How (un)viable is extreme (80Ibs+) cross-weight speculation?

Jaybee From The Castle · Post by **Jaybee From The Castle** » 13 May 2008, 09:44

I personally don't see how you could imagine, say, slamming on 80Ibs and 8" onto Hamed and then trying to see how he'd fare against a 216Ibs Mike Tyson, mouthwatering as such a matchup may at first appear.

Cross-TIME matchups are problematic enough because the further BACK in time you go, the worse the image resolution, fewer camera angles etc. But trying to postulate what a much larger Hamed could do against a normal HW seems impossible to me, as I have no way of going FORWARD in time to when Science is able to increase human size so drastically. Thus I have no frame of reference for HOW the bulked-up HW version of a FW fighter would fight.

Would a big decrease allow, say, RJJ to fight Mayweather and to retain his reflexes, his defensive genius? I THINK, it would drastically alter the fighter's style. Possibly make it unrecognisable.

Your thoughts, gents?

Knucklez · Post by **Knucklez** » 13 May 2008, 09:51

I think I have no idea what you're on about.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 13 May 2008, 10:12

Knucklez wrote:I think I have no idea what you're on about.

Ditto

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 13 May 2008, 10:15

dempseyfire wrote:
Knucklez wrote:I think I have no idea what you're on about.
Ditto

me 3

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 13 May 2008, 10:40

Jaybee thinks matching up head to head fights with say Mike Tyson versus a 6' 2'' 220 lb Hamed is not viable (even in our imaginations).

He's right...

p4p1 · Post by **p4p1** » 13 May 2008, 10:46

Ezzard wrote:Jaybee thinks matching up head to head fights with say Mike Tyson versus a 6' 2'' 220 lb Hamed is not viable (even in our imaginations).

He's right...

oh ok yehi always thought it was way to hard to do stuff like that

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 13 May 2008, 13:17

thank you knuklez and you other guys. i clicked this one beccause i could make no sense of the title of the thread and when i read it i was more confused and was afraid the fault might be with me, as ridiculous as that seems. glad i wasn't the only one.

it is only a matter of time before boxbuzzy come on here and claims that archie moore could beat a guy weighing 800 pounds. of course he'll state the 800 pound guy would have to make the175 weight limit.

Jaybee From The Castle · Post by **Jaybee From The Castle** » 13 May 2008, 16:16

Jaclem wrote:thank you knuklez and you other guys. i clicked this one beccause i could make no sense of the title of the thread and when i read it i was more confused and was afraid the fault might be with me, as ridiculous as that seems. glad i wasn't the only one.

The fault IS with you. The fact that several others share your stupidity doesn't make you, or them, any less stupid.

m1kee50 · Post by **m1kee50** » 13 May 2008, 16:22

Adding weight onto Hamed is not difficult to imagine (prison will do that to a man) but adding 8 inches of height? That isnt Hamed. Simple as that. Might as well ask if you can give him 8 inches reach extra.

Its unviable IMO because asking fighters to slim down past a certain point, is basically asking them to choose which limb to lose

and asking fighters to go up say 80lbs is asking Eagle Kyowa to fight Joe Calzaghe.... Its not a tenable situation for Kyowa to fight with that added weight as Fat or Muscle

raylawpc · Post by **raylawpc** » 13 May 2008, 18:00

Jaybee From The Castle wrote:
Jaclem wrote:thank you knuklez and you other guys. i clicked this one beccause i could make no sense of the title of the thread and when i read it i was more confused and was afraid the fault might be with me, as ridiculous as that seems. glad i wasn't the only one.
The fault IS with you. The fact that several others share your stupidity doesn't make you, or them, any less stupid.

Perhaps you could clear it up? You may be making a valid point, and maybe folks don't get what you're getting at? Nobody wants to diss you if you are making a good point.

If Ezzard's interpretation of your message is correct, then I agree with you, too.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 13 May 2008, 18:07

Jaybee From The Castle wrote:
Jaclem wrote:thank you knuklez and you other guys. i clicked this one beccause i could make no sense of the title of the thread and when i read it i was more confused and was afraid the fault might be with me, as ridiculous as that seems. glad i wasn't the only one.
The fault IS with you. The fact that several others share your stupidity doesn't make you, or them, any less stupid.

How about you post your thoughts more clearly? You seem to be saying that you can't envision fighters fighting in weight classes much smaller or larger than what they were in. Fine, probably has something to do that they WERE NOT NEAR THAT SIZE! Seems pretty simple to me. A fighter's attributes are forever bound to the body they were born with. You start venturing into crazy-land when you talk about 'science adding size' to people, as you are talking about not just weight but substantial differences in height and reach.

