How to make the Cruiserweight more attractive

Manos de Oro · Post by **Manos de Oro** » 09 Apr 2005, 16:16

s9s wrote:
Manos de Oro wrote:
jamesmcdonnell wrote:Yes, but since Holyfield was champ, how often have the top cruisers fought one another, hardly every. The division hasn't been unified in it's history.
Holyfield unified it in the late 80's (why some people regard him as the best ever cruiser) and Mormeck unified it at the weekend. He can only hold WBC/WBA because at present there is no IBF champion (Davis was stripped in February). He is the only legitimate champion at cruiser (sorry Johnny).
Is the WBO not held in high regard in USA then? Not that highly regarded here in UK, Scott Harrison would not be any sort of champion at all, Johnny Nelson could have done more recently but the WBO & Warren seem content to let him sit on it.

In short: no. It's generally been used as a 'world' title for European fighters. It has little to no worth among the US boxing fraternity.

s9s · Post by **s9s** » 09 Apr 2005, 17:33

Manos de Oro wrote:
s9s wrote:
Manos de Oro wrote: Holyfield unified it in the late 80's (why some people regard him as the best ever cruiser) and Mormeck unified it at the weekend. He can only hold WBC/WBA because at present there is no IBF champion (Davis was stripped in February). He is the only legitimate champion at cruiser (sorry Johnny).
Is the WBO not held in high regard in USA then? Not that highly regarded here in UK, Scott Harrison would not be any sort of champion at all, Johnny Nelson could have done more recently but the WBO & Warren seem content to let him sit on it.
In short: no. It's generally been used as a 'world' title for European fighters. It has little to no worth among the US boxing fraternity.

cheers

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 09 Apr 2005, 18:49

The way to improve the cruiserweight class? . . .ABOLISH IT. It was only created by the greedy sanctioning bodies who thought they could make a new profitable division and then it backfired. If you weigh in the 180s and aren´t a big puncher, get your butt down to light HW. If you´re more skilled and-or have a good wallop, fight the HWs in the 190s . . it was done for decades and with this crop of fatasses at HW a good fast puncher at 195 would have plenty of success at HW. Look at the success overblown guys like Byrd, Toney, and Jones Jr have had, and these guys are natural MIDDLEWEIGHTS AND LIGHT HEAVYWEIGHTS . . .

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 09 Apr 2005, 19:16

The cruiserweight limit is like the older lightheavy limit.

Many years ago there was not much weight difference from the lightheavies and heavies, so the good lightheavies went to the glamour division where the money was.

Fighters get bigger and the step from lightheavy to heavy is too big, so the cruiserweight gets introduced once more, and once again the good cruisers go for the glamour and money of the heavyweight crown.

LightCruiser · Post by **LightCruiser** » 29 Apr 2005, 17:05

Why not have a "light-cruiser" weight division.
Just in the same way as the classes move up from "lightweight" to light-welter so you could move from light-heavy to light-cruiser (Then cruiser and even "super-cruiser"!).

jab · Post by **jab** » 29 Apr 2005, 18:49

LightCruiser wrote:Why not have a "light-cruiser" weight division.
Just in the same way as the classes move up from "lightweight" to light-welter so you could move from light-heavy to light-cruiser (Then cruiser and even "super-cruiser"!).

Well, no. There would be too many new divisions. Maybe a super-cruiser or a super-heavy class could be made when the big guys will push all small and mid sized heavies from top 20 ranks. But it could only be one single new division added. IT would be impractical to make 2-3 more weight classes. Just look how hard it is to add one new class, let alone 2-3 more. It simply is too unrealistic.

Goz · Post by **Goz** » 30 Apr 2005, 04:57

How to make 'The Cruiserweight' more attractive?

I don't know, dress him up in a cropped top and apply lipstick?

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 30 Apr 2005, 17:05

LightCruiser wrote:Why not have a "light-cruiser" weight division.
Just in the same way as the classes move up from "lightweight" to light-welter so you could move from light-heavy to light-cruiser (Then cruiser and even "super-cruiser"!).

Are you quite mad. I'm beginning to wonder if you work for the WBC...

JimStone · Post by **JimStone** » 01 May 2005, 05:27

Abolish a couple of the lighter divisions and the cruiserweight division and recalculate the weight limits as follows:

Heavyweight = 15 Stone + / 210lbs+

Light Heavyweight = 15 Stone / 210lbs

Super Middleweight = 14 Stone / 196lbs

Middleweight = 13 Stone / 182lbs

Light Middleweight = 12 Stone / 168lbs

Welterweight = 11 Stone / 154lbs

Light Welterweight = 10 Stone / 140lbs

Lightweight = 9 1/2 Stone / 133lbs

Super Featherweight = 9 Stone / 126lbs

Featherweight = 8 1/2 Stone / 119lbs

Bantamweight = 8 Stone / 112lbs

Flyweight = 7 1/2 Stone / 105lbs

Some of the divisions are very different to what they are currently, but I would suggest the are a better reflection of modern day male bodyweight.

What do you think?

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 01 May 2005, 05:51

It's a dead division, especially now they've raised the limit to 200 lbs.

Any Cruiserweight worth his salt would jump up to Heavyweight, especially as the division is so weak.

Besides, would you want to watch a division where one of the top pugilists is JOHNNY NELSON?????

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 01 May 2005, 06:35

FlawedGenius wrote:Abolish a couple of the lighter divisions and the cruiserweight division and recalculate the weight limits as follows:

Heavyweight = 15 Stone + / 210lbs+

Light Heavyweight = 15 Stone / 210lbs

Super Middleweight = 14 Stone / 196lbs

Middleweight = 13 Stone / 182lbs

Light Middleweight = 12 Stone / 168lbs

Welterweight = 11 Stone / 154lbs

Light Welterweight = 10 Stone / 140lbs

Lightweight = 9 1/2 Stone / 133lbs

Super Featherweight = 9 Stone / 126lbs

Featherweight = 8 1/2 Stone / 119lbs

Bantamweight = 8 Stone / 112lbs

Flyweight = 7 1/2 Stone / 105lbs

Some of the divisions are very different to what they are currently, but I would suggest the are a better reflection of modern day male bodyweight.

What do you think?

Actually makes a bit of sense, but the changes would cause havok for a while.

jab · Post by **jab** » 01 May 2005, 08:14

Just a non-Brit opinion: setting the weight so that it matches the stones nicely, might be attractive to our British buddies. but Only Britons use stones for weight measurement.

(in case some wonder what is a stone: 1stone = 14lb). So it wouldnt catch on with others. The suggestion of renaming every single division and changing its weight spreads is not workable (though it is more logical than what we have now) because it would simply have too many changes.

Humans are too conservative: they might under great pressure make one single change at a time. But they never actually change everything from ground up in one go. So I doubt this would work. (it would be aamazing if it would though, the idea is interesting and logical, it just flies against human tradition)

I like the idea of making heavyweight 210lb+ because it would help reduce some of the weight disparities in that class.

How to make the Cruiserweight more attractive

Agree