Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Prime Tyson v Prime Joe Louis - who wins ?

1246

Comments

  • #92
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,783 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    tryingmybestt wrote: »
    agree totally....crazy comment about armstrong being a journey man.....held 3 titles at same time !!....one of the greatest pressure fighters of all time...

    absolutely fighters from other era's would beat today's fighters.....comments dont make sense

    That is my whole issue, the sport is not like other sports where man is against a clock. Boxing is man to man, and YES, times change, and yes, boxers may well improve in some areas, but it is still not an exact science.

    Regarding our weight rule discussion, I really believe that the rule has pros and cons, and that is why I don't really pay much attention to it. It is not even 30 years' old this rule.

    Jim Watt commented on LP gaining 15 lbs vs. Khan gaining 9-10 lbs. He said not always is that big gain in a short time going to really help.

    Although, it looked like it did help;)

    But, conversely, it is possible that boiling down and then piling on could cause issues, and could weaken a fighter.

    I would bet on Pryor or Floyd against Khan at 140 lbs, even with Khan having extra weight.

    Gatti-Gamache fight was horrible, but Gamache was never great. He ended up fighting a man who was to start with ONE weight bigger, and on fight night Gatti was two weights bigger. But, Gatti would not have done that to Aaron Pryor or Alexis Arguello, even with a weight advantage.


  • #93
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,783 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    tryingmybestt wrote: »
    absolutely fighters from other era's would beat today's fighters.....comments dont make sense


    So, why were we debating? Just about the rule, that it? Do you believe a LW great from 50 years ago could compete with a great LW today?


  • #94
    tryingmybestt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 759 ✭✭✭tryingmybestt


    walshb wrote: »
    So, why were we debating? Just about the rule, that it? Do you believe a LW great from 50 years ago could compete with a great LW today?

    i think an exceptional lightweight from the 50's could beat many lightweights today...

    my point was that if you compared a top lightweight of today....say even duran.....i think he would have a huge weight difference over a lightweight from the 50's and this would be a major advantage.....also i don't think lightweights of today would have made the weight limit during the 50's due to same day weigh in.....this means i think that lightweights of today are physicall comparable to featherweights of the 50's......

    it's fairly simple really...i don't know why you don't get it


  • #95
    tryingmybestt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 759 ✭✭✭tryingmybestt


    walshb wrote: »
    So, why were we debating? Just about the rule, that it? Do you believe a LW great from 50 years ago could compete with a great LW today?

    i think an exceptional lightweight from the 50's could beat many lightweights today...

    my point was that if you compared a top lightweight of today....say even duran.....i think he would have a huge weight difference over a lightweight from the 50's and this would be a major advantage.....also i don't think lightweights of today would have made the weight limit during the 50's due to same day weigh in.....this means i think that lightweights of today are physically comparable to featherweights of the 50's......

    it's fairly simple really...i don't know why you don't get it


  • #96
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,783 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    tryingmybestt wrote: »
    i think an exceptional lightweight from the 50's could beat many lightweights today...

    my point was that if you compared a top lightweight of today....say even duran.....i think he would have a huge weight difference over a lightweight from the 50's and this would be a major advantage.....also i don't think lightweights of today would have made the weight limit during the 50's due to same day weigh in.....this means i think that lightweights of today are physically comparable to featherweights of the 50's......

    it's fairly simple really...i don't know why you don't get it

    I do get it. Fighters today MAY benefit from previous day weigh ins. But, they may not. There are many who believe that
    boiling down and then gorging and weight gaining in that short space is detrimental.

    Duran comepeted in same day weigh ins, did he not? And, I would back him to beat any LW from 1983 onwards.

    Duran is exceptional, but so was Ike Williams. That is a toss up to most.

    1983 was when the same day weigh in was getting scrapped.

    Anyway, what is 12 hrs really? I mean, you may weigh 3-4-5 lbs heavier, but is it all that effective.

    Again, are you saying the LW from the 50s HAS to be exceptional to beat many LWs today?

    I am talking like for like.

