This is going to be deeply unpopular...

[Impractical Poster]

Eight divisions with one governing body.

Is it the governing bodies that push for so many weight divisions? That sure is a lot of sanctioning fees.

[HomicideHenry]

Eight divisions with one governing body.

Is it the governing bodies that push for so many weight divisions? That sure is a lot of sanctioning fees.

Bingo.

And....

Enlightened-One

Concerning the comments you made about Sam Langford. That was only a small segment in my entire post. There is very little footage of the man out there--- but I have been studying records of old time fighters from that era and prior since I was in junior high over 20 years ago.

You basically dismissed in one brush stroke men like Harry Wills, Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette, Gunboat Smith, and several others--- all on the basis that there is next to no fight films to watch.

I have read countless books, articles, newspaper clippings, interviews, etc about these kind of man and they were all special fighters. The fact that I bring them up, and you wave your hand completely dismissing them, only shows me your ignorance of not just history--- but what really is achievable when you work hard enough.

From my perspective there are entirely way too many weight classes. Once upon a time "catchweight" matches where the norm in boxing. And they were often times very competitive even if the other man they were fighting was a weight class or two heavier than them.

Anyways, this is really a argument or debate that is not going to go anywhere because you have already made up your mind that bridgerweight is absolutely necessary--- when there are literally hundreds upon hundreds of examples since James Figg that far smaller men (130, 140, 147, 154, 160, 168, 175) were capable of beating heavyweights of various abilities.

You know how many people get knocked on their asses or even get knocked out cold in sparring sessions by much smaller men? It happens a lot more than you think. I knew a couple of guys who literally had gym wars and they were four or five weight classes apart.

We agree to disagree. Sadly I tend to think that this new weight class is here to stay because of far too many willing and complacent people like yourself giving it too much legitimacy.

[Enlightened-One]

You basically dismissed in one brush stroke men like Harry Wills, Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette, Gunboat Smith, and several others--- all on the basis that there is next to no fight films to watch.

I have read countless books, articles, newspaper clippings, interviews, etc about these kind of man and they were all special fighters. The fact that I bring them up, and you wave your hand completely dismissing them, only shows me your ignorance of not just history--- but what really is achievable when you work hard enough.

I asked you some rather simple questions, which should be very easy to answer for a self-confessed expert of Sam Langord. But you couldn't answer them.

Look, there's a time and place for everything.

But to cite the size discrepancies overcame by a fighter that made their professional debut 120 years ago... a man you've never seen compete, without even knowing anything about his opposition or the people that wrote first-hand accounts about him, seem bizarrely inappropiate in the context of you attempting to justify the reason why the bridgerweight division shouldn't exist in 2021.

I've met an awful lot of people in my life that pretended to possess expertise in certain subject matters, due to them citing acronyms, terminology and names that only specialists should be intimately aware of.

But whenever I've scratched the surface, they've usually lacked knowledge. It was merely a pretence.

When it comes to old-timers from previous eras in boxing, I haven't met anyone capable of answering those five simple questions I posed earlier.

Pose the same questions about any fighter that fought during the last couple of decades, then I'm sure you could answer them immediately.

But you can't do that about Sam Langord, despite your alleged expertise.

If you disagree about the creation of the new bridgerweight division, then do so based on valid reasons that you can justify easily.

A lot of the documented boxing events that took place 120 years ago are unverified and are irrelevant to the sport we know today.

For the record, I'm quite knowledgable about boxing history, but I flatly-refuse to compare events from more than a century ago to today, especially when I've never seen most of those fighters from yesterday compete.

If you're going to mention certain names in your argument, don't be offended when someone challenges you about them.

[HomicideHenry]

All I'm hearing is a man who is basically saying that Sam Langford could not hang with anyone today--- simply on the basis of there being next to no film footage of the man out there.

You refuse to accept or to believe that it is possible for much smaller individuals to become heavyweight champion--- when it happened a lot more than you think from James Figg onwards.

