This is going to be deeply unpopular...

[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.

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.

What I found most perplexing was one comment where he acted as if looking at BoxRec records for greater analysis was a bad thing.

Lmao, I mean why the hell be here if you don't give any attention to records and the information that goes along with each individual fight?

When there is no film to analyze the second best thing is what was written about the fights. But according to him that's being reliant on the opinion of others, and therefore is meaningless.

[tiny_acres]

Man I never thought this topic would be so hate filled.
It is the WBC guys. Most of you don't even want to recognize them as a legitimate organization.

[KiwiRider]

[

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.

Darn right
I think I posted at the beginning of the AJ Uysk fight RBR, that I had the Holyfield vibe.
That ment I was excited for a rare repeat of history.
It was so long ago that Evander Holyfield won his first strap at HW, and yet I still felt that same buzz building as the AJ Uysk fight progressed.
It's special, it's exciting, and as proved recently, it's memorable.
No way do I want that taken away.

[Bard of Boxrec]

Wow another thread about size. I wonder how this one has already gone

[AngryGoon38]

... 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?

I think that there Should be 3 separate HW divisions,in Boxing.
Jr HW-191-209
Regular HW-210-229
Super HW-230 and up

Cruiserweight should remain,and go back to it's original 176-190 format/range. Bridger-weight sounds rather clever,so yeah,lets have that division installed in place of the now silly sounding LHW division. Make Bridger-weight be in the 169-175 range...!!!

[candyslim]

Obviously a weight handicap means a lot more the lighter you are, but it still seems absurd to me that the little guys have ten, yes ten, weight divisions covering just 35lbs (105 - 140) yet there are only three weight divisions covering over 100lbs (175 - 275+) at the top end.

I know full well that Sulaiman is motivated entirely by greed and gives not a sh1t about the welfare of boxers, but I'm not going to let my opinion of that odious turd and his grubby organisation influence my thinking. I'm much more likely to be persuded by the good counter-arguments already raised by those opposed on this thread.

Having said that I am perhaps looking at this just as selfishly as that aforementioned "C U Next Tuesday" in that I keep thinking about Rivas v Gassiev and other potentially marvellous match-ups and I say "bring it on".

I've said my piece. Anything else will just be repetition.

[mike_UK]

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. ?

I'm not sure I agree with the logic that because many of the older fighters/fights went poorly, or unrecorded and there is little footage available, that it is impossible to draw conclusions about these fighters with regards to style, temperament, ability etc. Much of our knowledge of the whole of history is based off non-contemporary sources and all we can do is use these sources to draw conclusions.

If a near contemporary source of Langford has written articles about him, chances are the information he's used to compile the article has in fact come from people who were around at the time of Langford, so you can't just disregard this information as non-factual because the man writing it was born after Langford had retired.

I understand you're a stickler for empirical, verifiable evidence, but unfortunately in this case, as with huge swathes of history this evidence simply doesn't exist. The only option is to use the sources available, examine their credibility and draw conclusions from them. In the case of Sam Langford, a man who was alive at the same time as him has written about him, this is as good as it gets.

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

That is literally the way we have constructed our knowledge of history. People alive today have opinions on people who died hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. Entire scientific and humanitarian disciplines are based on the analysis of old information and drawing conclusions from it. It is not unreasonable to have an opinion on a long dead boxer based off old accounts of him, even if no footage of his fights exist.

[Enlightened-One]

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

That is literally the way we have constructed our knowledge of history. People alive today have opinions on people who died hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. Entire scientific and humanitarian disciplines are based on the analysis of old information and drawing conclusions from it. It is not unreasonable to have an opinion on a long dead boxer based off old accounts of him, even if no footage of his fights exist.

Just to give you a heads-up, people often employ dishonest debating tactics, such as misrepresenting my claims or down right lying, because for them, it’s far easier to attack a fictional argument that they deem as being weak, rather than my actual words.

Anyway, I don’t have an issue with Langford being thought of as a great fighter. He might have been one of the very best of his era and his contribution to the sport is historically significant, which more than justifies his “greatness”.

I am merely concerned about people drawing comparisons between fighters from yesteryear to those competing today, solely based on reading books, where the vast majority of the contemporary literature (the only source of evidence) was written by anonymous sources.