    So, a great 50s LW vs. a great LW today?

    So, a very good LW from 50s vs. a very good LW today.

    Look at the eras and look at what was around in the 50s and compare it to the noughties; I don't see any clear advanatge for the noughties.

    Please, show me any non HW division today that is clearly superior to those divisions from the 40s, 50s and 60s.

    Show me.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    tryingmybestt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 759 ✭✭✭tryingmybestt


    walshb wrote: »
    Duran comepeted in same day weigh ins, did he not?

    Duran is exceptional, but so was Ike Williams. That is a toss up to most.

    1983 was when the same day weigh in was getting scrapped.

    Anyway, what is 12 hrs really? I mean, you may weigh 3-4-5 lbs heavier, but is it all that effective.

    Again, are you saying the LW from the 50s HAS to be exceptional to beat many LWs today?

    I am talking like for like.

    So, a great 50s LW vs. a great LW today?

    So, a very good LW from 50s vs. a very good LW today.

    Look at the eras and lok at what was around in the 50s and compare it to the noughties; I don't see any clear advanatge for the noughties.



    I feel a great lightweight of today would defeat a great lightweight of the 50's in general....theres always the exception to the rule e.g. gans, pep etc......

    theres too much of a physical difference.....a modern day lightweight Brandon Rios for example i don't think would ever make the weight if was same day weight in.....he would be a welterweight back in the 50's

    that's why it's difficult to compare because if you compare similar weights then modern fighters will be naturally bigger.....the extra 24 hours allowed huge weight gain, as much as nearly an extra stone e.g. luis castillo or diego corrales


  • #98
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,783 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    tryingmybestt wrote: »
    I feel a great lightweight of today would defeat a great lightweight of the 50's in general....theres always the exception to the rule e.g. gans, pep etc......

    theres too much of a physical difference.....a modern day lightweight Brandon Rios for example i don't think would ever make the weight if was same day weight in.....he would be a welterweight back in the 50's

    that's why it's difficult to compare because if you compare similar weights then modern fighters will be naturally bigger.....the extra 24 hours allowed huge weight gain, as much as nearly an extra stone e.g. luis castillo or diego corrales

    Ok, I just feel that 12 hrs is hardly all that much to make that claim. And, AGAIN, best today vs. best from 50s under any rule, I don't think it's clear to either era.

    Seriously, you are talking about 12 hrs difference. I fail to see how that translates to bigger men, and also, better men?

    It is 12 hrs.

    Compare the heights, weights and dimensions of the fighters today at a weight with their counterparts from the years gone by, and I am betting that there ain' at all any obvious difference, apart from a 12 hrs in time. Ike Williams as a LW was an inch taller than Rios according to boxrec. Really, I just don't see this 12 hrs weigh in difference as any consequence or advanatge to today's men.

    Duran, you ignored that point I made.

    A figher who comepeted in same day weigh ins usually weighed in in the early morning of the fight. Most would gain maybe 5-7 lbs come fight night.
    Khan for example gained 8-10 lbs in his last fight. Nothing major or influential either way. Some gain less even.

    Today they weigh in is the late evening. It is 12 hrs, most spent sleeping. They may have a few lbs advanatge, but far from
    a real influence/ Also, even today, some guys only put on a few lbs anyway.

    One more real example was both Leonard and Hearns. Both men were same day weigh in men, and BOTH were IMO big WW fighters.
    Post 1983 when the previous day weigh in came about, what WW fighters emerged that one could say were bigger than Leonard and Hearns?

    Curry, Honegan, Blocker, Starling, Breland (tall as hell, but damn skinny), Simon Brown. No, not bigger than Hearns or Leonard. After these, we had the likes of Mosley and Oscar and Tito; again, these were not at all bigger than Hearns or Leonard.

    Look at the WW today and recent. Floyd, Manny, JCC, Pea, Margarito (Big), Cotto etc. These guys wouldn't be successful against either Leonard or Hearns
    at WW, and most of them would be smaller too.