Or how many men in the smaller weight classes climbed up several weight divisions, and beat quite a few heavyweights who were good. But as far as your concerned since there is no film on them such individuals should be completely dismissed.

Frankly sir I don't operate that way I'm not that closed minded. And it is completely relevant to the entire topic of bridgerweight, because you want to dismiss what is humanly possible because many men whether it be 100 years ago or 50 years ago or even 20 years ago have done what you insist is unfair or impossible.

Bob Fitzsimmons was 167 pounds knocking out men who were 300+ pounds at the turn of the 20th century. Jack Sharkey (the original) was only 5'9" and gave 6'3" 230 pound Jim Jeffries everything he could handle for 25 rounds. Etc.

Of course the names mean nothing to you because there's very little footage of them. Or you have the assumption that everyone in the past 50 years could basically whip them without any problems therefore they don't count.

Anything and everything to distract from the historical fact that with enough hard work and determination and skills people can and have overcome physical disparities many times throughout the sports history.

[jezzamundo]

I think the 25lb jump from light heavyweight to cruiserweight is a bigger problem. I'd be happy to see cruiserweight reinstated to its original 190lb and that be the end of it. If you're going to have another division, make Bridgerweight 210lb, beyond that I simply don't see size as being a barrier from heavyweight success.

[Enlightened-One]

All I'm hearing is a man who is basically saying that Sam Langford could not hang with anyone today--- simply on the basis of there being next to no film footage of the man out there.

I've never claimed "that Sam Langford could not hang with anyone today". You are lying because you can't answer simple questions about Sam Langford.

That said, I am claiming that if there is very little credible information about historical figures that made their professional debut in the sport 120 years ago, then we have to accept the fact that we know very little about them.

You refuse to accept or to believe that it is possible for much smaller individuals to become heavyweight champion.

You're lying again, because I've never made that claim.

However, I have cited real-world historical statistics that are incredibly easy to verify, illustrating the undeniable fact that smaller heavyweights have achieved significantly less success in world title bouts than their much larger counterparts.

Or how many men in the smaller weight classes climbed up several weight diviions, and beat quite a few heavyweights who were good. But as far as your concerned since there is no film on them such individuals should be completely dismissed.

Once again, your claiming I believe in something I've never once conveyed.

There's very little information from reliable sources about fighters that competed 120 years ago.

I don't need to say much more than that without stating the obvious.

Frankly sir I don't operate that way I'm not that closed minded. And it is completely relevant to the entire topic of bridgerweight, because you want to dismiss what is humanly possible because many men whether it be 100 years ago or 50 years ago or even 20 years ago have done what you insist is unfair or impossible.

Bob Fitzsimmons was 167 pounds knocking out men who were 300+ pounds at the turn of the 20th century. Jack Sharkey (the original) was only 5'9" and gave 6'3" 230 pound Jim Jeffries everything he could handle for 25 rounds. Etc.

Of course the names mean nothing to you because there's very little footage of them. Or you have the assumption that everyone in the past 50 years could basically whip them without any problems therefore they don't count.

Anything and everything to distract from the historical fact that with enough hard work and determination and skills people can and have overcome physical disparities many times throughout the sports history.

I think you're getting too emotional about fighters you've never seen compete and know very little about.

I previously asked you five simple questions, which you're unable to answer:

• 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?

If I asked the same sort of questions to a self-confessed die-hard fan of Muhammad Ali, then they'd be able to answer them immediately.

Does that embarrass you, because you've resorted to lying and ad hominem attacks, rather than attempting to answer five rather simple questions?

[HomicideHenry]

• 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?

Alright... Here's your answers...

#1- As I said before there is virtually no footage available on Sam Langford. He fought anytime when the transportation of fight films was illegal (for starters, courtesy of Jack Johnson). He also fought, partly, in a time when newspaper decisions were rendered instead of actual verdicts and many of those simply were not filmed. Most fight films from that time have been simply lost to history, and quite frankly only major fights were filmed for the most part in those times. Lastly, because he lived in a time of segregation and racism you seldom ever saw black fighters be on film at all.