I genuinely believe that if someone can’t answer simple questions about any fighter (it doesn’t matter whether they made their pro debut yesterday or 120 years ago, as was the case with Sam Langford), then they cannot boast expert knowledge.

So the same people can’t passionately pretend that alleged/unverified feats achieved a century ago or more are relevant to the sport of boxing we know today, especially when the same individuals are suffering from undeniably huge fundamental knowledge gaps.

I previously provided a list of all the 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 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. No one can refute this statistical fact.

Apparently all these statistics were deemed as being irrelevant by several people, simply because Sam Langford allegedly defeated several opponents a century ago that were larger than himself, even though the same individuals couldn't answer very simple questions about the man they mentioned.

Their only response was: "others think he’s great, so he must be!"

Therefore, it would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to pretend that quality of evidence is irrelevant during debates, don’t you agree?

In regard to the discussion about the creation of the bridgerweight discussion (regardless of whether you’re for or against it), what do you deem as being more reliable compelling evidence?

Sam Langford’s reputation from 120 years ago or 265 world title fights you can actually watch and easily research the weights of the various competitors that engaged in them?

[mike_UK]

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

That is literally the way we have constructed our knowledge of history. People alive today have opinions on people who died hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. Entire scientific and humanitarian disciplines are based on the analysis of old information and drawing conclusions from it. It is not unreasonable to have an opinion on a long dead boxer based off old accounts of him, even if no footage of his fights exist.

Just to give you a heads-up, people often employ dishonest debating tactics, such as misrepresenting my claims or down right lying, because for them, it’s far easier to attack a fictional argument that they deem as being weak, rather than my actual words.

Anyway, I don’t have an issue with Langford being thought of as a great fighter. He might have been one of the very best of his era and his contribution to the sport is historically significant, which more than justifies his “greatness”.

I am merely concerned about people drawing comparisons between fighters from yesteryear to those competing today, solely based on reading books, where the vast majority of the contemporary literature (evidence) was written by anonymous sources.

I genuinely believe that if someone can’t answer simple questions about any fighter (it doesn’t matter whether they made their pro debut yesterday or 120 years ago, as was the case with Sam Langford), then they cannot boast expert knowledge.

So the same people can’t passionately pretend that alleged/unverified feats achieved a century ago or more are relevant to the sport of boxing we know today, especially when the same individuals are suffering from undeniably huge fundamental knowledge gaps.

I previously provided a list of all the 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 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. No one can refute this statistical fact.

Apparently all these statistics were deemed as being irrelevant by several people, simply because Sam Langford allegedly defeated several opponents a century ago that were larger than himself, even though the same individuals couldn't answer very simple questions about the man they mentioned.

Therefore, it would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to pretend that quality of evidence is irrelevant during debates, don’t you agree?

To be clear, I actually agree with your general point that the exceptions within heavyweight boxing, as in small fighters beating larger fighters to win a World Heavyweight championship, shouldn't mean that a new weight class should be dismissed out of hand. All other weight classes exist to eliminate weight discrepancies and level the playing field. But due to the huge differences in weight between heavyweights nowadays, 1 new weight class simply wouldn't change anything, so I think it's pointless and I'm certainly not advocating for another 20 weight classes to take into account all boxers up to the 300lb mark.

To answer your question, I do think that quality of evidence is hugely relevant during debates. Analysing footage of all 69 of Wladimir Klitschko's fights will give you a huge amount of information to base an opinion on when compared to using non-contemporary accounts of Langford and the what, 2 available films of his fights. However someone's, anyone's comparison of the 2 fighters will always be subjective. My opinion of Klitschko will probably be different from yours, as even though we have the same evidence to use to base our opinion on, we are 2 separate individuals with differing likes/dislikes when it comes to boxing. Therefore our conclusions at the end of our analysis will probably be different.

Now, i'm not trying to say that a fighter like Langford in his prime would beat Wlad in his prime, but it's fun having a debate like that. Sporting analysis will always err on the subjective rather than the objective side as there are so many variables which can render a mountain of statistics irrelevant, which is why upsets can and do happen.

[Enlightened-One]

That is literally the way we have constructed our knowledge of history. People alive today have opinions on people who died hundreds, if not thousands of years ago. Entire scientific and humanitarian disciplines are based on the analysis of old information and drawing conclusions from it. It is not unreasonable to have an opinion on a long dead boxer based off old accounts of him, even if no footage of his fights exist.

