This is going to be deeply unpopular...

[candyslim]

... so have your rotten fruit and bad eggs ready, No rocks though:

Why are we so against the creation of the Bridgerweight division?

1. There are way too many weight divisions already:

True but I think I'm right in saying that the ten lightest divisions span just 35lbs 105 to 140. Surely if there is any pruning to be done ...
If you ignore this division does that mean we can name the champion in each weight division? I doubt it. I couldn't even name just one belt-holder in some of the lighter divisions. What we need is less belt-creators rather than less weight-classes.. Is that even a problem though, really?

2. It dilutes and splits an already thin Heavyweight division:

Does it? Any small heavyweight who is good enough to impact the summit of the heavyweight division (Wilder, Povetkin, Holyfield, Haye, Usyk, etc.) are going to graduate to the Heavyweight division anyway because that's where the money is. Are we going to be worse off if Evgeny Romanov for example, decides he's too small to impact the Heavyweight division and that he'll set his sights on Rivas? He will be anonymous at heavy but could be a force at the lower weight if he hasn't left it too late turning pro.

I don't think the Heavyweight division suffers from lack of quantity it's a lack of quality that could hurt it, but as long as it's the money division, it has nothing to fear from badgerweight.

3. We don't need it.

Most don't but it opens a door to fighters like Rivas who might otherwise be good enough to overcome a Dillian Whyte, but are disadvantaged by their size. Not everyone can be a Wilder or an Usyk but it offers a level playing field to men who are big but not freakishly so.
The division will in time give us some wonderful fights. My mouth waters at the prospect of Oscar Rivas v Murat Gassiev. This is a logical Bridgerweight match-up but has absolutely no reason to get made at Heavyweight.

I'm old enough to remember the almost universal hostility when the Cruiserweight division was implemented at 190lbs originally. Previously cruiserweight was a historical alternative name for Light-heavyweight. The Ring Magazine was very much against it and refused to recognize it for maybe a couple of years. For a few years it was a bit crap to be honest, but we just ignored it and our enjoyment of the sport was in no way adversely affected whereas a minority of wrong-size fighters like Carlos DeLeon and ST Gordon were given new meaning to their careers. Gradually it grew to be one of the most appreciated divisions in Boxing.

You can imagine one hundred years dead objectors asking "What the hell is a Light-heavyweight? Is it a lightweight or a heavyweight? You don't need nothing in between you got middleweight" (and welter).

Which of us now thinks that the introduction of the Cruiserweight division was a mistake? Which of us would wish to see it abolished now and it's fighters obliged to sink or swim as heavyweights?

Am I the only one who sees a parallel here?

[Enlightened-One]

For the five years immediately prior to the introduction of the 190lbs cruiserweight division in 1979, the average weight of the victors of both the WBC & WBA world heavyweight title bouts was 220lbs.

During those five years, there was a 45lbs void between world titleholders campaigning at 175lbs and their heavyweight champion counterparts.

The weight limit for the cruiserweight division was eventually increased from 190lbs to 200lbs during 2005.

And if you exclude anomalous fighters (such as Oleksander Usyk and Deontay Wilder) from the equation, within the last decade, the average weight of a fighter successfully competing in a world heavyweight title bout is 245lbs.

Therefore, as per 1979, immediately prior to the recent introduction of the bridgerweight division, there was a 45lbs void between successful world heavyweight title fight winners and those competing in the (next) lower weight class.

People eventually appreciated the cruiserweight division. And in a couple of decades time, the bridgerweight division will inevitably be considered as being a legitimate weight class.

[candyslim]

Clearly I'm not the only one ...

[HomicideHenry]

The reason why it's unwarranted is because there ARE individuals out there who are 200, 210, 220 who CAN and HAVE defeated individuals who are 240, 250, 260, 270+ pounds.

As with any other industry in the world there are going to be few who succeed and most come up short. Boxing is no exception. The fact that a man 220 pounds recently won the majority of the heavyweight titles, etc--- is proof positive that an additional weight class is simply unnecessary.

No different than in the 1970s and the 1930s when there was campaigns to create a super heavyweight division--- but men like Max Baer (6'2" and 220) knocking out Primo Carnera (6'5" 280) showed such things were completely unnecessary to be made in the first place.

Cruiserweight, in hindsight, was a necessary division because once upon a time a heavyweight was somebody 176+ pounds. There was simply too much of a disparity to really overcome, although some legendary fighters were capable of bridging the gulf.

Bridgerweight, however, is unnecessary. Why? The class is 201-224 pounds. And yet we see men in that weight group become either heavyweight champion or top contenders all the time. Hell Deontay Wilder is a prime example since he was as light as 212 (or 214?) pounds against Tyson Fury in their first fight and almost knocked him out.