#2- See number one.

#3- On the basis of his record he had many high profile matches with Harry Wills, Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette, Gunboat Smith, etc. But since you want particulars, how about one that demonstrates limitations on size since this thread is about the necessity of another weight class? Langford fought the gigantic Fred Fulton (6'5" 235) twice losing by TKO7 the first time around and losing a four round decision the second time around. Langford also struggled with the gigantic Bill Tate who was a sparring partner of Jack Dempsey's. They fought a couple of times. But I'd say maybe his best "prime" win may have been his kayo over Philadelphia Jack O'Brien who was not only the light heavyweight champion but had fought for the heavyweight title on a few occasions.

#4- Langford could basically "do it all" in the ring, but he was more offensively minded than anything else. Which is why he was rated (I think) #2 or #3 in RING Magazine's Top 100 Punchers of All Time because he had a very high number of knockouts in a time when long kayo streaks was a rare occurrence. I guess he can be described as a "boxer-puncher".



One of the rare films of Langford against Bill Lang who once fought Tommy Burns for the heavyweight title. Just a glimpse of what "style" he was against a decent/good heavyweight of the time period. England, France, Australia, etc little certainly more obliging to black fighters than America was so it's no surprise but this film is foreign rather than domestic.

#5- Refer to #3, however, I will say that even when this man was passed his best that Jack Dempsey wanted no part of him. In his own autobiography Dempsey admitted that the only fighter he ducked was Sam Langford. That being said, in his later years he had a pretty good series of matches with Fireman Jim Flynn who had knocked out Dempsey and Langford won the series.



The two men fought six times, and Langford won all but one of those matches. Flynn is probably better remembered for his matches with Jack Johnson, but he had many high profile matches with people like Luther McCarty and Fred Fulton.

I guess the one that really demonstrates his "greatness" was his decision win over Stanley Ketchell, considered to be one of the top 10 middleweights of all time. He defeated so many great fighters from lightweight to heavyweight.

But his greatest rivalry was with Harry Wills. He was basically 6'4" and 210-215 pounds, and they fought (I think) 17 times. Great as Langford was he couldn't manage more than one solitary win. BoxRec lists Wills as 6'2" but that's inaccurate. He had an 84" reach (Tyson Fury is 85").

And I think that may be a good ending to this response since this whole argument is over the necessity of new weight classes, although it must be emphasized that Langford was 5'7" and basically 180 pounds while campaigning as a heavyweight, although he did fight heavyweights like Jack Johnson when he was comparable to a super middleweight in size.

[margaret thatcher]

sam langford vs jack johnson

a good light heavy vs welterweight series of fights

sam using all the strength and craft in his 156 pound body, against the hugging master

[Enlightened-One]

#3- But since you want particulars, how about one that demonstrates limitations on size since this thread is about the necessity of another weight class? Langford fought the gigantic Fred Fulton (6'5" 235) twice losing by TKO7 the first time around and losing a four round decision the second time around. Langford also struggled with the gigantic Bill Tate who was a sparring partner of Jack Dempsey's. They fought a couple of times. But I'd say maybe his best "prime" win may have been his kayo over Philadelphia Jack O'Brien who was not only the light heavyweight champion but had fought for the heavyweight title on a few occasions.

You've listed names, but what do you know about Fred Fulton, Bill Tate and Jack O'Brien that you can't obtain from reading BoxRec resumes?

#4- Langford could basically "do it all" in the ring, but he was more offensively minded than anything else.

You've either never seen him compete or you've watched very limited footage.

#5- Refer to #3, however, I will say that even when this man was passed his best that Jack Dempsey wanted no part of him.

Jack Dempsey was 21 years of age when this happened (initially declined the bout). 18 months after he made his pro debut.