Just to give you a heads-up, people often employ dishonest debating tactics, such as misrepresenting my claims or down right lying, because for them, it’s far easier to attack a fictional argument that they deem as being weak, rather than my actual words.

Anyway, I don’t have an issue with Langford being thought of as a great fighter. He might have been one of the very best of his era and his contribution to the sport is historically significant, which more than justifies his “greatness”.

I am merely concerned about people drawing comparisons between fighters from yesteryear to those competing today, solely based on reading books, where the vast majority of the contemporary literature (evidence) was written by anonymous sources.

I genuinely believe that if someone can’t answer simple questions about any fighter (it doesn’t matter whether they made their pro debut yesterday or 120 years ago, as was the case with Sam Langford), then they cannot boast expert knowledge.

So the same people can’t passionately pretend that alleged/unverified feats achieved a century ago or more are relevant to the sport of boxing we know today, especially when the same individuals are suffering from undeniably huge fundamental knowledge gaps.

I previously provided a list of all the 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 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. No one can refute this statistical fact.

Apparently all these statistics were deemed as being irrelevant by several people, simply because Sam Langford allegedly defeated several opponents a century ago that were larger than himself, even though the same individuals couldn't answer very simple questions about the man they mentioned.

Therefore, it would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to pretend that quality of evidence is irrelevant during debates, don’t you agree?

To be clear, I actually agree with your general point that the exceptions within heavyweight boxing, as in small fighters beating larger fighters to win a World Heavyweight championship, shouldn't mean that a new weight class should be dismissed out of hand. All other weight classes exist to eliminate weight discrepancies and level the playing field. But due to the huge differences in weight between heavyweights nowadays, 1 new weight class simply wouldn't change anything, so I think it's pointless and I'm certainly not advocating for another 20 weight classes to take into account all boxers up to the 300lb mark.

To answer your question, I do think that quality of evidence is hugely relevant during debates. Analysing footage of all 69 of Wladimir Klitschko's fights will give you a huge amount of information to base an opinion on when compared to using non-contemporary accounts of Langford and the what, 2 available films of his fights. However someone's, anyone's comparison of the 2 fighters will always be subjective. My opinion of Klitschko will probably be different from yours, as even though we have the same evidence to use to base our opinion on, we are 2 separate individuals with differing likes/dislikes when it comes to boxing. Therefore our conclusions at the end of our analysis will probably be different.

Now, i'm not trying to say that a fighter like Langford in his prime would beat Wlad in his prime, but it's fun having a debate like that. Sporting analysis will always err on the subjective rather than the objective side as there are so many variables which can render a mountain of statistics irrelevant, which is why upsets can and do happen.

It seems we’re mostly on the same page.

But just to clarify, you believe that reading about actions of a fighter that competed more than a century ago, written by anonymous authors, should be regarded as being equally factually-accurate and equally-compelling than watching 265 world heavyweight title fights and also possessing the weights of the various pugilists involved.

Are you basically saying that seeing a fight play out using your own eyeballs is not more valuable than reading the words written by a person (or people) you know nothing about?

For the record, I’m not trying to misrepresent your words, it’s just that you didn’t directly address my question. And your words implied that reading books about Langford's fights are as useful as watching them on your TV screen.

[mike_UK]

Just to give you a heads-up, people often employ dishonest debating tactics, such as misrepresenting my claims or down right lying, because for them, it’s far easier to attack a fictional argument that they deem as being weak, rather than my actual words.

Anyway, I don’t have an issue with Langford being thought of as a great fighter. He might have been one of the very best of his era and his contribution to the sport is historically significant, which more than justifies his “greatness”.

I am merely concerned about people drawing comparisons between fighters from yesteryear to those competing today, solely based on reading books, where the vast majority of the contemporary literature (evidence) was written by anonymous sources.

I genuinely believe that if someone can’t answer simple questions about any fighter (it doesn’t matter whether they made their pro debut yesterday or 120 years ago, as was the case with Sam Langford), then they cannot boast expert knowledge.

So the same people can’t passionately pretend that alleged/unverified feats achieved a century ago or more are relevant to the sport of boxing we know today, especially when the same individuals are suffering from undeniably huge fundamental knowledge gaps.

I previously provided a list of all the 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 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. No one can refute this statistical fact.

