Page 6 of 8
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 07 Oct 2021, 08:54
by Enlightened-One
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Oct 2021, 16:04You are cherry picking. Guess you picked less than 220 because Usyk is just above that.
How many smaller guys got title shots and lost?
This is an old topic that’s been ongoing and discussed in numerous threads.
Tony Bellew was initially involved in the WBC’s research to fill the void for small heavyweights’ and he suggested a 220lbs cut-off.
After this period of consultation, the WBC then decided to introduce the bridgerweight division, with its limit being 225lbs.
And in various threads, including this one, I’ve supplied a comprehensive set of stats based on 220lbs
and 225lbs.
It’s clear you haven’t been paying attention to these stats, since you wouldn’t have claimed I was “cherry picking” and nor would you have asked the question about "small heavyweights receiving title shots".
So I won’t bother addressing anything else you’ve written, since you’re obviously willing to criticise others without bothering to read their words!
I don’t know what else to say, if I’ve already supplied the information you’ve requested and you won’t even read it, then what do you expect me to do?
How are you going to respond? A laughing or sleeping emoji? Or perhaps a personal insult?
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 07 Oct 2021, 09:50
by 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.
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 07 Oct 2021, 23:32
by jezzamundo
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑07 Oct 2021, 09:50
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.
I couldn't disagree more with the last sentence. I simply don't think there is any evidence to suggest that weight increases beyond 230lb are advantageous in boxing (and that is only 10lb more than a rehydrated cruiserweight). I hope in time Bridgerweight will be recognised as a mistake and will just go away. Most heavyweights in the current generation are overweight and would almost certainly perform better at a lighter weight.
If you can't make the 200lb cruiserweight limit - you're a heavyweight, period. If you're not good enough to overcome the size difference as a lean 220lb heavyweight, then it's not because you're too small, it's because you're not good enough.
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 07 Oct 2021, 23:38
by gregregegg
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑07 Oct 2021, 09:50
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.
You can’t just exclude wilder and usyk, if You exclude them you have to exclude fury and Klitschko too.
You also have to take into account that the average cruiser weight is probably about 215lbs… and that’s with a camp aimed at making weight, the average cruisers optimum weight if they didn’t have to weigh in is likely 220-230.
Cruisers arnt dwarfed by many successful heavies at all.
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 00:35
by Enlightened-One
gregregegg wrote: ↑07 Oct 2021, 23:38
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑07 Oct 2021, 09:50
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.
You can’t just exclude wilder and usyk, if You exclude them you have to exclude fury and Klitschko too.
If we include Wilder & Usyk, the average becomes 239½lbs.
A trivial change that doesn't undermine the point I've raised.
The reason why I wanted to exclude Deontay Wilder from the averages, is because he’s such an anomaly.
No other fighter has achieved as much success as he has, whilst typically weighing 20lbs+ less than the norm.
The heavier fighters (i.e. those that have weighed 20lbs more than the average) have won only one title bout each (i.e. Fury, Ruiz Jr. and Bryan) whilst being unusually heavy.
So their inclusion doesn’t skew the stats.
You’ll need to explain the reason why you’d like me to exclude the Klitscko’s from consideration, because their weights are pretty much in line with the mathematical average (i.e. they typically weighed around the 245lbs mark)?
In case you’re curious, the average weights for those that failed to win world heavyweight title fights was 242½lbs.
The figures I’ve cited are based on 48 world title bouts within the last decade.
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 00:44
by Mexi-Box
I feel like most top CW are just HW's that can drain down. Look at Kudryashov. The dude is nowhere near a freaking CW. Guy looks like he kills himself to make weight as he's so much larger than some of the dudes that have gone on to have success at HW.
On top of that, Hunter, Briedis, Gassiev, and Usyk have all had success at HW.
I do think there are some CW's that won't ever become HW's. Dudes like Lebedev, Mchunu, Makabu, etc. are pretty much just CW's.
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 07:05
by Counter-puncher
gregregegg wrote: ↑07 Oct 2021, 23:38
You can’t just exclude wilder and usyk,
of course he can! it suits him!
if You exclude them you have to exclude fury and Klitschko too.
that would mean giving a balanced argument rather than trying to skew the stats in favour of his own argument.
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 07:20
by The Gratest
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 07:05
gregregegg wrote: ↑07 Oct 2021, 23:38
You can’t just exclude wilder and usyk,
of course he can! it suits him!
if You exclude them you have to exclude fury and Klitschko too.
that would mean giving a balanced argument rather than trying to skew the stats in favour of his own argument.
Yeah, but Wilder and Usyk are 'anomalous' you know.
Whereas little Nicky Valuev's (included in previous average stats) just as normal as they come.
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 08:07
by Counter-puncher
exactly! you are now qualified in EOSTATS
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 10:25
by scallum2015
A n Elite guy at 220 is not gonna be able to compete with an Elite guy @ 290. Of course every now and then there will be exceptions to the rule
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 10:27
by Enlightened-One
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 07:05
gregregegg wrote: ↑07 Oct 2021, 23:38
You can’t just exclude wilder and usyk,
of course he can! it suits him!
if You exclude them you have to exclude fury and Klitschko too.
that would mean giving a balanced argument rather than trying to skew the stats in favour of his own argument.
You can double-check the numbers for yourself.
I've already responded to this post and cited more stats.
I really don't know what to say... you can keep pretending I'm "wrong" and repeatedly "disagree" with the content of all my statistical posts as often as you want, but you can't undermine the figures, because they are what they are.
You're not a deeply religious flat earther by any chance? Because you've got that evidence denial mindset.