Sam Langford was 12 years older than Jack Dempsey and had been competing as a pro for 12½ years when this happened.

Context is key, don't you agree?

I'll respond to the rest of your post when I have some availability, but in the meantime, you have some points to respond to.

[HomicideHenry]

You've listed names, but what do you know about Fred Fulton, Bill Tate and Jack O'Brien that you can't obtain from reading BoxRec resumes?

I won't go into major details, just short synopsis:

Fulton was like a lot of giant white hopes. Big, strong. That was pretty much it. However he is among Ring Magazine's Top 100 Punchers of All Time. He was in line to fight Willard for the title but Dempsey kayoed him in 15 seconds.

Bill Tate was enormous, especially for the era. He was billed to be as much as 6'8". He benefited greatly as being one of Dempsey's chief sparring partners. He was a bit more mobile and tactical than the white hopes of the time but wasn't anything to necessarily scream about.

Philadelphia Jack O'Brien was one of the P4P greats in boxing history. Best remembered for his two fights with Tommy Burns, but he also fought Jack Johnson for the heavyweight title.

You've either never seen him compete or you've watched very limited footage.

Neither have you. What really is your damn point? What is it your trying to achieve here?

Jack Dempsey was 21 years of age when this happened (initially declined the bout). 18 months after he made his pro debut.

Sam Langford was 12 years older than Jack Dempsey and had been competing as a pro for 12½ years when this happened.

Context is key, don't you agree?

Of course context is key.

However, Dempsey was offered to fight Langford even after that timeframe and still refused to take the match. A quote from Dempsey:

"There was one man, he was even smaller than I, I wouldn’t fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford."

https://www.nytimes.com/1960/05/10/arch ... t-sam.html

This 1960 NYT's article says that Dempsey refused to face Langford twice. Once early on in his career when he was managed by "Sam the Barber," and another time later on.

Mind you Reisler (Sam the Barber) managed Sam Langford, too, so it was one of those matches that could've been easily made.

It must be noted, though, that Dempsey fought John Lester Johnson during that time he was offered the Langford bout--- and Johnson had previously fought Joe Jeanette twice, Bill Tate twice, Harry Wills twice and Sam Langford once.

Dempsey had a draw with him. So in a way Dempsey, despite being a professional 18+ months, was already in that stratosphere to have hung-in with the top black fighters available.

[Enlightened-One]

You've either never seen him compete or you've watched very limited footage.

Neither have you. What really is your damn point? What is it your trying to achieve here?

You previously claimed that Langford could basically do it all in the ring:

#4- Langford could basically "do it all" in the ring, but he was more offensively minded than anything else.

Sam Langford made his professional debut about 120 years ago.

I’m not trying to be cantankerous, but sometimes I feel we have to honest, by admitting there are certain historical knowledge gaps that can never be filled.

Is it entirely feasible that a person (like you) that’s never seen Sam Langford fight, somehow believes he has all-round pugilistic ability, despite only reading books written by authors that haven’t watched any of his fights either?

Sometimes in life, you either have to say that you just “don’t know” or you prefix your claims with caveats, such as the word “allegedly”, because you can’t say for certain whether everything you personally believe is 100% accurate.

Perhaps I’m being unreasonable, but I would feel dishonest passionately arguing about the pugilistic ability of a fighter I’ve never seen compete.

This isn’t a religious matter. We’re not discussing supernatural divine sacred beings, reincarnation, the afterlife etc.

"There was one man, he was even smaller than I, I wouldn’t fight because I knew he would flatten me. I was afraid of Sam Langford."

https://www.nytimes.com/1960/05/10/arch ... t-sam.html

This 1960 NYT's article says that Dempsey refused to face Langford twice. Once early on in his career when he was managed by "Sam the Barber," and another time later on.

I can’t read your article.

Anyway, we know for certain that Jack Dempsey rejected the Sam Langford bout during June 1916.