Apparently all these statistics were deemed as being irrelevant by several people, simply because Sam Langford allegedly defeated several opponents a century ago that were larger than himself, even though the same individuals couldn't answer very simple questions about the man they mentioned.

Therefore, it would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to pretend that quality of evidence is irrelevant during debates, don’t you agree?

To be clear, I actually agree with your general point that the exceptions within heavyweight boxing, as in small fighters beating larger fighters to win a World Heavyweight championship, shouldn't mean that a new weight class should be dismissed out of hand. All other weight classes exist to eliminate weight discrepancies and level the playing field. But due to the huge differences in weight between heavyweights nowadays, 1 new weight class simply wouldn't change anything, so I think it's pointless and I'm certainly not advocating for another 20 weight classes to take into account all boxers up to the 300lb mark.

To answer your question, I do think that quality of evidence is hugely relevant during debates. Analysing footage of all 69 of Wladimir Klitschko's fights will give you a huge amount of information to base an opinion on when compared to using non-contemporary accounts of Langford and the what, 2 available films of his fights. However someone's, anyone's comparison of the 2 fighters will always be subjective. My opinion of Klitschko will probably be different from yours, as even though we have the same evidence to use to base our opinion on, we are 2 separate individuals with differing likes/dislikes when it comes to boxing. Therefore our conclusions at the end of our analysis will probably be different.

Now, i'm not trying to say that a fighter like Langford in his prime would beat Wlad in his prime, but it's fun having a debate like that. Sporting analysis will always err on the subjective rather than the objective side as there are so many variables which can render a mountain of statistics irrelevant, which is why upsets can and do happen.

It seems we’re mostly on the same page.

But just to clarify, you believe that reading about actions of a fighter that competed more than a century ago, written by anonymous authors, should be regarded as being equally factually-accurate and equally-compelling than watching 265 world heavyweight title fights and also possessing the weights of the various pugilists involved.

Are you basically saying that seeing a fight play out using your own eyeballs is not more valuable than reading the words written by a person (or people) you know nothing about?

For the record, I’m not trying to misrepresent your words, it’s just that you didn’t directly address my question. And your words implied that reading books about Langford's fights are as useful as watching them on your TV screen.

No i'm not saying that, my last reply said the following:

To answer your question, I do think that quality of evidence is hugely relevant during debates. Analysing footage of all 69 of Wladimir Klitschko's fights will give you a huge amount of information to base an opinion on when compared to using non-contemporary accounts of Langford and the what, 2 available films of his fights.

In that sentence i'm saying that the evidence of current, or near current fighters, that we have is vastly superior to and also much more reliable than that of the much older fighters. But that despite the wealth of evidence, each person who views it will invariably have a different opinion of that evidence. I can watch all of Wlads fights for example and conclude that he was boring and one dimensional and was lucky to compete in a weak heavyweight era. I could equally conclude that he was a master of his craft who is a standout heavyweight fighter of any generation. Therefore despite the wealth, or dearth, of evidence available for any particular fighter the conclusions drawn are entirely subjective.

What I did also say is that the evidence we do have of a fighter such as Langford is literally all we have to base our opinions on, so objectively and empirically a comparison between him and Wlad is pointless, but subjectively it's a bit of fun to use the evidence we do have to try and decide if he could ever complete with todays fighters.

I also feel that this sentence sums up my views pretty succinctly:

Sporting analysis will always err on the subjective rather than the objective side as there are so many variables which can render a mountain of statistics irrelevant

I think that's probably as clear as I can be.

[Enlightened-One]

I'm saying that the evidence of current, or near current fighters, that we have is vastly superior to and also much more reliable than that of the much older fighters.

Brilliant! Spot on! So we agree!

What I did also say is that the evidence we do have of a fighter such as Langford is literally all we have to base our opinions on, so objectively and empirically a comparison between him and Wlad is pointless.

We're on the same page and share the same opinion. We can't perform any meaningful comparison of the sport of boxing from a century ago to today.

Subjectively it's a bit of fun to use the evidence we do have to try and decide if he could ever complete with todays fighters.

I agree. It's often fun to compare eras as long as people refrain from creatively filling any knowledge gaps themselves using their own dreamt up theories or fictional events.