  • #99
    Littlehorny
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭Littlehorny


    I thought the weigh in the day before a fight was a medical decision more than anything else to allow fighters to re-hydrate and recover from making weight. If same day weigh ins was allowed today, then some modern fighters probably would not be competing in their weight classes.


  • #100
    tryingmybestt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 759 ✭✭✭tryingmybestt


    walshb wrote: »
    Ok, I just feel that 12 hrs is hardly all that much to make that claim. And, AGAIN, best today vs. best from 50s under any rule, I don't think it's clear to either era.

    Seriously, you are talking about 12 hrs difference. I fail to see how that translates to bigger men, and also, better men?

    It is 12 hrs.

    Compare the heights, weights and dimensions of the fighters today at a weight with their counterparts from the years gone by, and I am betting that there ain' at all any obvious difference, apart from a 12 hrs in time. Ike Williams as a LW was an inch taller than Rios according to boxrec. Really, I just don't see this 12 hrs weigh in difference as any consequence or advanatge to today's men.

    Duran, you ignored that point I made.

    A figher who comepeted in same day weigh ins usually weighed in in the early morning of the fight. Most would gain maybe 5-7 lbs come fight night.
    Khan for example gained 8-10 lbs in his last fight. Nothing major or influential either way. Some gain less even.

    Today they weigh in is the late evening. It is 12 hrs, most spent sleeping. They may have a few lbs advanatge, but far from
    a real influence/ Also, even today, some guys only put on a few lbs anyway.

    One more real example was both Leonard and Hearns. Both men were same day weigh in men, and BOTH were IMO big WW fighters.
    Post 1983 when the previous day weigh in came about, what WW fighters emerged that one could say were bigger than Leonard and Hearns?

    Curry, Honegan, Blocker, Starling, Breland (tall as hell, but damn skinny), Simon Brown. No, not bigger than Hearns or Leonard. After these, we had the likes of Mosley and Oscar and Tito; again, these were not at all bigger than Hearns or Leonard.

    Look at the WW today and recent. Floyd, Manny, JCC, Pea, Margarito (Big), Cotto etc. These guys wouldn't be successful against either Leonard or Hearns
    at WW, and most of them would be smaller too.

    it was more than 12 hours !...closer to 24 hrs extra....today weigh in at about time friday...fight late sat night at about 10 maybe.....during 50's weighed in sat morning and fought sat night....nearly 24 hrs !!

    i think anyone can cherry pick examples to make it look like your point is valid....once again in general terms a guy who has an extra day to rehydrate can afford to lose a lot more weight.......

    castillo would be 16 pounds heavier, so would corrales, pacquiao was about a stone heavier by fight time when he fought at lighweight.....another example is hatton...

    i don't know how you can say 10lbs is nothing in general terms.....there are always exceptions to the rule like willie pep or joe gans, they were so good they probably would have beaten most guys from our era regardless of weight.....but in general terms the extra day was hugely significant

    i'm amazed you don't think it was significant!!

    leonard and hearns started at welterweight !!....cotto, floyd, sweet pea, manny all started at lightweight or below...this makes your point ridicolous.......margarito only one who started at welter and he was a monster....one of the biggest welters ever !!


  • #101
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,783 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Littlehorny wrote: »
    I thought the weigh in the day before a fight was a medical decision more than anything else to allow fighters to re-hydrate and recover from making weight. If same day weigh ins was allowed today, then some modern fighters probably would not be competing in their weight classes.

    It was supposed to be for that reason. But, if one looks at many examples of fighters from the past then it is clear that their size isn't obvioulsy different.

    Every fighter from any era will fight at an unnatural weight. Some simply go that extra yard and boil right down, making it a possible danger. That is why the rule was brought in.

    That is why I see the rule as having little impact when creating fantasy fights with men from today vs. men before 1983.

    Look at Leonard and Hearns, both pre 1983, and both WW fighters who were big and natural.

    Compare these two to the WW post 1983, and where is it at all obvious that post 1983 WW fighters were somehow bigger, or, better, because of the new rule?