At this point in time, Dempsey would be approaching his 21st birthday, with 19 wins under his belt (18 months after his professional debut).

In stark contrast, Sam Langford was 33 years of age, had been competing as a professional for 14 years and had only lost 16 of the 170 bouts he’d fought.

Therefore, is it entirely feasible (during the second time of asking) that Jack Dempsey refused to face an over-the-hill iteration of Sam Langford at a much later stage of his career?

Nowadays, any fighter (that’s the physical equivalent of a modern-day rehydrated 175lb-er) approaching their mid-thirties (or later) would be considered past-their-prime.

I don't know, perhaps you can confirm the dates?

[HomicideHenry]

Sam Langford made his professional debut about 120 years ago.

I’m not trying to be cantankerous, but sometimes I feel we have to honest, by admitting there are certain historical knowledge gaps that can never be filled.

Is it entirely feasible that a person (like you) that’s never seen Sam Langford fight, somehow believes he has all-round pugilistic ability, despite only reading books written by authors that haven’t watched any of his fights either?

Sometimes in life, you either have to say that you just “don’t know” or you prefix your claims with caveats, such as the word “allegedly”, because you can’t say for certain whether everything you personally believe is 100% accurate.

Perhaps I’m being unreasonable, but I would feel dishonest passionately arguing about the pugilistic ability of a fighter I’ve never seen compete.

This isn’t a religious matter. We’re not discussing supernatural divine sacred beings, reincarnation, the afterlife etc.

It is a very fair assumption that the man had a high skill set in order to go from 130 pounds all the way to heavyweight and was capable of beating numerous HOF'ers in multiple weight classes.

He wasn't just offensively minded. Yes, he is best known for his high knockout rate, and he had no qualms brawling with men much larger than himself, but a man 5'7" and usually 160-180 pounds isn't going to be out brawling skilled heavyweights all the time.

You're simply not going to have a long career if you don't know defense, and he was battling men comparable to the caliber of or near the caliber of Jack Johnson on a pretty regular basis.

So we had to have been capable of doing a lot in the ring, hence the "do-it-all" statement. That's just common sense. No need to really dive deeply into books, articles, newspaper clippings, and films--- even though the testimony of other fighters, referees, promoters, etc is quite beneficial to truly understanding how special of a fighter he was.

Bert Randolph Sugar listed him as the greatest fighter of all time. Many others thought the same. So why you are really arguing over this matter is kind of strange to a degree.

I've never seen all that much film either of Eder Jofre, but virtually every single source there is out there states that he was one of the greatest boxers of all time too.

I don't think being an eyewitness personally adds on or takes away from what others have seen. That's what cumulative evidence is for. And for the record let it stand Langford defeated the following men, or had draws with the following men:

- Jack Blackburn
- Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
- Sam McVea
- Joe Jeanette
- Harry Wills
- Joe Walcott
- Stanley Ketchell
- Bill Tate
- Fireman Jim Flynn
- Tiger Flowers
- Jamaica Kid
- Kid Norfolk
- Battling Jim Johnson
- Porky Dan Flynn
- Jeff Clark
- Dixie Kid
- Mike Schreck
- Klondike Haynes
- Sandy Ferguson
- Young Peter Jackson
- Dave Holly
- George McFadden
- Joe Gans

I can go on but the names don't mean much unless you really know the eras, and really know how tough and hard-nosed those guys were. I think I've made the point.

[Enlightened-One]

Bert Randolph Sugar listed him as the greatest fighter of all time. Many others thought the same. So why you are really arguing over this matter is kind of strange to a degree.

Bert Sugar was born 34 years after Sam Langford’s professional debut.

Bert Sugar was born a decade after Sam Langford’s final outing.

Bert Sugar 19 years old when Sam Langford passed away.

Bert Sugar never watched any of Sam Langford’s bouts.

I feel it’s inappropriate to base your own opinions purely on the "others think he’s great, so they must be! " principle.

