When a fighter moves up in weight

[Bronson66]

I don't understand where you think the conflict lies. I used Fitzs as an example of a man who weighed more at MW than he did HW. You are not dis*****g that. Leaves me confused.

Langford should be enough for the point to be made buddy. If it is a human limitation then there are no exception. How many people do you know can fly? Okay. That's a real human limitation. You admitting Lang was a good 160 in the 15 round era is you admitting there is no physical or biological reason a 160 man can't do well over 15 rounds against men around the 200s.

You'd have a real ****ing hard time saying MWs can't fight at HW if we had a MW fighting at HW right now wouldn't you? Given it's been a long time since we've seen one you're able to say where are they. Admitting a time where there is no where are they is all my post asks of you and you did that. Should I need a plethora?


I'm not trying to be a ****, but I'm going to be direct as I can. IMO, there is no argument here.


Mention Fitzs's weight changes in a post mostly about time and all of a sudden Fitzs is an example of a fighter without time limits. Um, gee man, I thought the time span I was covering was way longer than Fitzs's career and he alone can not be the crux of was there or wasn't there smaller men in the division.

In all reality I did not think I had to defend the idea that as you go backward in time men get smaller in this sport. Fitzs was not meant to be a reflection of that. Fitzs is just a name for someone to look up to see what I mean about weighing more at lower weights than they do at heavier weights.





Fitzs also fought something like 30 debuts. Does that mean small men were not more prevalent during a time when fight times were longer?


Dempsey's era is chalk full of MWs and LHWs at HW. Does this mean small men were not more prevalent during a time when fight times were longer?


I like Langford too. I also like some Ganses and Norfolk ... ... ... none of which did "well" at hw? Exactly bro, we can all bring up **** that's besides the point and act like it isn't.

Fight distances weren't actually longer, in most cases,4 and 6 rounders were prevalent,you would have to go back before Fitz's time,for that and even then,with the advent of the gloved era,lots of fights were over abbreviated distances.
Give a verified example of Fitz weighing more at Middle than he did at Heavy?
I'm assuming you know that nearly all Fitz's "weights " were supplied by himself,in the absence of a weigh in,he was notorious for doing so. as Pollack noted in his bio of Fitz.

Which heavyweights of any class did Langford beat whilst scaling160lbs?

If there is, as you say,there is no physical reason why a middleweight would not do well against a heavyweight,why do such matchups never happen? And when was the last time they did ?
Would that be way back when heavyweights were ,on average40/50lbs lighter than they are now?

Norfolk was a lhvy,not a middleweight,show an example of him at160lbs beating a heavyweight?
I never suggested that heavyweights haven't got bigger ,its the main plank of my argument!

The elephant in the room in these size/weight debates is the total ignoring of the fact by those who say it doesn't matter ,is that every single fighter that fought successfully above his original weight division, added poundage to do so!

[Mr Mitts]

It makes sense to me that a good middleweight might outrun a decent heavyweight over 4 rounds if he fights right and especially if the HW has a style he likes to go against. It also makes sense to me that in a long fight the MW's chances, if he can get that far, might very well go up again, as his stamina may decay slower than the HW's.

Size matters. It takes the few special ones to beat good HW's. A very small number can do it, or they would. They got nothing against money and fame. So it is not unreasonable to assume right off the top that only the greatest of MWs are able to overcome even selected samples of what used to be called heavyweights. For instance, I believe Robby might do well against John Riuiz, but hell's bells, men, not against a Tyson, or even a Ruddock for that matter.

Size matters--once you exceed the limits of where it doesn't. Particular limits of weight gaps will vary for each individual matchup, which is realistic and logical. I cannot restate this thesis any more succinctly

"Size doesn't matter," is an incomplete and churlishly stubborn statement. By design it lacks full truth, so by default is also a false statement meant to beguile, since no reasonable man can actually believe it without the qualifications I set forth in the last paragraph. Only a dummy or a boor believes the original statement unqualified, without any parameters or restrictions whatsoever. You think those devotees of simple " size doesn't matter," do not still slither among us?