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    tryingmybestt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 759 ✭✭✭tryingmybestt


    walshb wrote: »
    It was supposed to be for that reason. But, if one looks at many examples of fighters from the past then it is clear that their size isn't obvioulsy different.

    Every fighter from any era will fight at an unnatural weight. Some simply go that extra yard and boil right down, making it a possible danger. That is why the rule was brought in.

    That is why I see the rule as having little impact when creating fantasy fights with men from today vs. men before 1983.

    Look at Leonard and Hearns, both pre 1983, and both WW fighters who were big and natural.

    Compare these two to the WW post 1983, and where is it at all obvious that post 1983 WW fighters were somehow bigger, or, better, because of the new rule?


    your picking 2 of the greatest welters of all time for comparison........i'm talking in general terms........in general terms im amazed you don't think 10lbs of extra weight is significant...

    we call all try to appear to be clever and google and find an exception to the rule but in general terms it was significant...making a clear difference between lightweights from 50's and now


  • #103
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,783 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    tryingmybestt wrote: »
    it was more than 12 hours !...closer to 24 hrs extra....today weigh in at about time friday...fight late sat night at about 10 maybe.....during 50's weighed in sat morning and fought sat night....nearly 24 hrs !!

    i think anyone can cherry pick examples to make it look like your point is valid....once again in general terms a guy who has an extra day to rehydrate can afford to lose a lot more weight.......

    castillo would be 16 pounds heavier, so would corrales, pacquiao was about a stone heavier by fight time when he fought at lighweight.....another example is hatton...

    i don't know how you can say 10lbs is nothing in general terms.....there are always exceptions to the rule like willie pep or joe gans, they were so good they probably would have beaten most guys from our era regardless of weight.....but in general terms the extra day was hugely significant

    i'm amazed you don't think it was significant!!

    leonard and hearns started at welterweight !!....cotto, floyd, sweet pea, manny all started at lightweight or below...this makes your point ridicolous.......margarito only one who started at welter and he was a monster....one of the biggest welters ever !!


    Not sure that it's a 24 hrs difference. Usually it's Friday night they weigh in, giving them 24 hrs before fight. Now, pre 1983 it was Saturday morning, about 12 hrs before fight. The difference "BETWEEN THE TWO RULES" is 12 hrs, unless my math is wrong?

    Pre 1983 weighed in 12 hrs or so before fight, post 1983 weighed in 24 hrs or so before fight; that is a difference of 12 hrs between pre and post 1983.


  • #104
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,783 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    tryingmybestt wrote: »
    your picking 2 of the greatest welters of all time for comparison........i'm talking in general terms........in general terms im amazed you don't think 10lbs of extra weight is significant...

    How is it ten lbs? Consider that pre 1983 the fighters probably gained 5-8 lbs, 12 hrs rehydarting; post 1983 usually gain 10-12 lbs. That is a difference of maybe 4-5 lbs max between the two.

    Also, again, LIKE FOR LIKE, please show me any fighters today at any weight that automatically beat the older fighters?

    Nothing to do with picking exceptional fighters. Pick any kind, average, journeyman, great, good, very good. Like for like. That is all I am using.

    Greats today vs. greats from pre 1983, is like for like.

    Also, please show me examples of fighter today that are that bit bigger than those from the 50s at any non heavyweight weight.

    I gave one example. I am sure there are many more. Ike Williams was a LW from the 50s; now, what LW today or recent was
    any bigger than he?


  • #105
    tryingmybestt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 759 ✭✭✭tryingmybestt


    walshb wrote: »
    How is it ten lbs? Consider that pre 1983 the fighters probably gained 5-8 lbs, 12 hrs rehydarting; post 1983 usually gain 10-12 lbs. That is a difference of maybe 5 lns max between the two...


    many fighters during 50's only gained 2-3 pounds if anything

    fighters today can gain 20 pounds sometimes and usually at least 14lbs...

