Is Fury 6'9".....?

Davidreed
Welterweight
Posts: 125
Joined: 01 Dec 2015, 02:41

Re: Is Fury 6'9".....?

Post by Davidreed »

But at the end Fury is Taller!!!!! That,s the main point.
IKSRTFO
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4752
Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 17:14

Re: Is Fury 6'9".....?

Post by IKSRTFO »

Ilya Muromets
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4243
Joined: 06 Nov 2009, 15:02

Re: Is Fury 6'9".....?

Post by Ilya Muromets »

"No chance, the talent pool is already too diluted."

The amateurs have a super heavy div. and the pros need it too, especially now that you've got these giants dominating the top ranks of the division. Hey, next time you stand next to a guy who's a head taller than you and and solid muscle think of how much fun it would be to fight him. Get rid of some of those ridiculous weight classes for the teeny tinies separated by like 2 or 3 pounds!

I haven't rewatched the fight yet. I'm not that anxious to do so. It will probably turn out the same when I watch it again anyway. Wlad and Fury were about the same size. Wlad has a much lower body fat percentage than Fury, but he looked smaller.
expe
Super Middleweight
Posts: 6871
Joined: 07 Oct 2012, 10:10

Re: Is Fury 6'9".....?

Post by expe »

x2x wrote:"No chance, the talent pool is already too diluted."

The amateurs have a super heavy div. and the pros need it too, especially now that you've got these giants dominating the top ranks of the division. Hey, next time you stand next to a guy who's a head taller than you and and solid muscle think of how much fun it would be to fight him. Get rid of some of those ridiculous weight classes for the teeny tinies separated by like 2 or 3 pounds!

I haven't rewatched the fight yet. I'm not that anxious to do so. It will probably turn out the same when I watch it again anyway. Wlad and Fury were about the same size. Wlad has a much lower body fat percentage than Fury, but he looked smaller.
There's no difference between the pros and amateurs with the weights, just the names. Amateur heavyweight is 91kg, or 14st 4, same as cruiserweight for pros, super heavy is anything above that, like heavyweight for the pros.
Ilya Muromets
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4243
Joined: 06 Nov 2009, 15:02

Re: Is Fury 6'9".....?

Post by Ilya Muromets »

expe wrote: There's no difference between the pros and amateurs with the weights, just the names. Amateur heavyweight is 91kg, or 14st 4, same as cruiserweight for pros, super heavy is anything above that, like heavyweight for the pros.

You're right - and I was confused about amateur and olympic weight classes. In the Olympics up until 1908 heavyweight was over 158 pounds. Up until 1980 is was everything over 178 pounds. Now it's called super-heavyweight and is anything over 201. It should be changed again. Super heavy should be 225 lbs. (102 kgs.) and above.

What I'd really like is to abolish the whole antiquated and bizarre weight class systems they have now, with an overabundance of light weight classes, many separated by just 3, 4, or 5 pounds, and not enough on the other end, and institute a system based on logic, which is to say a percentage increments from one class to the next. For instance, light heavyweight is now all of 7 pounds, 168 to 175 pounds. Then you jump to cruiserweight which encompasses 25 pounds. That makes no sense. And then comes heavyweight where it can be 50 pounds, 100 pounds, skies the limit, with athletic-muscular fighters weighing around 250 becoming much more common in the top ranks, and in fact dominating it now.
Last edited by Ilya Muromets on 03 Dec 2015, 13:09, edited 1 time in total.
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45213
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Re: Is Fury 6'9".....?

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

expe wrote:
x2x wrote:"No chance, the talent pool is already too diluted."

The amateurs have a super heavy div. and the pros need it too, especially now that you've got these giants dominating the top ranks of the division. Hey, next time you stand next to a guy who's a head taller than you and and solid muscle think of how much fun it would be to fight him. Get rid of some of those ridiculous weight classes for the teeny tinies separated by like 2 or 3 pounds!

I haven't rewatched the fight yet. I'm not that anxious to do so. It will probably turn out the same when I watch it again anyway. Wlad and Fury were about the same size. Wlad has a much lower body fat percentage than Fury, but he looked smaller.
There's no difference between the pros and amateurs with the weights, just the names. Amateur heavyweight is 91kg, or 14st 4, same as cruiserweight for pros, super heavy is anything above that, like heavyweight for the pros.
This.

Virtually nobody that fights at heavyweight as an amateur fights at cruiserweight. They either boil down to 175, or they compete at heavyweight.

I actually think if you raised the limit for cruiserweight, to 210 or even 215 things would be better - no need to create a separate super heavyweight division. Nobody under 210 realistically has any chance of competing at top level at heavyweight. Even Tyson in his prime was 215.

The weight limits in boxing probably need revisiting across the board, to take into account the fact people are generally bigger now, than they were when these weight categories were created.
tiny_acres
Middleweight
Posts: 9404
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:43

Re: Is Fury 6'9".....?

Post by tiny_acres »

x2x wrote:
expe wrote: There's no difference between the pros and amateurs with the weights, just the names. Amateur heavyweight is 91kg, or 14st 4, same as cruiserweight for pros, super heavy is anything above that, like heavyweight for the pros.