Hell Babic, who is being promoted as a bridgerweight fighter, just knocked out a two-time heavyweight title challenger. And Babic is only 210 pounds. It's completely unnecessary. It's unwarranted. It's unneeded.

If people don't succeed as heavyweights it simply because they just are not good enough. I don't hear guys like Joey Dawejko (5'10") complaining about guys being too big for him. He's gone the distance many times with much larger men than himself.

[Enlightened-One]

The reason why it's unwarranted is because there ARE individuals out there who are 200, 210, 220 who CAN and HAVE defeated individuals who are 240, 250, 260, 270+ pounds.

As with any other industry in the world there are going to be few who succeed and most come up short. Boxing is no exception. The fact that a man 220 pounds recently won the majority of the heavyweight titles, etc--- is proof positive that an additional weight class is simply unnecessary.

No different than in the 1970s and the 1930s when there was campaigns to create a super heavyweight division--- but men like Max Baer (6'2" and 220) knocking out Primo Carnera (6'5" 280) showed such things were completely unnecessary to be made in the first place.

Cruiserweight, in hindsight, was a necessary division because once upon a time a heavyweight was somebody 176+ pounds. There was simply too much of a disparity to really overcome, although some legendary fighters were capable of bridging the gulf.

Bridgerweight, however, is unnecessary. Why? The class is 201-224 pounds. And yet we see men in that weight group become either heavyweight champion or top contenders all the time. Hell Deontay Wilder is a prime example since he was as light as 212 (or 214?) pounds against Tyson Fury in their first fight and almost knocked him out.

Hell Babic, who is being promoted as a bridgerweight fighter, just knocked out a two-time heavyweight title challenger. And Babic is only 210 pounds. It's completely unnecessary. It's unwarranted. It's unneeded.

If people don't succeed as heavyweights it simply because they just are not good enough. I don't hear guys like Joey Dawejko (5'10") complaining about guys being too big for him. He's gone the distance many times with much larger men than himself.

“Exceptions” to the general rule occurs in all walks of life, otherwise the word itself wouldn’t exist.

However, “exceptions” can’t be used to dismiss the existence of the general rule.

It’s inaccurate to claim that small heavyweights regularly defeat their much larger counterparts, because it’s historically and statistically inaccurate.

For the vast majority of topics, every single one of us are capable of citing exceptions to common opinions/rules, but only those intentionally employing confirmation bias actively refuse to acknowledge the existence of the general rule itself (despite it being supported by an overwhelming abundance of evidence).

[Onetimeonly]

It doesn't bother me at all. I long gave up on knowing every champion. I only watch quality match ups now, belts do t matter.

[ironbeard]

I have no problem with the creation of a new weight class between cruiser and heavy. Something about the label bridgerweight annoys me though. I think that it should be the heavyweight division and over 220 should be super heavyweight division. I also would prefer that cruiserweight become light heavyweight, and the current light heavyweight division limit be raised to 180 and labeled the fosterweight division after Bob Foster.

That is all.

[HomicideHenry]

The reason why it's unwarranted is because there ARE individuals out there who are 200, 210, 220 who CAN and HAVE defeated individuals who are 240, 250, 260, 270+ pounds.

As with any other industry in the world there are going to be few who succeed and most come up short. Boxing is no exception. The fact that a man 220 pounds recently won the majority of the heavyweight titles, etc--- is proof positive that an additional weight class is simply unnecessary.

No different than in the 1970s and the 1930s when there was campaigns to create a super heavyweight division--- but men like Max Baer (6'2" and 220) knocking out Primo Carnera (6'5" 280) showed such things were completely unnecessary to be made in the first place.

Cruiserweight, in hindsight, was a necessary division because once upon a time a heavyweight was somebody 176+ pounds. There was simply too much of a disparity to really overcome, although some legendary fighters were capable of bridging the gulf.

Bridgerweight, however, is unnecessary. Why? The class is 201-224 pounds. And yet we see men in that weight group become either heavyweight champion or top contenders all the time. Hell Deontay Wilder is a prime example since he was as light as 212 (or 214?) pounds against Tyson Fury in their first fight and almost knocked him out.

Hell Babic, who is being promoted as a bridgerweight fighter, just knocked out a two-time heavyweight title challenger. And Babic is only 210 pounds. It's completely unnecessary. It's unwarranted. It's unneeded.

If people don't succeed as heavyweights it simply because they just are not good enough. I don't hear guys like Joey Dawejko (5'10") complaining about guys being too big for him. He's gone the distance many times with much larger men than himself.

“Exceptions” to the general rule occurs in all walks of life, otherwise the word itself wouldn’t exist.

However, “exceptions” can’t be used to dismiss the existence of the general rule.

It’s inaccurate to claim that small heavyweights regularly defeat their much larger counterparts, because it’s historically and statistically inaccurate.