    this is a huge difference

    it's common sense, ask anyone you know experienced in boxing and they'll confirm this

    an extra 24 hrs is a huge amount of extra time to rehydrate and fighters can plan for this by coming down from much higher weights

    gatti gained 19lbs for his fight against gamache


  • #106
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,783 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    tryingmybestt wrote: »
    many fighters during 50's only gained 2-3 pounds if anything

    fighters today can gain 20 pounds sometimes and usually at least 14lbs...

    this is a huge difference

    it's common sense, ask anyone you know experienced in boxing and they'll confirm this

    an extra 24 hrs is a huge amount of extra time to rehydrate and fighters can plan for this by coming down from much higher weights

    gatti gained 19lbs for his fight against gamache

    And Gatti apparently didn't even make the weight at first time around. That was a travesty.

    Hold it. I have seen many examples today of fighters gaining anything between 5-15 lbs. Bottom line is that the difference between the two rules is
    12 hrs, not 24 hrs.

    I am sure many men from the pre 1983 era gained more than just 2 and 3 lbs.

    I don't think we have the stats from years gone by as easily as we have them today.

    From recollection I believe Leonard and Hearns gained around 8 lbs each when they met fight night 1981.
    That is considerable, and healthier I would say than trying to pile on 15 lbs.

    So, many could have gained 5/6/7 lbs. Sure, even today, the guys sometimnes only gain that.

    Anyway, KEY is that you haven't accepted that this boiling and rapid weighT gain can be detrimental and can hinder a foe.
    I have accepted that it can help.

    Back to topic: The rule IMO is of no real consequence. Of course there will be examples of men at a weight today who are that bit heavier, but conversely, there are men from pre 1983 that woukd be bigger, and naturally so. Leonard and Hearns are two prime examnples.


  • #107
    cowzerp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    Bren in mma I have day before weigh in. I can make 61 and be 70kg the next day in the cage-fact of the matter is a light weight back then would have been a feather today. To make it realistic comparison you need to compare like for like in the ring not on the scales.

    Ps, 12 extra hours to hydrate is amazingly beneficial

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • #108
    Littlehorny
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭Littlehorny


    I suppose another way of looking at it is that fighters years ago fought for small money so fought every few weeks so their "walking around weight" was close to their fighting weight. So for that reason you could say they fought more at their natural weight. Saying that you will always see fighters who are huge for their weight in the past and today. For fighters safety i wonder will we ever see a rule where fighters must do pre a weigh in about a week before their fight and if they are still more than 10 pounds off target then the fight is called off.


  • #109
    tryingmybestt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 759 ✭✭✭tryingmybestt


    cowzerp wrote: »
    Bren in mma I have day before weigh in. I can make 61 and be 70kg the next day in the cage-fact of the matter is a light weight back then would have been a feather today. To make it realistic comparison you need to compare like for like in the ring not on the scales.

    Ps, 12 extra hours to hydrate is amazingly beneficial



    exactly you understand my point because you have personal experience...

    similar to me in boxing when the weigh in was same da i fought at a higher weight that in some fights where we weighed the day before.....it's a huge difference

    in general terms a lightweight today compares to a featherweight from the 50's........

    i'm sure walshb will find an exception or two but in general this will be the case.....no doubt


  • #110
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,783 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    cowzerp wrote: »
    Bren in mma I have day before weigh in. I can make 61 and be 70kg the next day in the cage-fact of the matter is a light weight back then would have been a feather today. To make it realistic comparison you need to compare like for like in the ring not on the scales.

    Ps, 12 extra hours to hydrate is amazingly beneficial

    Paul, not saying one cannot gain 10 plus lbs. They do, but can you accept that on average it is more close to 10 lbs than 20 lbs?

    LP gained 15 lbs I heard. But, Khan I think gained 8/9 lbs

    Floyd, who is the best, never gains all that much, does he? Maybe 5-6 lbs

    Also, can you accept that pre 1983 men could gain 5-6-7 lbs?

    Also, can you see the point that boiling down and then gaining a lot of weight may not be all advantageous?

    And, my point still stands. Look at men pre 1983 and compare their heights and dimensions to those equivalent weights today, where is this difference?