[Bronson66]

It makes sense to me that a good middleweight might outrun a decent heavyweight over 4 rounds if he fights right and especially if the HW has a style he likes to go against. It also makes sense to me that in a long fight the MW's chances, if he can get that far, might very well go up again, as his stamina may decay slower than the HW's.

Size matters. It takes the few special ones to beat good HW's. A very small number can do it, or they would. They got nothing against money and fame. So it is not unreasonable to assume right off the top that only the greatest of MWs are able to overcome even selected samples of what used to be called heavyweights. For instance, I believe Robby might do well against John Riuiz, but hell's bells, men, not against a Tyson, or even a Ruddock for that matter.

Size matters--once you exceed the limits of where it doesn't. Particular limits of weight gaps will vary for each individual matchup, which is realistic and logical. I cannot restate this thesis any more succinctly

"Size doesn't matter," is an incomplete and churlishly stubborn statement. By design it lacks full truth, so by default is also a false statement meant to beguile, since no reasonable man can actually believe it without the qualifications I set forth in the last paragraph. Only a dummy or a boor believes the original statement unqualified, without any parameters or restrictions whatsoever. You think those devotees of simple " size doesn't matter," do not still slither among us?

Robby found giving weight to light hitting light heavyweight Maxim was a bridge too far.
If those who promote smaller men have more stamina are correct,why was it Robinson who faded and not Maxim?

A Harry Greb, with his great speed could befuddle and bewilder the 180/190lbs heavies of his day,but how would he fare against thunderous hitters scaling 240+ lbs?
Why didn't he take on the larger heavies of his time,Firpo,Fulton,Wills?

"You're getting too big for me to handle now".Greb167 1/2lbs to Tunney181lbs.

[Marchegiano]

Fight distances weren't actually longer, in most cases,4 and 6 rounders were prevalent,you would have to go back before Fitz's time,for that and even then,with the advent of the gloved era,lots of fights were over abbreviated distances.
Give a verified example of Fitz weighing more at Middle than he did at Heavy?
I'm assuming you know that nearly all Fitz's "weights " were supplied by himself,in the absence of a weigh in,he was notorious for doing so. as Pollack noted in his bio of Fitz.

Which heavyweights of any class did Langford beat whilst scaling160lbs?

If there is, as you say,there is no physical reason why a middleweight would not do well against a heavyweight,why do such matchups never happen? And when was the last time they did ?
Would that be way back when heavyweights were ,on average40/50lbs lighter than they are now?

Norfolk was a lhvy,not a middleweight,show an example of him at160lbs beating a heavyweight?
I never suggested that heavyweights haven't got bigger ,its the main plank of my argument!

The elephant in the room in these size/weight debates is the total ignoring of the fact by those who say it doesn't matter ,is that every single fighter that fought successfully above his original weight division, added poundage to do so!

No buddy, you are too opposed to the idea to even properly question it. This hyper focus on Fits proves points to you for you. You're not even talking to me.


I said Fitzs fought smaller men at a higher weight than he fought HWs. That's it. That is the extent of your Fitzsimmons usage as example.

You go all over the place here but in your final sentence I finally get a real conflict of points. It doesn't take long to find Fitzs dropping weight to fight larger men, scroll his boxrec and we see 167 Fitzs against 184 Corbett. One fight prior Fitzs is 173 against a 182 pound Sharkey. No one loses or maintains weight to fight larger men?

Added poundage to become HW champion of the world by going from 173 to 167? I didn't even have to try really to disprove that and you're too smart and pay too close attention to detail to mis it, so, you must be missing my points and get held up on examples for supporting points. By the time you got to the goods your argument was so trash I lazy scrolled boxrec. This is no reflection of your quality but our ability to communicate.



Edit-

My bad on Norfolk, Burns then. I like Tommy Burns. We're really going to pretend Lang is the only MW between Fitzs and Roy? Because of who I name drop?

[Bronson66]

No buddy, you are too opposed to the idea to even properly question it. This hyper focus on Fits proves points to you for you. You're not even talking to me.


I said Fitzs fought smaller men at a higher weight than he fought HWs. That's it. That is the extent of your Fitzsimmons usage as example.