For the vast majority of topics, every single one of us are capable of citing exceptions to common opinions/rules, but only those intentionally employing confirmation bias actively refuse to acknowledge the existence of the general rule itself (despite it being supported by an overwhelming abundance of evidence).

All good and fine, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people who go into boxing regardless of weight class come up short and don't succeed.

I think people assume that it's a matter of exceptions to the rule, when smaller men beat bigger men, but the fact is VERY FEW people in boxing period are any good at all no matter their size.

I can list numerous examples of men who were much smaller than fighters today who regularly beat 200+ pound men: Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Bob Fitzsimmons, Archie Moore, etc.

The truth is, when people look at everything objectively, if you took Lennox Lewis and the Klitschko brothers and Tyson Fury of the picture (the last 25 years or so) there are plenty of examples of smaller men hanging with the big guys--- because bigger does not necessarily mean better.

In fact you can make the argument that being big in and of itself is a weakness. A big target. Hunter vs Ustinov in recent years is a good example of that (213 pounds vs 278 pounds), or even Adamek vs McBride (215 pounds vs 285 pounds), etc--- and these are men who were light heavyweights in the amateurs.

Again going back to Joey Dawejko, who certainly isn't world-class. He had a DRAW with 6'4" 286 pound Jarrell Miller. Dawejko is 5'10" with a 70" reach. It's doable, it's possible. People just want to be lazy at heavyweight.

[Enlightened-One]

The reason why it's unwarranted is because there ARE individuals out there who are 200, 210, 220 who CAN and HAVE defeated individuals who are 240, 250, 260, 270+ pounds.

As with any other industry in the world there are going to be few who succeed and most come up short. Boxing is no exception. The fact that a man 220 pounds recently won the majority of the heavyweight titles, etc--- is proof positive that an additional weight class is simply unnecessary.

No different than in the 1970s and the 1930s when there was campaigns to create a super heavyweight division--- but men like Max Baer (6'2" and 220) knocking out Primo Carnera (6'5" 280) showed such things were completely unnecessary to be made in the first place.

Cruiserweight, in hindsight, was a necessary division because once upon a time a heavyweight was somebody 176+ pounds. There was simply too much of a disparity to really overcome, although some legendary fighters were capable of bridging the gulf.

Bridgerweight, however, is unnecessary. Why? The class is 201-224 pounds. And yet we see men in that weight group become either heavyweight champion or top contenders all the time. Hell Deontay Wilder is a prime example since he was as light as 212 (or 214?) pounds against Tyson Fury in their first fight and almost knocked him out.

Hell Babic, who is being promoted as a bridgerweight fighter, just knocked out a two-time heavyweight title challenger. And Babic is only 210 pounds. It's completely unnecessary. It's unwarranted. It's unneeded.

If people don't succeed as heavyweights it simply because they just are not good enough. I don't hear guys like Joey Dawejko (5'10") complaining about guys being too big for him. He's gone the distance many times with much larger men than himself.

“Exceptions” to the general rule occurs in all walks of life, otherwise the word itself wouldn’t exist.

However, “exceptions” can’t be used to dismiss the existence of the general rule.

It’s inaccurate to claim that small heavyweights regularly defeat their much larger counterparts, because it’s historically and statistically inaccurate.

For the vast majority of topics, every single one of us are capable of citing exceptions to common opinions/rules, but only those intentionally employing confirmation bias actively refuse to acknowledge the existence of the general rule itself (despite it being supported by an overwhelming abundance of evidence).

All good and fine, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people who go into boxing regardless of weight class come up short and don't succeed.

I think people assume that it's a matter of exceptions to the rule, when smaller men beat bigger men, but the fact is VERY FEW people in boxing period are any good at all no matter their size.

I can list numerous examples of men who were much smaller than fighters today who regularly beat 200+ pound men: Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Bob Fitzsimmons, Archie Moore, etc.

The truth is, when people look at everything objectively, if you took Lennox Lewis and the Klitschko brothers and Tyson Fury of the picture (the last 25 years or so) there are plenty of examples of smaller men hanging with the big guys--- because bigger does not necessarily mean better.

In fact you can make the argument that being big in and of itself is a weakness. A big target. Hunter vs Ustinov in recent years is a good example of that (213 pounds vs 278 pounds), or even Adamek vs McBride (215 pounds vs 285 pounds), etc--- and these are men who were light heavyweights in the amateurs.

Again going back to Joey Dawejko, who certainly isn't world-class. He had a DRAW with 6'4" 286 pound Jarrell Miller. Dawejko is 5'10" with a 70" reach. It's doable, it's possible. People just want to be lazy at heavyweight.

It's interesting to see people pretending they can name plenty examples of x, y & z... they can also do this... and they can do that... but without actually delivering upon their promises.

I can go one better by providing the actual stats for every single world heavyweight title fight from the last 57½ years.