    Duran for example is pre 1983 LW, as is Ike, and show me any modern fighters who are obviously bigger?

    I don't see it.

    Please, show me how the men from same day weigh ins were smaller in natural size to those from today.

    It is 12 hrs difference, may mean 4-5 lbs fight night, but, may not as well.

    4-5 lbs of liquid mostly.

    And what puzzles me more is how folks are using this 12 hrs difference as almost a main reason as to why today's fighters beat pre 1983 fighters.

    Again, look at ANY fighter today across all weights and let us match them with their equivalent champions from the past. Like for like

    Taking MW, we have Sergio? I like him, but he ain't beating Monzon, SRR. Hagler, Zale, Cerdan, Greb

    Erm, Floyd at WW? He ain't beating Hearns or Leonard or Griffith or a WW SRR.

    Who else?

    LW champs today, DeMarco, Vasquez, add in Guerrero? No, I will take several pre 1983 champs over these lads.

    Duran, Ike, Bea Jack, Ross, Armstrong...

    Again, I am being fair. I am comparing champs today with champs pre 1983.

    It all comes back to gene'spost that todays fighters somehow automaticalluy beat those from years gone by, because like all sports, things progress and get better. I don't but that. Not saying it cannot get better, but looking at my examples, how are the men today better?


  • #111
    tryingmybestt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 759 ✭✭✭tryingmybestt


    Littlehorny wrote: »
    I suppose another way of looking at it is that fighters years ago fought for small money so fought every few weeks so their "walking around weight" was close to their fighting weight. So for that reason you could say they fought more at their natural weight. Saying that you will always see fighters who are huge for their weight in the past and today. For fighters safety i wonder will we ever see a rule where fighters must do pre a weigh in about a week before their fight and if they are still more than 10 pounds off target then the fight is called off.



    exactly...theres always the odd exception but in general times fighters from the 50's fought very close to their fight weight


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    tryingmybestt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 759 ✭✭✭tryingmybestt


    walshb wrote: »
    Paul, not saying one cannot gain 10 plus lbs. They do, but can you accept that on average it is more close to 10 lbs than 20 lbs?

    LP gained 15 lbs I heard. But, Khan I think gained 8/9 lbs

    Floyd, who is the best, never gains all that much, does he? Maybe 5-6 lbs

    Also, can you accept that pre 1983 men could gain 5-6-7 lbs?

    Also, can you see the point that boiling down and then gaining a lot of weight may not be all advantageous?

    And, my point still stands. Look at men pre 1983 and compare their heights and dimensions to those equivalent weights today, where is this difference?

    Duran for example is pre 1983 LW, as is Ike, and show me any modern fighters who are obviously bigger?

    I don't see it.


    you can't compares fighter by their height and say they were similar weight that's crazy.....what about width of shoulders, thickness of torsoe and legs......compare hatton with someone else 5ft 6 and there could be a huge difference.....fighters are seperated by weight not height lol

    today fighters gain about 15lbs.......during 50's on average i'd say not more than 5lbs.....thats a clear advantage to todays fighters.....and its equally as detrimental as the fighter in the 50's gaining 5 lbs as the modern fighter has an extra day to rehydrate and eat

    also its not just liquid weight....a fighter might eat 6 or 7 times after the weigh in up to fight night.....


  • #113
    tryingmybestt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 759 ✭✭✭tryingmybestt


    tryingmybestt wrote: »
    you can't compares fighter by their height and say they were similar weight that's crazy.....what about width of shoulders, thickness of torsoe and legs......compare hatton with someone else 5ft 6 and there could be a huge difference.....fighters are seperated by weight not height lol

    today fighters gain about 15lbs.......during 50's on average i'd say not more than 5lbs.....thats a clear advantage to todays fighters.....and its equally as detrimental as the fighter in the 50's gaining 5 lbs as the modern fighter has an extra day to rehydrate and eat

    also its not just liquid weight....a fighter might eat 6 or 7 times after the weigh in up to fight night.....

    you also use floyd as an example that he only gained 7 lbs......he shouldnt be a welterweight....when he was a lightweight he ate only dried fruit for 5 days before weigh in and was nearly a stone heavier come fight night....floyd should be a light welter...he moved up from super feather....he is a small welter....compare natural welters like margarito, cintron, even orto, cotto, not natural ww but huge weight gains


  • #114
    cowzerp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    walshb wrote: »

    Also, can you accept that pre 1983 men could gain 5-6-7 lbs?