[mike_UK]

I'm saying that the evidence of current, or near current fighters, that we have is vastly superior to and also much more reliable than that of the much older fighters.

Brilliant! Spot on! So we agree!

What I did also say is that the evidence we do have of a fighter such as Langford is literally all we have to base our opinions on, so objectively and empirically a comparison between him and Wlad is pointless.

We're on the same page and share the same opinion. We can't perform any meaningful comparison of the sport of boxing from a century ago to today.

Subjectively it's a bit of fun to use the evidence we do have to try and decide if he could ever complete with todays fighters.

I agree. It's often fun to compare eras as long as people refrain from creatively filling any knowledge gaps themselves using their own dreamt up theories or fictional events.

I feel you've glossed over my general point. While boxing is called the 'sweet science' it's anything but scientific. Empirical evidence is great and all, but as i've said, when discussing additional weight classes or boxer x vs boxer y it's essentially irrelevant. There is no universal rule that can be applied to boxing as a whole. Yes you can take an example, or 265 examples in your case and try to apply it to the wider boxing landscape, but it doesn't work. There are far too many variables other than weight that determine the outcome of a fight. Did Holyfield lose to Lewis because he was the smaller man? Or was it because Lewis was technically better and had a better game plan? Or was Holyfield having an 'off' day? I feel that in a lot of cases, the weight difference is not the deciding factor in determining the winner of a heavyweight fight.

I get your point about, and also agree that size matters, but it is just one of many variables which effects the outcome of a fight. The bridgerweight division does not solve the weight difference problem. You'd literally need to account for all weights up to 300lbs to take the weight issue out of the equation.

[Enlightened-One]

I'm saying that the evidence of current, or near current fighters, that we have is vastly superior to and also much more reliable than that of the much older fighters.

Brilliant! Spot on! So we agree!

What I did also say is that the evidence we do have of a fighter such as Langford is literally all we have to base our opinions on, so objectively and empirically a comparison between him and Wlad is pointless.

We're on the same page and share the same opinion. We can't perform any meaningful comparison of the sport of boxing from a century ago to today.

Subjectively it's a bit of fun to use the evidence we do have to try and decide if he could ever complete with todays fighters.

I agree. It's often fun to compare eras as long as people refrain from creatively filling any knowledge gaps themselves using their own dreamt up theories or fictional events.

I feel you've glossed over my general point. While boxing is called the 'sweet science' it's anything but scientific. Empirical evidence is great and all, but as i've said, when discussing additional weight classes or boxer x vs boxer y it's essentially irrelevant. There is no universal rule that can be applied to boxing as a whole. Yes you can take an example, or 265 examples in your case and try to apply it to the wider boxing landscape, but it doesn't work. There are far too many variables other than weight that determine the outcome of a fight. Did Holyfield lose to Lewis because he was the smaller man? Or was it because Lewis was technically better and had a better game plan? Or was Holyfield having an 'off' day? I feel that in a lot of cases, the weight difference is not the deciding factor in determining the winner of a heavyweight fight.

I get your point about, and also agree that size matters, but it is just one of many variables which effects the outcome of a fight. The bridgerweight division does not solve the weight difference problem. You'd literally need to account for all weights up to 300lbs to take the weight issue out of the equation.

The statistics I supplied can be paired with videos of the fights themselves, coupled with lots of media coverage, as well as details of the physical dimensions of the pugilists involved in every single one of those bouts.

The statistics I supplied provided an accurate and honest account of the existence of the general rule, coupled with a list of every single exception.

I have never claimed that size is the “be-all-and-end-all”. It’s definitely not the only thing that determines the outcome of bouts.

Other people have may have claimed that I believe that “size is the only thing that matters”, but this was simply them employing a dishonest debating tactic, because it’s far easier to undermine a blatantly misrepresented stance than my actual words.

That said, I feel it’s categorically impossible to review statistical evidence covering a time period spanning 57½ years and pretend that smaller fighters regularly defeat their much larger opponents, because it’s simply not true.

There is an undeniable general rule that exists, which has exceptions accounting for 8% of the overall sample size.

[mike_UK]

Brilliant! Spot on! So we agree!

We're on the same page and share the same opinion. We can't perform any meaningful comparison of the sport of boxing from a century ago to today.

I agree. It's often fun to compare eras as long as people refrain from creatively filling any knowledge gaps themselves using their own dreamt up theories or fictional events.