List of bouts where the smaller fighter weighed 225lbs or less that defeated an opponent in a world title fight that were at least 20lbs heavier than themselves:

• Deontay Wilder (223.25lbs) - Win - Dominic Breazeale (255.25lbs)
• Deontay Wilder (214.75lbs) - Win - Luis Ortiz (241.25lbs)
• Deontay Wilder (220.75lbs) - Win - Bermane Stiverne (254.75lbs)
• Deontay Wilder (219lbs) - Win - Bermane Stiverne (239lbs)
• David Haye (210.5lbs) - Win - Audley Harrison (253.5lbs)
• David Haye (217lbs) - Win - Nikolai Valuev (316lbs)
• Sultan Ibragimov (221lbs) - Win - Shannon Briggs (273lbs)
• Lamon Brewster (224lbs) - Win - Andrew Golota (248lbs)
• Chris Byrd (214lbs) - Win - Jameel McCline (270lbs)
• Roy Jones Jr (193lbs) - Win - John Ruiz (226lbs)
• Chris Byrd (210.75lbs) - Win - Vitali Klitschko (244.25lbs)
• Herbie Hide (214.75lbs) - Win - Tony Tucker (243.25lbs)
• Mike Tyson (220lbs) - Win - Frank Bruno (247lbs)
• Evander Holyfield (217lbs) - Win - Riddick Bowe (246lbs)
• Evander Holyfield (210lbs) - Win - Larry Holmes (233lbs)
• Evander Holyfield (208lbs) - Win - George Foreman (257lbs)
• Evander Holyfield (208lbs) - Win - James Douglas (246lbs)
• Mike Tyson (216.25lbs) - Win - Tony Tubbs (238.25lbs)
• Michael Spinks (199.75lbs) - Win - Larry Holmes (221.5lbs)
• Mike Weaver (207.5lbs) - Win - John Tate (232lbs)
• Larry Holmes (211lbs) - Win - Leroy Jones (254.5lbs)
• Leon Spinks (197.25lbs) - Win - Muhammad Ali (224.25lbs)

And as I've already previously stated, this covers a time period spanning 57½ years (since the first Ali-Liston bout).

There have been 265 world heavyweight title fights during that timeframe.

[jamesmcdonnell]

I have no problem with the creation of a new weight class between cruiser and heavy. Something about the label bridgerweight annoys me though. I think that it should be the heavyweight division and over 220 should be super heavyweight division. I also would prefer that cruiserweight become light heavyweight, and the current light heavyweight division limit be raised to 180 and labeled the fosterweight division after Bob Foster.

That is all.

Bridgerweight is a truly shite name, it's too much like 'Bridgerton' for a start.

[margaret thatcher]

well i mean tbf, ive seen 1 bridgerweight fight and i enjoyed it

im just taking the fights as they are and not really caring too much more about the division then that

[mike_UK]

“Exceptions” to the general rule occurs in all walks of life, otherwise the word itself wouldn’t exist.

However, “exceptions” can’t be used to dismiss the existence of the general rule.

It’s inaccurate to claim that small heavyweights regularly defeat their much larger counterparts, because it’s historically and statistically inaccurate.

For the vast majority of topics, every single one of us are capable of citing exceptions to common opinions/rules, but only those intentionally employing confirmation bias actively refuse to acknowledge the existence of the general rule itself (despite it being supported by an overwhelming abundance of evidence).

All good and fine, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people who go into boxing regardless of weight class come up short and don't succeed.

I think people assume that it's a matter of exceptions to the rule, when smaller men beat bigger men, but the fact is VERY FEW people in boxing period are any good at all no matter their size.

I can list numerous examples of men who were much smaller than fighters today who regularly beat 200+ pound men: Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Bob Fitzsimmons, Archie Moore, etc.

The truth is, when people look at everything objectively, if you took Lennox Lewis and the Klitschko brothers and Tyson Fury of the picture (the last 25 years or so) there are plenty of examples of smaller men hanging with the big guys--- because bigger does not necessarily mean better.

In fact you can make the argument that being big in and of itself is a weakness. A big target. Hunter vs Ustinov in recent years is a good example of that (213 pounds vs 278 pounds), or even Adamek vs McBride (215 pounds vs 285 pounds), etc--- and these are men who were light heavyweights in the amateurs.

Again going back to Joey Dawejko, who certainly isn't world-class. He had a DRAW with 6'4" 286 pound Jarrell Miller. Dawejko is 5'10" with a 70" reach. It's doable, it's possible. People just want to be lazy at heavyweight.

It's interesting to see people pretending they can name plenty examples of x, y & z... they can also do this... and they can do that... but without actually delivering upon their promises.

I can go one better by providing the actual stats for every single world heavyweight title fight from the last 57½ years.