I previously provided a list of all world heavyweight title bouts, covering a time period spanning 57½ years (since the first Ali-Liston bout), where the smaller fighter (weighing 225lbs or less) defeated an opponent in a world title fight that were at least 20lbs heavier than themselves.

This accounted for 22 of 265 world title bouts.

All the information I conveyed is easily verifiable. Anyone can see these bouts.

One of the key points of your counter-argument relates to your opinion of a fighter that made their professional debut 120 years ago (who you’ve never seen compete), whereby your thoughts have been obtained by reading books written by authors that never saw the same man fight either. ?

[HomicideHenry]

In short, yes.

As I said many times before there are hundreds upon hundreds of examples of far smaller men doing what you believe to be impossible.

If 200-224 pound men fail as heavyweights it is simply because they are not good enough or they are lazy. Period. No need to create new weight classes.

One doesn't need to see somebody fight personally to recognize that they were truly one of the greatest of all time or the greatest that ever was when there is a mountain of evidence saying that they were.

[gilgamesh]

Anybody defending Bridgerweight or the need for it isn't a Boxing fan.

[Enlightened-One]

As I said many times before there are hundreds upon hundreds of examples of far smaller men doing what you believe to be impossible.

The vast majority of your claims about my opinion bear absolutely no whatsoever to any of the thoughts I’ve conveyed in my posts.

You’ve done your upmost to avoid answering simple questions and you’ve also resorted to employing dishonest debating tactics (on multiple occasions), by attempting to undermine the arguer, rather than their argument.

Simply put, you keep lying!

One doesn't need to see somebody fight personally to recognize that they were truly one of the greatest of all time or the greatest that ever was when there is a mountain of evidence saying that they were.

You’re over-reliant on the opinions of others.

You can’t answer simple questions.

You resort to mentioning Bert Sugar's name, to avoid having to address any of your knowledge gaps in your counter-argument.

You’ve already admitted to basing your own opinions solely on the "others think he’s great, so they must be! " principle.

You can't provide "hundreds upon hundreds of examples of far smaller men" beating much larger opponents in world heavyweight title fights.

No one can!

[HomicideHenry]

You can't provide "hundreds upon hundreds of examples of far smaller men" beating much larger opponents in world heavyweight title fights.

No one can!

I never said title fights I'm talking about in general. Now you are putting words into my mouth that I never said. Anyways, I'm more than done with the discussion because I'm not going to get into any more arguments with somebody who clearly has an ax to grind. You simply do not care about boxing's history as a whole because you only care about fights you have seen on film.

[Enlightened-One]

You can't provide "hundreds upon hundreds of examples of far smaller men" beating much larger opponents in world heavyweight title fights.

No one can!

I never said title fights I'm talking about in general. Now you are putting words into my mouth that I never said.

The pot calling the kettle black!

You simply do not care about boxing's history as a whole because you only care about fights you have seen on film.

As I said many times before there are hundreds upon hundreds of examples of far smaller men doing what you believe to be impossible.

All I'm hearing is a man who is basically saying that Sam Langford could not hang with anyone today--- simply on the basis of there being next to no film footage of the man out there.

You refuse to accept or to believe that it is possible for much smaller individuals to become heavyweight champion.

Or how many men in the smaller weight classes climbed up several weight diviions, and beat quite a few heavyweights who were good. But as far as your concerned since there is no film on them such individuals should be completely dismissed.

You basically dismissed in one brush stroke men like Harry Wills, Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette, Gunboat Smith, and several others--- all on the basis that there is next to no fight films to watch.

None of your accusations reflect any of my sentiments!

[gilgamesh]

You can't provide "hundreds upon hundreds of examples of far smaller men" beating much larger opponents in world heavyweight title fights.

No one can!

I never said title fights I'm talking about in general. Now you are putting words into my mouth that I never said. Anyways, I'm more than done with the discussion because I'm not going to get into any more arguments with somebody who clearly has an ax to grind. You simply do not care about boxing's history as a whole because you only care about fights you have seen on film.