    Also, can you see the point that boiling down and then gaining a lot of weight may not be all advantageous?

    And what puzzles me more is how folks are using this 12 hrs difference as almost a main reason as to why today's fighters beat pre 1983 fighters.
    .

    Of course they could gain 5-6lbs

    Boiling down is not for everyone, all people are different and some can't do this, most top pro's have this mastered though and recovery is scientifically done

    The 12 hours is the fighter putting on his natural weight, only way the 50's version is the same size is if there dehydrated in the ring, then there stupid-most would be naturally smaller men and a weight class below today's levels, this is fact and I don't get how your not understanding this, it's not that lightweights today are better than before I'm debating, it's there a weight above so have an advantage, for fairness compare today's feathers v them and you have even sized fighters.

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • #115
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,783 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    tryingmybestt wrote: »
    today fighters gain about 15lbs.......during 50's on average i'd say not more than 5lbs.....thats a clear advantage to todays fighters.....and its equally as detrimental as the fighter in the 50's gaining 5 lbs as the modern fighter has an extra day to rehydrate and eat
    QUOTE]

    15 lbs is on the xtreme end. On average I would say it is 7-8-9 lbs.

    Of course, the higher the weight, the more they may put on. That too applies to pre 1983. I am not ignorant on this. I am well aware that in 24 hrs one can gain over 10 lbs, but I would say 10 lbs and above below LH or MW is more an exception.

    Take a bantam today and pre 1983; I think the difference between the two on average come fight night would be 3-4 lbs.

    Pre 1983 you have no real proof, nor do I, apart from Leonard and Hearns weighing 8 lbs heavier.

    But, I think it's safe to say that on average it could be 5 lbs, and maybe more for the men in the higher weights.

    Lets us reach a happy medium. Pre 1983 gain is 5 lbs and post 1983 is 10 lbs, with leeway either side.

    Anyway, care to match up today's champs with pre 1983 champs, and give me your predcitions?


  • #116
    tryingmybestt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 759 ✭✭✭tryingmybestt


    cowzerp wrote: »
    Of course they could gain 5-6lbs

    Boiling down is not for everyone, all people are different and some can't do this, most top pro's have this mastered though and recovery is scientifically done

    The 12 hours is the fighter putting on his natural weight, only way the 50's version is the same size is if there dehydrated in the ring, then there stupid-most would be naturally smaller men and a weight class below today's levels, this is fact and I don't get how your not understanding this, it's not that lightweights today are better than before I'm debating, it's there a weight above so have an advantage, for fairness compare today's feathers v them and you have even sized fighters.

    exactly....it's not about today's lightweights are better than those in 50's....

    it's in general terms todays LW would compare to a 50's FW......its common sense....i dont know why walshb doesnt get it......its nothing about what fighters were better...there is easilt 10lbs difference


  • #117
    cowzerp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,549 ✭✭✭✭cowzerp


    Bren fighting at 61 I gained 9 kg that's over 19lbs on a few occasions, there is science known now that did not exist on how to do this and do it safely, advantages modern fighters have now is all scientific such as resistant training and knowledge of diet and weight cutting.
    walshb wrote: »
    tryingmybestt wrote: »
    today fighters gain about 15lbs.......during 50's on average i'd say not more than 5lbs.....thats a clear advantage to todays fighters.....and its equally as detrimental as the fighter in the 50's gaining 5 lbs as the modern fighter has an extra day to rehydrate and eat
    QUOTE]

    15 lbs is on the xtreme end. On average I would say it is 7-8-9 lbs.