List of bouts where the smaller fighter weighed 225lbs or less that defeated an opponent in a world title fight that were at least 20lbs heavier than themselves:

• Deontay Wilder (223.25lbs) - Win - Dominic Breazeale (255.25lbs)
• Deontay Wilder (214.75lbs) - Win - Luis Ortiz (241.25lbs)
• Deontay Wilder (220.75lbs) - Win - Bermane Stiverne (254.75lbs)
• Deontay Wilder (219lbs) - Win - Bermane Stiverne (239lbs)
• David Haye (210.5lbs) - Win - Audley Harrison (253.5lbs)
• David Haye (217lbs) - Win - Nikolai Valuev (316lbs)
• Sultan Ibragimov (221lbs) - Win - Shannon Briggs (273lbs)
• Lamon Brewster (224lbs) - Win - Andrew Golota (248lbs)
• Chris Byrd (214lbs) - Win - Jameel McCline (270lbs)
• Roy Jones Jr (193lbs) - Win - John Ruiz (226lbs)
• Chris Byrd (210.75lbs) - Win - Vitali Klitschko (244.25lbs)
• Herbie Hide (214.75lbs) - Win - Tony Tucker (243.25lbs)
• Mike Tyson (220lbs) - Win - Frank Bruno (247lbs)
• Evander Holyfield (217lbs) - Win - Riddick Bowe (246lbs)
• Evander Holyfield (210lbs) - Win - Larry Holmes (233lbs)
• Evander Holyfield (208lbs) - Win - George Foreman (257lbs)
• Evander Holyfield (208lbs) - Win - James Douglas (246lbs)
• Mike Tyson (216.25lbs) - Win - Tony Tubbs (238.25lbs)
• Michael Spinks (199.75lbs) - Win - Larry Holmes (221.5lbs)
• Mike Weaver (207.5lbs) - Win - John Tate (232lbs)
• Larry Holmes (211lbs) - Win - Leroy Jones (254.5lbs)
• Leon Spinks (197.25lbs) - Win - Muhammad Ali (224.25lbs)

And as I've already previously stated, this covers a time period spanning 57½ years (since the first Ali-Liston bout).

There have been 265 world heavyweight title fights during that timeframe.

That list could technically be even shorter if you disregard fights for the WBA regular title, which shouldn't be considered a 'world' title anyway.

[HomicideHenry]

And some of you people call yourselves hardcore boxing purists when you are rolling over dead for this new weight class that is completely redundant.

[margaret thatcher]

joey did draw with miller, but that's because miller had 2 points deducted in a 4 round fight

i think it is partially true though when you say that people want to be lazy at hw. with no weight limit to make a lot of these guys are much softer and carrying more tire than they need to. though you still get pronounced natural size differences too


as i said, bridger has had 1 fight i saw, and i enjoyed it. i aint even evaluating it as a division, im just gonna take the fights for whatever they are

[Enlightened-One]

All good and fine, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people who go into boxing regardless of weight class come up short and don't succeed.

I think people assume that it's a matter of exceptions to the rule, when smaller men beat bigger men, but the fact is VERY FEW people in boxing period are any good at all no matter their size.

I can list numerous examples of men who were much smaller than fighters today who regularly beat 200+ pound men: Harry Greb, Mickey Walker, Bob Fitzsimmons, Archie Moore, etc.

The truth is, when people look at everything objectively, if you took Lennox Lewis and the Klitschko brothers and Tyson Fury of the picture (the last 25 years or so) there are plenty of examples of smaller men hanging with the big guys--- because bigger does not necessarily mean better.

In fact you can make the argument that being big in and of itself is a weakness. A big target. Hunter vs Ustinov in recent years is a good example of that (213 pounds vs 278 pounds), or even Adamek vs McBride (215 pounds vs 285 pounds), etc--- and these are men who were light heavyweights in the amateurs.

Again going back to Joey Dawejko, who certainly isn't world-class. He had a DRAW with 6'4" 286 pound Jarrell Miller. Dawejko is 5'10" with a 70" reach. It's doable, it's possible. People just want to be lazy at heavyweight.

It's interesting to see people pretending they can name plenty examples of x, y & z... they can also do this... and they can do that... but without actually delivering upon their promises.

I can go one better by providing the actual stats for every single world heavyweight title fight from the last 57½ years.