I feel you've glossed over my general point. While boxing is called the 'sweet science' it's anything but scientific. Empirical evidence is great and all, but as i've said, when discussing additional weight classes or boxer x vs boxer y it's essentially irrelevant. There is no universal rule that can be applied to boxing as a whole. Yes you can take an example, or 265 examples in your case and try to apply it to the wider boxing landscape, but it doesn't work. There are far too many variables other than weight that determine the outcome of a fight. Did Holyfield lose to Lewis because he was the smaller man? Or was it because Lewis was technically better and had a better game plan? Or was Holyfield having an 'off' day? I feel that in a lot of cases, the weight difference is not the deciding factor in determining the winner of a heavyweight fight.

I get your point about, and also agree that size matters, but it is just one of many variables which effects the outcome of a fight. The bridgerweight division does not solve the weight difference problem. You'd literally need to account for all weights up to 300lbs to take the weight issue out of the equation.

The statistics I supplied can be paired with videos of the fights themselves, coupled with lots of media coverage, as well as details of the physical dimensions of the pugilists involved in every single one of those bouts.

The statistics I supplied provided an accurate and honest account of the existence of the general rule, coupled with a list of every single exception.

I have never claimed that size is the “be-all-and-end-all”. It’s definitely not the only thing that determines the outcome of bouts.

Other people have may have claimed that I believe that “size is the only thing that matters”, but this was simply them employing a dishonest debating tactic, because it’s far easier to undermine a blatantly misrepresented stance than my actual words.

That said, I feel it’s categorically impossible to review statistical evidence covering a time period spanning 57½ years and pretend that smaller fighters regularly defeat their much larger opponents, because it’s simply not true.

There is an undeniable general rule that exists, which has exceptions accounting for 8% of the overall sample size.

Just out of interest, in the 92% of fights which have gone according to the rule of 'bigger man wins' in these title fights, if it were hypothetically possible to scale the larger fighter down to the weight of the smaller fighter, do you think the outcome would still have been the same?

[Enlightened-One]

Just out of interest, in the 92% of fights which have gone according to the rule of 'bigger man wins' in these title fights, if it were hypothetically possible to scale the larger fighter down to the weight of the smaller fighter, do you think the outcome would still have been the same?

There haven’t been that many "David vs. Goliath" type bouts (i.e. a 20lbs+ discrepancy, where one of the competitors weighed less than 225lbs).

But whenever they did happen, I’d say that the larger competitor was twice as likely to beat their smaller opponent (I did previously provide all the stats detailing all these bouts in another recent thread).

Is it possible that some of these winning heavier fighters could have shifted some timber to slim down to the same weight as their opponent and still been successful? It’s hard to say, but I guess the level playing field would have affected the outcome of at least some of these bouts.

Anyway, the average weight of the winners (or those champions that gained a draw) of world heavyweight title bouts over the last twenty years is 243lbs, with their opponents typically weighing around the 240lb mark.

Back in 2017, I performed an analysis of BoxRec’s top-sixty rated heavyweights and determined that the average height & weight of modern-day heavyweights is in the region of 6′ 4½″ 247lbs.

I can provide a list of these fighters if you really needed to see the breakdown.

I guess my point is this… very few small heavyweights (i.e. fighters typically weighing 225lbs or less) are good enough to progress their careers to the point they're able to compete in meaningful bouts.

Of course, we have the likes of Oleksandr Usyk and Deontay Wilder that buck the trend, but there are inevitably exceptions to the vast majority of general rules in life.

[mike_UK]

No no, there's no need to post any additional info or stats. I guess the point of my question was to find out if you think that when the bigger man won, he would still have won if the weight difference was reduced to zero.

Height and reach differences exist regardless of weight class (see Sebastian Fundora) but skill, preparation, game plan, attitude etc often override a height or reach disadvantage.

Would Lewis still have beaten Zeljko Mavrovic minus his ~29lb weight 'advantage'? Would Wlad still have beaten Chris Byrd minus his ~28lb weight 'advantage'.

Your answers to these questions will be subjective. Your personal opinion of each of the boxers in question will determine whether you think the outcome would be the same. However your answers will also go some way to showing how important a factor you feel weight is in the heavyweight division.

[Enlightened-One]

I guess the point of my question was to find out if you think that when the bigger man won, he would still have won if the weight difference was reduced to zero.