You go all over the place here but in your final sentence I finally get a real conflict of points. It doesn't take long to find Fitzs dropping weight to fight larger men, scroll his boxrec and we see 167 Fitzs against 184 Corbett. One fight prior Fitzs is 173 against a 182 pound Sharkey. No one loses or maintains weight to fight larger men?

Added poundage to become HW champion of the world by going from 173 to 167? I didn't even have to try really to disprove that and you're too smart and pay too close attention to detail to mis it, so, you must be missing my points and get held up on examples for supporting points. By the time you got to the goods your argument was so trash I lazy scrolled boxrec. This is no reflection of your quality but our ability to communicate.



Edit-

My bad on Norfolk, Burns then. I like Tommy Burns. We're really going to pretend Lang is the only MW between Fitzs and Roy? Because of who I name drop?

Sorry Mate but your argument is based on inaccuracy. Nobody knows what Fitz ,Sharkey or Corbett weighed for those fights,and Pollack's bio of Fitz confirms it! Any weights given are just guestimates and there are 3 of them for the Corbett fight,as I told you Fitz was notorious for giving out figures under his real weight.

Box rec is a useful guide but NOT gospel and I will take a renowned boxing authors diligent research over it every time!

[Marchegiano]

Sorry Mate but your argument is based on inaccuracy. Nobody knows what Fitz ,Sharkey or Corbett weighed for those fights,and Pollack's bio of Fitz confirms it! Any weights given are just guestimates and there are 3 of them for the Corbett fight,as I told you Fitz was notorious for giving out figures under his real weight.

Box rec is a useful guide but NOT gospel and I will take a renowned boxing authors diligent research over it every time!

then stop focusing on fitzs! How many times do I need to tell you, he is not important to the point.

Okay, I'll give you Fitzs is a bad example. You tell me how that changes the point I made.




Does that change the FACT that some of these guys who fought small men and large men sometimes weighed more to fight a smaller man? I need another example before you will address that fact? Okay

Walcott then. 140 vs 215 but also 146 vs 152

Not good enough?

Langford then 180 vs 205 but also 185 vs 175

Still need to find a man who put on weight to fight a smaller man and dropped weight to fight a larger man?

How about Loughran?

187 vs 239 but in his next fight he's 190 vs 200

Get me? Hyper focus on Fits is super unimportant besides the point sidebarring nonsense bro. I shouldn't have to do that to get you to address the fact that small men sometimes put on weight to fight smaller men and sometimes lost weight to fight larger men.

Likewise I came in unprepared AF. These names I just pulled out of my bum and simply boxrec'd. If what I am saying is wrong it should be more difficult than thinking of any random fighter who fought small and larger fighters of their day and finding an example. I ran into 0 walls. Every man I thought of surely did just that. I didn't know Tommy even fought a 230, but there it was for me. Hell I'll do one right now, how about Burns?

Dip, right away we see Burns LOSING weight to fight for the HW champion of the world.

174 vs 186 but then 168 vs 194



Fitzs can not help you here. Even if his weights are reported badly. It's ubiquitous, I didn't think up any names that did not give me an example and that is the extent of your refusal. You did not even try to see what I was claiming, you just focused on Fitzs and when put in a corner pulled Pollack out. Maybe make an attempt at understanding before debunking.

[Bronson66]

then stop focusing on fitzs! How many times do I need to tell you, he is not important to the point.

Okay, I'll give you Fitzs is a bad example. You tell me how that changes the point I made.




Does that change the FACT that some of these guys who fought small men and large men sometimes weighed more to fight a smaller man? I need another example before you will address that fact? Okay

Walcott then. 140 vs 215 but also 146 vs 152

Not good enough?

Langford then 180 vs 205 but also 185 vs 175

Still need to find a man who put on weight to fight a smaller man and dropped weight to fight a larger man?

How about Loughran?

187 vs 239 but in his next fight he's 190 vs 200

Get me? Hyper focus on Fits is super unimportant besides the point sidebarring nonsense bro. I shouldn't have to do that to get you to address the fact that small men sometimes put on weight to fight smaller men and sometimes lost weight to fight larger men.