List of bouts where the smaller fighter weighed 225lbs or less that defeated an opponent in a world title fight that were at least 20lbs heavier than themselves:

• Deontay Wilder (223.25lbs) - Win - Dominic Breazeale (255.25lbs)
• Deontay Wilder (214.75lbs) - Win - Luis Ortiz (241.25lbs)
• Deontay Wilder (220.75lbs) - Win - Bermane Stiverne (254.75lbs)
• Deontay Wilder (219lbs) - Win - Bermane Stiverne (239lbs)
• David Haye (210.5lbs) - Win - Audley Harrison (253.5lbs)
• David Haye (217lbs) - Win - Nikolai Valuev (316lbs)
• Sultan Ibragimov (221lbs) - Win - Shannon Briggs (273lbs)
• Lamon Brewster (224lbs) - Win - Andrew Golota (248lbs)
• Chris Byrd (214lbs) - Win - Jameel McCline (270lbs)
• Roy Jones Jr (193lbs) - Win - John Ruiz (226lbs)
• Chris Byrd (210.75lbs) - Win - Vitali Klitschko (244.25lbs)
• Herbie Hide (214.75lbs) - Win - Tony Tucker (243.25lbs)
• Mike Tyson (220lbs) - Win - Frank Bruno (247lbs)
• Evander Holyfield (217lbs) - Win - Riddick Bowe (246lbs)
• Evander Holyfield (210lbs) - Win - Larry Holmes (233lbs)
• Evander Holyfield (208lbs) - Win - George Foreman (257lbs)
• Evander Holyfield (208lbs) - Win - James Douglas (246lbs)
• Mike Tyson (216.25lbs) - Win - Tony Tubbs (238.25lbs)
• Michael Spinks (199.75lbs) - Win - Larry Holmes (221.5lbs)
• Mike Weaver (207.5lbs) - Win - John Tate (232lbs)
• Larry Holmes (211lbs) - Win - Leroy Jones (254.5lbs)
• Leon Spinks (197.25lbs) - Win - Muhammad Ali (224.25lbs)

And as I've already previously stated, this covers a time period spanning 57½ years (since the first Ali-Liston bout).

There have been 265 world heavyweight title fights during that timeframe.

That list could technically be even shorter if you disregard fights for the WBA regular title, which shouldn't be considered a 'world' title anyway.

Agreed.

[candyslim]

I have no problem with the creation of a new weight class between cruiser and heavy. Something about the label bridgerweight annoys me though. I think that it should be the heavyweight division and over 220 should be super heavyweight division. I also would prefer that cruiserweight become light heavyweight, and the current light heavyweight division limit be raised to 180 and labeled the fosterweight division after Bob Foster.

That is all.

Bridgerweight is a truly shite name, it's too much like 'Bridgerton' for a start.

I agree that the name Bridgerweight is a bit naff and I would be happy to call it something better but I would be against re-naming the Heavyweight division "Super-Heavyweight" out of respect to all the great Heavyweights of the past who would no longer have once held the world title in the biggest and best division in Boxing.

The Heavyweight champion of the world was once rightly known as the greatest prize in sport. That may no longer be widely held to be true but there is surely no doubt that if a weight division is created above Heavyweight this will devalue what went before.

[candyslim]

And some of you people call yourselves hardcore boxing purists when you are rolling over dead for this new weight class that is completely redundant.

I can see how you could call it unnecessary but you are not obliged to take any notice of it. Ignore it, leave those that benefit from it to get on with it and it will grow and eventually bear fruit that you will enjoy.

I could happily get along and wouldn't be any worse off if the minimum weight division had never come into being. You could certainly have made a case for many of the lighter intermediate divisions like Super-bantamweight, to pick one at random, being totally redundant from my point of view.

The fact remains however that it is beneficial to a minority of boxers, fans, and people in the sport, especially in those countries most frequently represented in those divisions.

So for the most part I ignore it, let 'em get on with it in the knowledge that the Super-bantamweight division (substitute your choice) will inevitability throw up a fantastic war (probably several) that I will be thrilled to watch. There is no downside that I can see.

[KiwiRider]

A puffed up cruiser the same height as a few super middleweights just beat a giant super size heavyweight.
I like that. It is just the era at the moment where we have these really tall or really big guys. But they come unstuck, no one is unbeatable as long as they face all relevant comers.
Adding another weight waters down the heavyweight division, it doesn't improve it. Its bad enough as it is.

[candyslim]

You're talking about Usyk, yes?

There will always be exceptional fighters who can usually overcome their lack of size but not everyone is a Usyk or a Canelo Alvarez. Even Usyk ended up looking like something from Halloween, whereas I reckon if Joshua had been Usyk's size he'd probably have fared no better than Hunter did.

Admittedly I picked AJ to win (although I was anything but confident) so I could be wrong again, but I see no way that Usyk beats Fury. This isn't because I think Fury is the superior boxer, frankly I don't think he can hold a candle to Usyk in terms of technique. I don't think Fury will allow Usyk to get within range, he'll use his speed to keep Usyk on the end of those long levers.

In short my reasons for picking Fury are entirely physical and when a fighter of Usyk's quality is given little chance of winning (I flatter myself most would agree my assessment?) then something is clearly wrong.