Hell for one thing how many "World Heavyweight Title Fights" have there even been since 1900 or so. Surely that could be calculated. The amount of times that the winner of those fights was significantly smaller than his opponent is surely well up in the dozens.

Right off the top of my head I can reel off Fitzsimmons vs James Corbett, Dempsey over Jess Willard and Luis Firpo, Joe Louis over Buddy Baer 2 times, and I'm sure several other guys outweighed him. Mike Tyson over Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker and probably a few others. Holyfield over Bowe (2nd fight) and Foreman, Chris Byrd over Vitali Klitschko, Chris Byrd over Jameel McCline, Roy Jones over John Ruiz, and most recently Usyk over Anthony Joshua.

That's just right off the top of my head with no research other than just scanning my brain. If I actually took the time to delve deeply into this, I could probably fine oodles of other examples.

This guy EO is a dumbass who just wants to strip all of the drama out of Boxing.

A smaller man having the chance to be THE MAN in Boxing is a big part of what makes it special. Yes it's unlikely, that's why it gets such notoriety and attention when it happens. It's also spectacular, and not something you should deprive a sports fan of.

By EO's logic. A 16 seed shouldn't even bother playing a #1 seed in the March Madness Tournament because they simply can't win...except sometimes they do.

Underdogs win sometimes in sports. Shocking I know that everything doesn't fit into the "Size wins all" mindset of this dipsh*t.

[Enlightened-One]

This guy EO is a dumbass who just wants to strip all of the drama out of Boxing.

No I don't.

By EO's logic. A 16 seed shouldn't even bother playing a #1 seed in the March Madness Tournament because they simply can't win...except sometimes they do.

I never said that.

Shocking I know that everything doesn't fit into the "Size wins all" mindset of this dipsh*t.

I've actually told you on multiple occasions that size isn't the be-all-and-end all. You've even acknowledged my words.

I don't know why you're claiming otherwise.

[tiny_acres]

You can't provide "hundreds upon hundreds of examples of far smaller men" beating much larger opponents in world heavyweight title fights.

No one can!

I never said title fights I'm talking about in general. Now you are putting words into my mouth that I never said. Anyways, I'm more than done with the discussion because I'm not going to get into any more arguments with somebody who clearly has an ax to grind. You simply do not care about boxing's history as a whole because you only care about fights you have seen on film.

Hell for one thing how many "World Heavyweight Title Fights" have there even been since 1900 or so. Surely that could be calculated. The amount of times that the winner of those fights was significantly smaller than his opponent is surely well up in the dozens.

Right off the top of my head I can reel off Fitzsimmons vs James Corbett, Dempsey over Jess Willard and Luis Firpo, Joe Louis over Buddy Baer 2 times, and I'm sure several other guys outweighed him. Mike Tyson over Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker and probably a few others. Holyfield over Bowe (2nd fight) and Foreman, Chris Byrd over Vitali Klitschko, Chris Byrd over Jameel McCline, Roy Jones over John Ruiz, and most recently Usyk over Anthony Joshua.

That's just right off the top of my head with no research other than just scanning my brain. If I actually took the time to delve deeply into this, I could probably fine oodles of other examples.

This guy EO is a dumbass who just wants to strip all of the drama out of Boxing.

A smaller man having the chance to be THE MAN in Boxing is a big part of what makes it special. Yes it's unlikely, that's why it gets such notoriety and attention when it happens. It's also spectacular, and not something you should deprive a sports fan of.

By EO's logic. A 16 seed shouldn't even bother playing a #1 seed in the March Madness Tournament because they simply can't win...except sometimes they do.

Underdogs win sometimes in sports. Shocking I know that everything doesn't fit into the "Size wins all" mindset of this dipsh*t.

