakeable opinion: With a few exceptions, most people who are fixated on old school heavyweights aren’t really that into (or knowledgeable about) boxing per se.

 

Had he stayed at the weight longer, Julio Cesar Chavez would have been a top 3 all time LW.

 

The ****ing truth.

 

Charles fought heavyweights every year from 1946 to 1959.

If Charles prime was only as a light heavyweight, In that case you are cutting Charles' prime down to a 7 month period when he was only 26 years old, that sounds a bit weird to me; that a fighter so great was only at peak fighting form for a brief period when he was strictly 174 pounds in his mid 20s.

If we are talking above 170 pounds and below 180 pounds Charles only had something like 12 fights from 122 where both he and his opponent were both within this bracket.

 

Charles peak was feb 1946-feb 1948 that's 2 years. He weighed in at 175lb or below for most of those fights

Charles stated he felt at his best below 175lb