Likewise I came in unprepared AF. These names I just pulled out of my bum and simply boxrec'd. If what I am saying is wrong it should be more difficult than thinking of any random fighter who fought small and larger fighters of their day and finding an example. I ran into 0 walls. Every man I thought of surely did just that. I didn't know Tommy even fought a 230, but there it was for me. Hell I'll do one right now, how about Burns?

Dip, right away we see Burns LOSING weight to fight for the HW champion of the world.

174 vs 186 but then 168 vs 194



Fitzs can not help you here. Even if his weights are reported badly. It's ubiquitous, I didn't think up any names that did not give me an example and that is the extent of your refusal. You did not even try to see what I was claiming, you just focused on Fitzs and when put in a corner pulled Pollack out. Maybe make an attempt at understanding before debunking.

You premise that Walcott deliberately lost weight to fight Russell is unproven, his previous recorded weight was 2lbs heavier ,ie a good ****.You are making 2 and 2,INTO 5 and you have no idea how accurate those reported wights are,or even if they weighed in at all.
Burns did NOT DELIBERATELY lose weight to fight Johnson he got into the shape of his life,and,its confirmed he weighed in the day before,totally nude,so he could have been 5/6lbs heavier in his fighting togs on fight day.
Langford's weight see sawed his whole career what he scaled for an individual fight proves ZILCH

Do you seriously believe this below means anything whatsoever?
187 vs 239 but in his next fight he's 190 vs 200 . 3lbs!
For every example you post I can give 50 rebutting it! Including in Loughran's resume!

You are proving NOTHING!

Even if those weights are correct and nobody knows,they do NOT mean the fighters deliberately lost weight for those fights.
You really have to know the veracity of these weights and the circumstances that are behind them and you don't appear to have that!

In essence you have no argument. I didnt pull Pollack out Ihave his books on these men and know them to be more accurate and better researched than Box Rec,or do you deny that?
I'm not focusing on Fitz, you keep using him as an example and ,when I blow your example out of the water, you get annoyed.

[Marchegiano]

You premise that Walcott deliberately lost weight to fight Russell is unproven, his previous recorded weight was 2lbs heavier ,ie a good ****.You are making 2 and 2,INTO 5 and you have no idea how accurate those reported wights are,or even if they weighed in at all.
Burns did NOT DELIBERATELY lose weight to fight Johnson he got into the shape of his life,and,its confirmed he weighed in the day before,totally nude,so he could have been 5/6lbs heavier in his fighting togs on fight day.
Langford's weight see sawed his whole career what he scaled for an individual fight proves ZILCH

Do you seriously believe this below means anything whatsoever?
187 vs 239 but in his next fight he's 190 vs 200 . 3lbs!
For every example you post I can give 50 rebutting it! Including in Loughran's resume!

You are proving NOTHING!

Even if those weights are correct and nobody knows,they do NOT mean the fighters deliberately lost weight for those fights.
You really have to know the veracity of these weights and the circumstances that are behind them and you don't appear to have that!

In essence you have no argument. I didnt pull Pollack out Ihave his books on these men and know them to be more accurate and better researched than Box Rec,or do you deny that?
I'm not focusing on Fitz, you keep using him as an example and ,when I blow your example out of the water, you get annoyed.

I can give up everything you claim. Oh Boxrec got those wrong too? Cool, there's plenty more. But when you find yourself saying "Burns did NOT DELIBERATELY lose weight to fight Johnson he got into the shape of his life" and do not realize that makes me right and you just proved my point at me with attitude there isn't much I can do but highlight the absurd levels of bias and mental gymnastics you go through to try to make a point.

It's not me annoyed. We all know when I get annoyed. I'm not calling anyone names. I am apologizing often for feeling forced to show you, you are wrong. I'm not even a little bit annoyed. If I was annoyed there would be a heap of stars in these posts and we all know it. Conversely, when you throw a hissy fit you drown the section in threads loosely related to the one that triggered you. Currently History is filled with threads about weight disparity. ... ... ... You are annoyed and projecting. I'm not, because there is 0 chance I am wrong about small men gaining weight to fight small men and losing weight to fight large men. 0.


In one of your many, many threads about size disparity I pointed out Haye, Valuev, and Ruiz. You can deal with that in any thread you choose but you gonna keep claiming it's Boxrec's fault?