It shouldn't be that you are denied an opportunity to compete on a level playing field simply because one or two amazingly talented individuals have shown they can generally overcome having to fight their way uphill.

If you take the argument that 'if you're good enough, you're big enough' to its logical conclusion then we wouldn't need weight divisions at all.

Like I said initially, any badgers that are good enough to fight at heavyweight will do so because of the money and the glory. The new division will be for those others who are very capable but not supermen.

[KiwiRider]

I didn't really have an argument, just wanted to point out that these big 'n' little fights invigorate the division.
Splitting badgerweight off heavy makes heavy "samey" like all the other divisions. We like variety, like when a pudgy little guy drops a big adonis.

[Enlightened-One]

It makes me laugh to see people dishonestly pretending that exceptions are the norm, even when you spoon feed them historical facts they 100% know for certain are entirely accurate, which blatantly contradicts their beliefs!

I mean, what’s the point of sending your kids to school if other people’s uneducated opinions are always deemed as being far more important than reality?

I really can’t wait for “Mother’s Day” to be renamed to “Birthing Person’s Day”, due to people applying the same sort of mentally-deranged logic (i.e. opinions are superior than facts)!

[KiwiRider]

It makes me laugh to see people dishonestly pretending that exceptions are the norm, even when you spoon feed them historical facts they 100% know for certain are entirely accurate, which blatantly contradicts their beliefs!

I mean, what’s the point of sending your kids to school if other people’s uneducated opinions are always deemed as being far more important than reality?

I really can’t wait for “Mother’s Day” to be renamed to “Birthing Person’s Day”, due to people applying the same sort of mentally-deranged logic (i.e. opinions are superior than facts)!

What you talking about Willis?

[HomicideHenry]

All I know is that once upon a time men like Jem Mace and Sam Langford were in the sport and went from 130 pounds all the way to beating 200+ pound men who were world class. And that was in a time when there was four or five weight divisions.

Yes they were very exceptional men, but the fact remains that of the tens of thousands of people and professional boxing--- even amateur boxing--- only a handful of them ever achieve "greatness" becoming a bona fide top 10 contender or champion.

It has very little to do with size but rather ability to overcome the physicalities. This business has always been mostly mental and emotional rather than physical. I've seen many physically inferior men and women overcome much bigger opponents with sheer determination, hard work, and dedication.

Everybody on this website with a functioning brain knows damn well that the creation of new belts and new weight classes is strictly all about organizations making more money than they already do.

It has nothing to do with fairness because even if bridgerweight becomes a "thing" you can bet that many will come up short in that weight class just like any other weight class--- because at the end of the day those that succeed in this sport is a very small minority.

It's unnecessary. After all, what has been the perpetual criticism against Tyson Fury as of late? "Oh he hasn't fought a small, quick heavyweight like Steve Cunningham since," with the implication being that a faster man can get in and out of range, forcing Fury to work harder than he has in a long time.

Now all of a sudden the narrative has changed that such individuals are simply too small to stand a chance at winning--- and my response to that is, "Who said that life is fair?", and it's not like anybody's arm is getting twisted. Usyk or anyone else 200+ pounds don't campaign at heavyweight unless they honestly thought they had a shot at winning fights at the weight.

I called it not even a week after Fury beat Wilder again that even if he beat Usyk that it would be diminished by people on this forum. That kind of logic and criticism sucks, especially when you look at other eras--- people thought George Foreman was too big and strong for everybody too. He still lost to Ali and Young.

Just because the top man in an era just happens to be bigger than most out there doesn't invalidate anything--- by that logic we should diminish every win that Lennox Lewis had because he was 6'5"+ and 245+ pounds, because most everybody he fought was 200-220 pounds.

It's not just size that wins those matches it's everything else that comes along with the size that makes those bigger men special, otherwise they would just be big targets who would get knocked on their ass by quicker and smaller men.

People are fickle and like to panic. People sometimes are too generous because they overthink something. Making a new weight class because certain people will never be heavyweight champion, and they are too damn lazy to cut weight to be cruiserweight, is like giving people participation trophies even when they lose.

The WBC ought to be ashamed of themselves. They are no better than the WBA. The sheer amount of Toys R Us belts they create for every given occasion is bad enough without them creating a weight class that makes no sense.

I'd rather see a weight class below minimumweight be created than to dilute the heavyweight division to be nothing but a bunch of flabby marshmallows and goons and musclebound bodybuilders--- besides what's an extra ten pounds or even twenty pounds, if you are 225 facing someone 275? You're still outweighed by 50 pounds.

If I was even remotely close to the top 10 heavyweights in the world as a fighter why the hell would I care if someone outweighed me by even a hundred pounds? The general rule dictates the bigger they are the slower they are.