In some cases yes, in others no.

Evander Holyfield would have beaten Lennox Lewis twice if the Brit didn't enjoy a 30lbs weight advantage.

Alexander Povetkin probably would have beaten Anthony Joshua if they were the same size.

Axel Schulz probably would have dominated George Foreman if they were the same size.

Riddick Bowe would never have required a size advantage to beat a Jesse Ferguson or a Herbie Hide type fighter.

The same applies with Vitali Klitschko against the likes of Albert Sosnowski.

Anyway, we’re getting off-topic, discussing hypothetical situations that aren't informative.

A lot of the bigger guys couldn’t have lost much weight without being drained (i.e. attempting to make a size ten foot fit a size seven shoe).

So it’s probably more meaningful to steer our discussion back to the historical events that actually occurred in the real world.

[gilgamesh]

... 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?

I think that there Should be 3 separate HW divisions,in Boxing.
Jr HW-191-209
Regular HW-210-229
Super HW-230 and up

Cruiserweight should remain,and go back to it's original 176-190 format/range. Bridger-weight sounds rather clever,so yeah,lets have that division installed in place of the now silly sounding LHW division. Make Bridger-weight be in the 169-175 range...!!!

You ever heard the old expression "As the Heavyweight division goes. So goes Boxing"

If you do what you suggest to the Heavyweight division. Boxing might as well cease to exist because nobody will ever care again.

[margaret thatcher]

so gilly my man, we have a bridgerweight champ, has boxing been ruined now?

[lazboy]

Gill you emo…I want to change my username to armchair warrior. How does one do that…you emo.

[Bard of Boxrec]

Always amusing to see the gradual eroding of patience when someone who appears to be unfamiliar with EO learns more about his techniques

[candyslim]

so gilly my man, we have a bridgerweight champ, has boxing been ruined now?

The heavyweight division won't be affected in any way by the fact we have a bridgerweight champion except for the fact a couple of fringe-contenders at heavyweight suddenly disappear and reappear as serious contenders at bridgerweight. Is the loss of Oscar Rivas going to make any difference to the heavyweight scene? It isn't even as if he is prevented from campaigning at heavyweight any time he chooses.

Anyone who can impact the pinnacle of the heavyweight division will fight in that division irrespective of their weight. It has always been that way. Deontay Wilder could make bridgerweight but he wouldn't be interested and rightly so. Back in the late seventies and early eighties "The end of the world as we know it brigade" were out in force volubly and vociferously decrying the advent of the cruiserweight division. "It will dilute and devalue the heavyweight division" they said. "We don't need it and we don't want it" they said. Nobody has said that now for a very long time.

Small heavyweights who don't quite have the ability of a Usyk or a Wilder can compete on a level playing field as bridgerweights rather than being consigned to limbo. Doesn't that mean that the bridgerweight division will be a very poor relation forever in the shadow of the heavyweight division? Well yes, inevitably, but that was also true of the cruiserweight division and light-heavy before it. Those are fine divisions in their own right even if heavyweight remains the blue riband division.

As I've said before I really don't see the point of, say the light-flyweight division, but I just don't take any notice until maybe one day I become aware that people on the forum are talking about a fantastic fight at light-flyweight and then I'll sit up and pay attention. The fact that it exists causes me no harm.

Again as I said before pay no mind to bridgerweight. It won't detract from your enjoyment of boxing and one day you find yourself having to acknowledge there have been a number of quality fights at the weight, and maybe it wasn't such a terrible idea afterall.

[Controversial]

I've only just realised that Rivas was heavier than Usyk in his bridgerweight fight, than Usyk was against AJ

[SportsRatings]

Calling Cruiserweight a popular weight class is a bit of a stretch. It's never been a big deal outside of boxing fans.

And it's taken 40 years to even get to this level. The most respect Cruiserweight gets? When the champ moves up to take on the Heavyweights. If you don't do that, your name is almost forgotten. What casual fans know about Marco Huck, compared to David Haye or Usyk? Huck never made waves at heavyweight is the difference.

Bridgerweight would take the same amount of time to establish itself. So in 2060 people will say "Bridgerweight is a beloved division" and others will say "Really? Only the guys who also fight at heavyweight are well-known...the rest are just barely more popular than the Cruiserweights"