I should tell you as directly as possible; deliberate, has 0 to do with the points I made. You can prove it was unintentional all you like, you are wasting your time.

Haye:

217 Nikolai Valuev 316

222 John Ruiz 231
210½ Audley Harrison 253½


Why? No advantage to be had in doing that.


Maybe it's in what he's training to fight? I know, crazy that.

[GhostofDempsey]

Most fighters will eventually outgrow a lower weight class with age, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are out of shape. A small fighter with a big punch can compete at higher weight classes if he can carry his power with him. Some of hem can’t take the bigger man’s punches when they move up. There are also many fighters who can successfully drain themselves down multiple weight classes and then pack on twenty or more pounds on the day of the fight with a big advantage…Haney, Crawford, Spence, Porter, Pazienza, got some of their best wins draining down up to 30 pounds or more for a fight.

[Bronson66]

I can give up everything you claim. Oh Boxrec got those wrong too? Cool, there's plenty more. But when you find yourself saying "Burns did NOT DELIBERATELY lose weight to fight Johnson he got into the shape of his life" and do not realize that makes me right and you just proved my point at me with attitude there isn't much I can do but highlight the absurd levels of bias and mental gymnastics you go through to try to make a point.

It's not me annoyed. We all know when I get annoyed. I'm not calling anyone names. I am apologizing often for feeling forced to show you, you are wrong. I'm not even a little bit annoyed. If I was annoyed there would be a heap of stars in these posts and we all know it. Conversely, when you throw a hissy fit you drown the section in threads loosely related to the one that triggered you. Currently History is filled with threads about weight disparity. ... ... ... You are annoyed and projecting. I'm not, because there is 0 chance I am wrong about small men gaining weight to fight small men and losing weight to fight large men. 0.


In one of your many, many threads about size disparity I pointed out Haye, Valuev, and Ruiz. You can deal with that in any thread you choose but you gonna keep claiming it's Boxrec's fault?


I should tell you as directly as possible; deliberate, has 0 to do with the points I made. You can prove it was unintentional all you like, you are wasting your time.

Haye:

217 Nikolai Valuev 316

222 John Ruiz 231
210 v Audley Harrison 253

Why? No advantage to be had in doing that.


Maybe it's in what he's training to fight? I know, crazy that.

If you had done research on Tommy Burns,instead of relying on Box rec for your conclusions,you would know that he trained like a maniac for Johnson and pronounced himself in the shape of his life .
Burns was always inclined to plumpness around the upper thighs, waist and arse,against Johnson he was trimmed down and showed a toned stomach.No gymnastics needed to discover that ,just some research.
You are NOT wrong about SOME modern heavies weighing more against smaller opponents than against SOME heavier ones.Those that you have cherry picked to prove your non existent point

What you are wrong about is the conclusions you seek to draw from it!
Here are some other weights for Haye
Haye 217 v Bonin 231
Haye 215 v Barrett 226
Haye 217 v Valuev 316
Haye 227 v De Mori 243
Haye 224 v Cjerjaj 237

These weights above have as much significance as those you provided ie NONE!

Then we have
Haye224 v Bellew213
Haye220 v Bellew 210

In between the weights I've given we have;
Haye 210 v Klitschko 242

What you fail to take into account the quality of the prospective opponent about to be faced ie
You would be in your best condition for your best opponents!
The best condition for your most important fights!
eg The Heavyweight title against Valuev
eg The heavyweight title against Wlad What you also fail to take into account is a fighter does NOT KNOW precisely what his opponent is going to weigh!
Also you have to factor in at what stage a fighter is in in his career?

Is he short of his full maturity?
In his prime?
Slightly past his best?
Over the hill , jaded,and just going through the motions?
As a general rule fighters add weight as they mature and age, particularly heavyweights.
You have made no allowance for this, just parroted some figures off Box rec as though they mean anything.
Well ,if they mean anything ,tell us what that is?
Explain to those of us that have no medical qualifications don't make prosthetic limbs what the weights you've provided signify?
For the record M,I'm not annoyed in the slightest,you'll know when I am! I wish you well!