Yes there are exceptions to that rule. Fury is one of them. But just because somebody like that is around doesn't mean there should be the creation of a new weight class especially when you figure the bridgerweight "champion" Rivas had already previously beaten men in the 240, 250 and 260 range.

It's nothing but a scam and a scheme to make money for the organizations that already rake in hundreds of millions of dollars every year and basically stranglehold the sport of boxing alongside the promoters who want to marinate everything.

[Enlightened-One]

All I know is that once upon a time men like Jem Mace and Sam Langford were in the sport and went from 130 pounds all the way to beating 200+ pound men who were world class. And that was in a time when there was four or five weight divisions.

Yes they were very exceptional men, but the fact remains that of the tens of thousands of people and professional boxing--- even amateur boxing--- only a handful of them ever achieve "greatness" becoming a bona fide top 10 contender or champion.

It has very little to do with size but rather ability to overcome the physicalities. This business has always been mostly mental and emotional rather than physical. I've seen many physically inferior men and women overcome much bigger opponents with sheer determination, hard work, and dedication.

Everybody on this website with a functioning brain knows damn well that the creation of new belts and new weight classes is strictly all about organizations making more money than they already do.

It has nothing to do with fairness because even if bridgerweight becomes a "thing" you can bet that many will come up short in that weight class just like any other weight class--- because at the end of the day those that succeed in this sport is a very small minority.

It's unnecessary. After all, what has been the perpetual criticism against Tyson Fury as of late? "Oh he hasn't fought a small, quick heavyweight like Steve Cunningham since," with the implication being that a faster man can get in and out of range, forcing Fury to work harder than he has in a long time.

Now all of a sudden the narrative has changed that such individuals are simply too small to stand a chance at winning--- and my response to that is, "Who said that life is fair?", and it's not like anybody's arm is getting twisted. Usyk or anyone else 200+ pounds don't campaign at heavyweight unless they honestly thought they had a shot at winning fights at the weight.

I called it not even a week after Fury beat Wilder again that even if he beat Usyk that it would be diminished by people on this forum. That kind of logic and criticism sucks, especially when you look at other eras--- people thought George Foreman was too big and strong for everybody too. He still lost to Ali and Young.

Just because the top man in an era just happens to be bigger than most out there doesn't invalidate anything--- by that logic we should diminish every win that Lennox Lewis had because he was 6'5"+ and 245+ pounds, because most everybody he fought was 200-220 pounds.

It's not just size that wins those matches it's everything else that comes along with the size that makes those bigger men special, otherwise they would just be big targets who would get knocked on their ass by quicker and smaller men.

People are fickle and like to panic. People sometimes are too generous because they overthink something. Making a new weight class because certain people will never be heavyweight champion, and they are too damn lazy to cut weight to be cruiserweight, is like giving people participation trophies even when they lose.

The WBC ought to be ashamed of themselves. They are no better than the WBA. The sheer amount of Toys R Us belts they create for every given occasion is bad enough without them creating a weight class that makes no sense.

I'd rather see a weight class below minimumweight be created than to dilute the heavyweight division to be nothing but a bunch of flabby marshmallows and goons and musclebound bodybuilders--- besides what's an extra ten pounds or even twenty pounds, if you are 225 facing someone 275? You're still outweighed by 50 pounds.

If I was even remotely close to the top 10 heavyweights in the world as a fighter why the hell would I care if someone outweighed me by even a hundred pounds? The general rule dictates the bigger they are the slower they are.

Yes there are exceptions to that rule. Fury is one of them. But just because somebody like that is around doesn't mean there should be the creation of a new weight class especially when you figure the bridgerweight "champion" Rivas had already previously beaten men in the 240, 250 and 260 range.

It's nothing but a scam and a scheme to make money for the organizations that already rake in hundreds of millions of dollars every year and basically stranglehold the sport of boxing alongside the promoters who want to marinate everything.

You've never seen Sam Langford compete.

You've never seen any of Sam Langord's competitors compete.

And you know absolutely nothing about the people that wrote first-hand accounts of Sam Langord's bouts.

If you’re such an expert on Sam Langord, then it should be very easy for you to answer the following questions?

• How many Sam Langford fights are freely available to watch online?
• When did you first watch Sam Langford?
• What are some of your favourite Sam Langford fights?
• What is Sam Langford’s fighting style?
• Which opponents did Sam Langford face that impressed you the most?

I love asking questioning people who critique fighters that competed a century ago or more.

How can the entire foundation of your argument be entirely built on faith/hearsay, whislt completely dismissing facts from the last sixty years or so?

[gregregegg]

225 is just so unnecessary, basicaly means people up to 245 can fight there… that’s nearly all in shape heavyweights.

As is good cruisers can be successful at heavyweight. Good 175s going to cruiser is much harder he sees The 175-200 gap is far worse. If they were going to ad a div it should of been 185.

Or made a 190 and a 205. Somthing like that.