You're right - and I was confused about amateur and olympic weight classes. In the Olympics up until 1908 heavyweight was over 158 pounds. Up until 1980 is was everything over 178 pounds. Now it's called super-heavyweight and is anything over 201. It should be changed again. Super heavy should be 225 lbs. (102 kgs.) and above.

What I'd really like is to abolish the whole antiquated and bizarre weight class systems they have now, with an overabundance of light weight classes, many separated by just 3, 4, or 5 pounds, and not enough on the other end, and institute a system based on logic, which is to say a percentage increments from one class to the next. For instance, light heavyweight is now all of 7 pounds, 168 to 175 pounds. Then you jump to cruiserweight which encompasses 25 pounds. That makes no sense. And then comes heavyweight where it can be 50 pounds, 100 pounds, skies the limit, with athletic-muscular fighters weighing around 250 becoming much more common in the top ranks, and in fact dominating it now.
Revamping the divisions with a percentage of weight increase is a better move I agree.
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45213
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Re: Is Fury 6'9".....?

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

x2x wrote:
expe wrote: There's no difference between the pros and amateurs with the weights, just the names. Amateur heavyweight is 91kg, or 14st 4, same as cruiserweight for pros, super heavy is anything above that, like heavyweight for the pros.

You're right - and I was confused about amateur and olympic weight classes. In the Olympics up until 1908 heavyweight was over 158 pounds. Up until 1980 is was everything over 178 pounds. Now it's called super-heavyweight and is anything over 201. It should be changed again. Super heavy should be 225 lbs. (102 kgs.) and above.

What I'd really like is to abolish the whole antiquated and bizarre weight class systems they have now, with an overabundance of light weight classes, many separated by just 3, 4, or 5 pounds, and not enough on the other end, and institute a system based on logic, which is to say a percentage increments from one class to the next. For instance, light heavyweight is now all of 7 pounds, 168 to 175 pounds. Then you jump to cruiserweight which encompasses 25 pounds. That makes no sense. And then comes heavyweight where it can be 50 pounds, 100 pounds, skies the limit, with athletic-muscular fighters weighing around 250 becoming much more common in the top ranks, and in fact dominating it now.
I agree, but it would cause absolute bloody chaos for an entire generation of fighters, and the sanctioning bodies would never agree to that. That's why it's always piecemeal changes.
Cyclops
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5737
Joined: 13 Jun 2009, 04:14

Re: Is Fury 6'9".....?

Post by Cyclops »

I've always thought his listed height was an exaggeration. I've always been interested in him from his amateur days just because he's a Fury and they're quite a notorious family. He was listed as 6'7" back then, but he was young so maybe he grew? Whatever. He's a huge lanky guy, Wladamir has been outed as wearing lifts and is not the same height. And all you have to do is watch the actual fight. He's a few inches taller than Wlad.

It's funny. Haye used to bend his knees for photos with his opponents to accentuate how tall they were, to sell them as David vs Goliath. That worked well for him. I think it's odd they Wlad went in with platform shoes to make Fury look smaller. Surely he must have freaked himself out, rather than the other way round, when he ended up in the ring with a guy who had height and reach on him that he hadn't given himself time to get used to?

Tyson must have thought "oh he's even smaller than I thought!" Wlad must have thought "fornicate he's big!"

Anyway, I thought Paul Williams had the right idea. Get yourself listed as 6'1". Turn up as 6'3". I'm 5'9". If I had fought professionally, I'd have lasted myself at 5'8", just to see the guys who exaggerated their height come in smaller than me!

Heights in boxing are a joke
Rexob
Middleweight
Posts: 6025
Joined: 20 Mar 2014, 15:17

Re: Is Fury 6'9".....?

Post by Rexob »

clopixolacuphase wrote:I've always thought his listed height was an exaggeration. I've always been interested in him from his amateur days just because he's a Fury and they're quite a notorious family. He was listed as 6'7" back then, but he was young so maybe he grew? Whatever. He's a huge lanky guy, Wladamir has been outed as wearing lifts and is not the same height. And all you have to do is watch the actual fight. He's a few inches taller than Wlad.

It's funny. Haye used to bend his knees for photos with his opponents to accentuate how tall they were, to sell them as David vs Goliath. That worked well for him. I think it's odd they Wlad went in with platform shoes to make Fury look smaller. Surely he must have freaked himself out, rather than the other way round, when he ended up in the ring with a guy who had height and reach on him that he hadn't given himself time to get used to?

Tyson must have thought "oh he's even smaller than I thought!" Wlad must have thought "eff he's big!"

Anyway, I thought Paul Williams had the right idea. Get yourself listed as 6'1". Turn up as 6'3". I'm 5'9". If I had fought professionally, I'd have lasted myself at 5'8", just to see the guys who exaggerated their height come in smaller than me!
Heights in boxing are a joke

I'm sure the extra inch would have terrified them :lol:
Cyclops
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5737
Joined: 13 Jun 2009, 04:14

Re: Is Fury 6'9".....?

Post by Cyclops »

:lol: like I said, with Williams he was 6'3 and listed as 6'1, and most fighters list themselves as taller not smaller. It would be more than an inch. Anyway... Who cares really.
Post Reply