soliciting opinions about the Heavy weight division

Wrong. The size has changed (which I even proved with numbers in the other thread). You can see that simply by going to boxrec and comparing the weights of the world title challengers from different decades.

But yes, maybe it is just a coincidence that the weight has changed, maybe it doesn't mean anything. It can be that the heavyweight limit has been risen 25 lbs for no reason. Maybe the weight classes are useless altogether, maybe the size indeed does not matter. Maybe the modern heavyweights just happen to be slower than the ones from earlier decades, just like in all weight classes the bigger guys happen to be slower and have less stamina and ability to take multiple shots. Maybe it is just a coincidence that athletes have grown bigger also in other sports (that can be measured) and they now make much better results in ALL of them.

It can all be. To me, that just doesn't sound logical

 

dsimon writes:

guys train to add more muscle and some guys have more fat. And your sample while a valid size does not include enough average fighters in the division.

Your sample may prove that succesful heavies were bigger, but again there are more than a few ways to interpret the data of weights of championship fighters. One would have to know the succes rate of smaller fighters for it to be valid. And Fighters like Valuev and Klitschko skew the curve... You sample also does not consider alternative reasons why the bigger fighters became champion.

I think it is good that you present data, I wish more people would at least make an attempt to do so, but the data you present is not enough to draw the conclusion you do... If you want to present your data again I will show you what I mean.

 

dsimon writes:

I certainly wouldn't consider Ali an athlete in the conventional sense. he was a fighter.

Regarding football: Yeah a lot of guys did some track and field but when have they been able to take a stone cold sprinter and make him the next Jerry Rice? Lord knows they tried. :notallthere: ::

 

We've Had Similar Discussions on this Matter B 4, Brother DSimon...

2 REED, an "Athlete" has a Level of FLUIDITY &/or COORDINATION (Or even RHYTHM, if U Will)that Could Carry Over to OTHER Sports...

Considering Ali's Hand-Eye Coordination, his HANDSPEED & his Footwork, it's Not Difficult Imagining a Prime Ali on a Basketball Court (Not NBA Level or Anything)or Playing Tight End on a Football Field (Again, Not PRO Level, but @ Least Getting Out there & WINGING It)...Sure, Ali was a FIGHTER, but it was his ATHLETIC ABILITY that Carried him, Pre Exile...The Pulling Back of the Head, the Ability to Hold his Hands LOW, yet Still Fend Off Incoming Blows, the Fact that he was 210-215 w/the Grace & Footwork of a Welterweight, that's ALL Attributed to Ali's Athletic Ability N REED's Opinion...

An "Athlete" 2 REED is Someone who Can @ Least SIMULATE the Natural Motions PERTINENT to other Sports...An "Athlete" Doesn't Really Look OUT of Place N Any Sport...

It's Not that U're GREAT @ Any 1 Sport Necessarily, but U're VERSATILE Enough to @ Least ADEQUATELY Perform @ MANY Sports...



REED

 

The only one I can think of off the top of my head was Ken Norton.

Norton was a Track & Field star in High School and went to college on a football scholarship. He didn't start boxing until he joined the military and ended up becoming a world class heavy and a fixture at the top of a stacked heavy division during the 70's. But he's the only one I can think of.

Norton's "title" reign wasn't much, but he was able to hold his own against the likes of Ali and Holmes.

That being said, Norton is the exception, rather than the rule when it comes to top heavies.

 

Great catch, mate. Norton was the prototypical combo athlete and his genes ran long.

Wish you posted more often.

 

dsimon writes:

I think that often a fighter could be an athlete, or even vice versa. But they are different once they establish an identity. Joe Louis could have been a swimmer like Weismuller, but there is a difference. I agree that both can be physically able in the same way thats true.

Fighters have a different mentality than athletes. Yes they are similar and many mental aspects overlap. I also think that today these qualities are considered the same and imo this is why combatives have lost some of the mental aspects that make fighters better fighters than athletes. ::

Its the same thing with individual sports. A sprinter has a different mentality than a wide reciever. Its more obvious with a Tight end.... a guy who will hold the ball and take the hit but isn't necessarily fast or agile.

 

Of course there's a good correlation between sprinters and wide receivers. You cannot be a pro receiver without being really friggin fast and the faster, the better. It is an essential part of the equation.

But, what makes a heavyweight boxer is far less related to athletic ability.
Make a checklist of what makes a good basketball player or linebacker or whatever. Now make a checklist of what makes a good boxer. There are a hell of a lot of traits that don't match up. There's your common sense rebuttal.

Now look at the best heavies in the world over the last 30 years and figure out how many could have played professionally at any other sport. Very, very few. There's your empirical data observation.

Now forget you read this post and go back to pretending that the best potential US boxers are tackling people in the NFL and dunking basketballs in the NBA if it makes you feel better. I'm not saying it can't happen, I just think there are other reasons that are more likely, particularly the lack of boxing's popularity/gym membership for younger kids.

 

you know what else...

IMO.. fighters of ALL divisions.. especially HW, are just softer!

that might sound like BS.. but hear me out..

Fighters back in the day.. pre 80's aside from a few (ali) were not STARS like B-ballers or nfl'ers

today I personally think that the celeb kinda status a top fighter gets AND the big $$ actually hurts the sport.. kinda takes out the HUNGER if you will..

you'd think that a shot of being a millionaire would make someone pretty motivated but for some reason IMO it does not translate, it seems the by-gone era of a more "working class" fighter just made people tougher in way, maybe you fight harder when you are fighting for food for your kids as opposed to fighting for Diamonds and Ferraris?

 

even the so called unification at the Heavyweight division is nothing but a quick fix.

Say one guy unifies all the tittles and is considered the #1 in the world. It won't be long till 2 or 3 of the sanctioning bodies strip him and you'll see more belt holders.

There is nobody dominant right now so even the so called best can lose and your back to square one.

I don't know much about DAvid Haye but I was impressed with his fight last weekend. I am also looking forward to see what he does at the heavyweight division.

 

How has Wlad not been 'dominant' lately you troglabite? :crafty:. Watchable? No, his fight with Sultan wasn't watchable, but his latest form has not been inconsistant, nor precarious. Besides, you'd only take interest if these men had compound eyes and were the size of a matchbox, try watching the telly from the hallway :stir: .

 

This discussion almost makes me nostalgic for the days when Kid Dynamite would pick Tyrell Biggs over George Foreman based on Biggs' "Superior athelticism."::

 

dsimon writes:

Im tellin ya Joe... The search for the superior athlete who will trailblaze a division in boxing is similar to the marketeers sitting around the boardroom with a graph on the blacktop board gazing longingly at the board and exclaiming "if we could just sell one coke to every China man"..... It makes perfect sense but it has never happened and probably never will. ::

I think that people are confused because a great fighter probably could be a great athlete, but it just don't work that way. Which is why James Toney as Jabba the Hut can still put on a virtuosa performance yet Michael Grant could not stay the course.