Sorry your 16 seed beating a #1 seed is a bad example.
The record of #16 seeds beating a number 1 seed is 1-135 or 0.74% of number 16 seeds.
It actually feeds into a need for another division.
I know that is not your intention but the example does not fit because a 200 pound boxer has better shot at winning the heavyweight title than that

[gilgamesh]

This guy EO is a dumbass who just wants to strip all of the drama out of Boxing.

No I don't.

By EO's logic. A 16 seed shouldn't even bother playing a #1 seed in the March Madness Tournament because they simply can't win...except sometimes they do.

I never said that.

Shocking I know that everything doesn't fit into the "Size wins all" mindset of this dipsh*t.

I've actually told you on multiple occasions that size isn't the be-all-and-end all. You've even acknowledged my words.

I don't know why you're claiming otherwise.

Because you're a douche, and I hate your stance on this. I don't respect you as a person. I don't think you're right about much of anything ever. I could go on but I won't.

[gilgamesh]

I never said title fights I'm talking about in general. Now you are putting words into my mouth that I never said. Anyways, I'm more than done with the discussion because I'm not going to get into any more arguments with somebody who clearly has an ax to grind. You simply do not care about boxing's history as a whole because you only care about fights you have seen on film.

Hell for one thing how many "World Heavyweight Title Fights" have there even been since 1900 or so. Surely that could be calculated. The amount of times that the winner of those fights was significantly smaller than his opponent is surely well up in the dozens.

Right off the top of my head I can reel off Fitzsimmons vs James Corbett, Dempsey over Jess Willard and Luis Firpo, Joe Louis over Buddy Baer 2 times, and I'm sure several other guys outweighed him. Mike Tyson over Bonecrusher Smith, Tony Tucker and probably a few others. Holyfield over Bowe (2nd fight) and Foreman, Chris Byrd over Vitali Klitschko, Chris Byrd over Jameel McCline, Roy Jones over John Ruiz, and most recently Usyk over Anthony Joshua.

That's just right off the top of my head with no research other than just scanning my brain. If I actually took the time to delve deeply into this, I could probably fine oodles of other examples.

This guy EO is a dumbass who just wants to strip all of the drama out of Boxing.

A smaller man having the chance to be THE MAN in Boxing is a big part of what makes it special. Yes it's unlikely, that's why it gets such notoriety and attention when it happens. It's also spectacular, and not something you should deprive a sports fan of.

By EO's logic. A 16 seed shouldn't even bother playing a #1 seed in the March Madness Tournament because they simply can't win...except sometimes they do.

Underdogs win sometimes in sports. Shocking I know that everything doesn't fit into the "Size wins all" mindset of this dipsh*t.

Sorry your 16 seed beating a #1 seed is a bad example.
The record of #16 seeds beating a number 1 seed is 1-135 or 0.74% of number 16 seeds.
It actually feeds into a need for another division.
I know that is not your intention but the example does not fit because a 200 pound boxer has better shot at winning the heavyweight title than that

My point was simply that longshot though it may be, the 16 seeds get the chance to play the game do they not? And yes the Smaller Heavyweight who are significantly more successful than the aforementioned 16 seeds most certainly deserve the chance to play the game or in this case, fight the fights.

[Enlightened-One]

This guy EO is a dumbass who just wants to strip all of the drama out of Boxing.

No I don't.

By EO's logic. A 16 seed shouldn't even bother playing a #1 seed in the March Madness Tournament because they simply can't win...except sometimes they do.

I never said that.

Shocking I know that everything doesn't fit into the "Size wins all" mindset of this dipsh*t.

I've actually told you on multiple occasions that size isn't the be-all-and-end all. You've even acknowledged my words.

I don't know why you're claiming otherwise.

Because you're a douche, and I hate your stance on this. I don't respect you as a person. I don't think you're right about much of anything ever. I could go on but I won't.

Thank-you for your constructive criticism, it’s sincerely appreciated!

[gilgamesh]

You're welcome douche.