Robinson · Post by **Robinson** » 13 May 2008, 18:24

I like food too

raylawpc · Post by **raylawpc** » 13 May 2008, 18:58

dempseyfire wrote:Seems pretty simple to me. A fighter's attributes are forever bound to the body they were born with.

You hit the proverbial nail on the head with that one, Dempsey!! I think what you wrote is the whole problem with these p4p match-ups and p4p rankings.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 13 May 2008, 20:19

castleboy...i see my error now..i read your top weight at 800 lbs, not eighty. i was even going to suggest a catch weight contest, where they would agree to come in at 400 lbs, and wondered which fighter would have the advantage.

now, reading your post correctly and understanding it a little better i merely find it not incomprehensible...just pitifully dumb.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 13 May 2008, 22:25

Jaclem wrote:castleboy...i see my error now..i read your top weight at 800 lbs, not eighty. i was even going to suggest a catch weight contest, where they would agree to come in at 400 lbs, and wondered which fighter would have the advantage.

now, reading your post correctly and understanding it a little better i merely find it not incomprehensible...just pitifully dumb.

I think if Tyson weighed 800 pounds he would be overweight.

Jaybee From The Castle · Post by **Jaybee From The Castle** » 14 May 2008, 08:09

dempseyfire wrote:
Jaybee From The Castle wrote:
Jaclem wrote:thank you knuklez and you other guys. i clicked this one beccause i could make no sense of the title of the thread and when i read it i was more confused and was afraid the fault might be with me, as ridiculous as that seems. glad i wasn't the only one.
The fault IS with you. The fact that several others share your stupidity doesn't make you, or them, any less stupid.
How about you post your thoughts more clearly?

Why shoud I? They're clear enough to the intelligent. If I phrased my thoughts any more simply, that would have attracted 3 times the number of moronic replies from the platoons of morons who comprise Boxrec's ranks.

You seem to be saying that you can't envision fighters fighting in weight classes much smaller or larger than what they were in.

And you seem to be able to comprehend the written word, which actually is quite an achievement for a Boxrec poster. But couldn't you have gotten to the point sooner without showing off that ability?

Fine, probably has something to do that they WERE NOT NEAR THAT SIZE!

So I said! Come on...I'm waiting for your point, if any.

You start venturing into crazy-land when you talk about 'science adding size' to people, as you are talking about not just weight but substantial differences in height and reach.

Think that'll still be impossible in a hundred years? Need I mention Stem-Cell technology?

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 14 May 2008, 14:26

...let's give the castle kid some credit for his idea...there's no reason why hamed couldn't add several inches to his height if he just made a real effort.

incidentally does anyone besides me wonder why castle kid spends his time writing for the forum...i mean, why take all that time with all of us of inferior intellect.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 14 May 2008, 14:30

Jaclem wrote:...let's give the castle kid some credit for his idea...there's no reason why hamed couldn't add several inches to his height if he just made a real effort.

incidentally does anyone besides me wonder why castle kid spends his time writing for the forum...i mean, why take all that time with all of us of inferior intellect.

I think that if Tyson weighed one thousand pounds he would be even more overweight than if he weighed 800 pounds.

Jaywheel · Post by **Jaywheel** » 20 May 2008, 12:20

I'm learning so much about boxing reading this thread...

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 24 May 2008, 00:22

Jaybee From The Castle wrote:I personally don't see how you could imagine, say, slamming on 80Ibs and 8" onto Hamed and then trying to see how he'd fare against a 216Ibs Mike Tyson, mouthwatering as such a matchup may at first appear.

Cross-TIME matchups are problematic enough because the further BACK in time you go, the worse the image resolution, fewer camera angles etc. But trying to postulate what a much larger Hamed could do against a normal HW seems impossible to me, as I have no way of going FORWARD in time to when Science is able to increase human size so drastically. Thus I have no frame of reference for HOW the bulked-up HW version of a FW fighter would fight.

Would a big decrease allow, say, RJJ to fight Mayweather and to retain his reflexes, his defensive genius? I THINK, it would drastically alter the fighter's style. Possibly make it unrecognisable.

Your thoughts, gents?

You need to get off the sauce.

How (un)viable is extreme (80Ibs+) cross-weight speculation?

How (un)viable is extreme (80Ibs+) cross-weight speculation?

Re: How (un)viable is extreme (80Ibs+) cross-weight speculation?

Re: How (un)viable is extreme (80Ibs+) cross-weight speculation?