    Of course, the higher the weight, the more they may put on. That too applies to pre 1983. I am not ignorant on this. I am well aware that in 24 hts one can gain over 10 lbs, but I would say 10 lbs and above below LH or MW is more an exception

    Pre 1983 you have no real proof, nor do I, apart from Leonard and Hearns weighing 8 lbs heavier.

    But, I think it's safe to say that on average it could be 5 lbs.

    Lets us reach a happy medium. Pre 1983 gain is 5 lbs and post 1983 is 10 lbs, with leeway either side.

    Anyway, care to match up today's champs with pre 1983 champs, and give me your predcitions?

    Rush Boxing club and Rush Martial Arts head coach.



  • #118
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,783 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    cowzerp wrote: »
    Bren fighting at 61 I gained 9 kg that's over 19lbs on a few occasions, there is science known now that did not exist on how to do this and do it safely, advantages modern fighters have now is all scientific such as resistant training and knowledge of diet and weight cutting.
    walshb wrote: »

    Well, Paul, that to me is not all that healthy. I am speaking about pro boxers, and I have not heard of pro fighters even gaining that much, at least not LW-LWW fighters and they usually gain 6-10 lbs. What are you doing, eating etc. That is colossal, Paul. 19 freaking lbs in what, 24 hrs?

    Gatti was reported to gain that, BUT, it is well suspected that he never made the 140 lbs weight to begin with, so that 19 lbs cannot be taken as official


  • #119
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,783 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    tryingmybestt wrote: »
    exactly....it's not about today's lightweights are better than those in 50's....

    it's in general terms todays LW would compare to a 50's FW......its common sense....i dont know why walshb doesnt get it......its nothing about what fighters were better...there is easilt 10lbs difference

    Get what?

    How many times have I said now that I know men can gain up to 15 lbs. I know this, but usually it's 8-10 lbs. Now, pre 1983 it is most likely 4-6 lbs.

    Not just talking about the 50s, PRE 1983 is when the rule was different

    That is a diff of 4-6 lbs. I know this. And, possibly more. So, how don't I get this?:confused:

    Leonard gained 8 lbs, so did Hearns. That was in 12 hrs.


  • #120
    tryingmybestt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 759 ✭✭✭tryingmybestt


    walshb wrote: »
    cowzerp wrote: »
    Bren fighting at 61 I gained 9 kg that's over 19lbs on a few occasions, there is science known now that did not exist on how to do this and do it safely, advantages modern fighters have now is all scientific such as resistant training and knowledge of diet and weight cutting.



    Well, Paul, that to me is not all that healthy. I am speaking about pro boxers, and I have not heard of pro fighters even gaining that much, at least not LW-LWW fighers and they usually gain 6-10 lbs. What are you doing, eating etc. That is colossal, Paul. 19 freaking lbs in what, 24 hrs?



    gatti gained 19lbs against gamache as i said...

    castillo and corrales gained similar weights

    pacman gained 14lbs...

    hatton gained 15 or 16lbs

    morales gained a lot too....

    the list is endless

    corrales was 16lbs heavier than mayweather when they fought at 130lbs

    castillo was about a stone heavier when they fought at 135lbs


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    walshb
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,783 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    tryingmybestt wrote: »
    walshb wrote: »

    corrales was 16lbs heavier than mayweather when they fought at 130lbs

    castillo was about a stone heavier when they fought at 135lbs

    Didn't Castillo fail weigh IN to begin with?

    Also, Corrales got battered, maybe that extra weight slowed him badly;)

    Point is we do not have official weight gains really for pre 1983, so how can you say that the diff come fight night will be 10 lbs or thereabouts?

    I would rather use the 12 hrs difference. Now, in 12 hrs I would say you could healthily gain 5-7 lbs. So, realistically the weight difference between the two rules is most likely closer to 5-7 lbs as opposed to 10 plus lbs

    And, anyway, I still do not see this 12 hr difference as a reason to say that today's fighters would beat pre 1983 fighters in said weight divisions.

    btw, Hatton's lifestyle was notoriously bad. He ballooned up, juts like pre 1983 Duran....


Advertisement