If you are, then I hate to break it to you, but the earth isn't flat and it's been around for a lot longer than 6,000 years!
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 10:48
by Ambling Alp II
You keep saying that you don't know what to say. and you keep ducking obvious questions.
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 10:49
by Enlightened-One
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 10:48
You keep saying that you don't know what to say. and you keep ducking obvious questions.
Which question have
YOU asked that I haven't responded to?
You're not going to reply to that question, are you, because you already know the answer!
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 10:55
by Ambling Alp II
From me, what are the results when big heavyweights fight heavyweights in title fights?
Lets use 225 as the limit for smaller heavyweights.
Don't list big heavyweights vs another big heavyweight.
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 10:58
by Enlightened-One
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 10:55
From me, what are the results when big heavyweights fight heavyweights in title fights?
Lets use 225 as the limit for smaller heavyweights.
Don't list big heavyweights vs another big heavyweight.
Before I go out of my way to consider your question, let's take a step back, shall we?
Here's what you previously claimed:
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 10:48
You keep saying that you don't know what to say. and
you keep ducking obvious questions.
Which question have
YOU actually asked me that I haven't responded to?
It seems you're the one that "
keeps ducking obvious questions", because I've asked you the same simple question twice and you refuse to answer it!
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 11:24
by Counter-puncher
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 10:27
but you can't undermine the figures, because they are what they are.
l:
great, the figures 'are what they are', so why not leave Usyk and Wilder in there, then, no need to remove them because 'the figures are what they are'
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 11:29
by Enlightened-One
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 11:24
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 10:27
but you can't undermine the figures, because they are what they are.
l:
great, the figures 'are what they are', so why not leave Usyk and Wilder in there, then, no need to remove them because 'the figures are what they are'
I take it you've not read the response I've already provided to this question?
How many times do I really need to answer the same question?
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 11:39
by Counter-puncher
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 11:29
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 11:24
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 10:27
but you can't undermine the figures, because they are what they are.
l:
great, the figures 'are what they are', so why not leave Usyk and Wilder in there, then, no need to remove them because 'the figures are what they are'
I take it you've not read the response I've already provided to this question?
How many times do I really need to answer the same question?
Until you stop cherrypicking stats to suit your own argument, and instead argue honestly and with good faith?
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 11:46
by Enlightened-One
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 11:39
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 11:29
Counter-puncher wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 11:24
great, the figures 'are what they are', so why not leave Usyk and Wilder in there, then, no need to remove them because 'the figures are what they are'
I take it you've not read the response I've already provided to this question?
How many times do I really need to answer the same question?
Until you stop cherrypicking stats to suit your own argument, and instead argue honestly and with good faith?
Wait a second! You haven't even expressed your opinion on my response to the question you posed!!!
You're essentially claiming you're going to keep asking the same question over-and-over again, even though I've already answered it!
And what constitutes "honesty" and "with good faith" when you haven't even bothered to read my posts?
Are you admitting to badgering me, because you dislike the stats I've cited?
Here's a novel idea!!! Perform some research and provide a counter-argument, because it's clear you don't like being spoon-fed the figures, so get off your backside and get them yourself!
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 14:19
by Bard of Boxrec
EO, do you think everyone disagreeing with you is a sign that you might be wrong, or do you think it’s more likely that it’s everyone else who’s wrong and you’re just a misunderstood genius
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 14:31
by The Gratest
I'm going with him being wrong, but will also be betting money on him being a very misunderstood genius.
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 15:27
by gregregegg
scallum2015 wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 10:25
A n Elite guy at 220 is not gonna be able to compete with an Elite guy @ 290. Of course every now and then there will be exceptions to the rule
How can there be exceptions to a rule, when the rule itself is a fantasy... the closest thing i can think of to an elite @ 290+ is valuev (thats being loose with the worde elite) and he got beat by hay and chagaev who were about 220 and 225....
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 15:38
by Enlightened-One
Bard of Boxrec wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 14:19
EO, do you think everyone disagreeing with you is a sign that you might be wrong, or do you think it’s more likely that it’s everyone else who’s wrong and you’re just a misunderstood genius
People are disagreeing with stats.
The same individuals who object to the statistical evidence I’ve cited, haven’t even performed any research of their own.
Are you expecting me to renounce facts, simply because a few lazy people disagree with them?
I’d have to be a complete utter lonely mentally disturbed and intellectually subnormal individual to pretend that certain facts don’t exist, simply because I want to fit in… to avoid criticism from those that believe that feelings are more important than facts!
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 15:40
by Ambling Alp II
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 10:58
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 10:55
From me, what are the results when big heavyweights fight heavyweights in title fights?
Lets use 225 as the limit for smaller heavyweights.
Don't list big heavyweights vs another big heavyweight.
Before I go out of my way to consider your question, let's take a step back, shall we?
Here's what you previously claimed:
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 10:48
You keep saying that you don't know what to say. and
you keep ducking obvious questions.
Which question have
YOU actually asked me that I haven't responded to?
It seems you're the one that "
keeps ducking obvious questions", because I've asked you the same simple question twice and you refuse to answer it!
Are you frikkin kidding? What question?
Again, what are the results when big heavyweights fight smaller heavyweights in title fights? How many different ways do I have to ask it?
Use 225 or less for a smaller heavyweight.
Don't want to hear about fights involving two big heavyweights. Just big vs small.
Re: Cruiserweight Golden Era fighters at HW prove that talking about the need for SHW or Bridgerweight categories is non
Posted: 08 Oct 2021, 15:48
by Enlightened-One
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 15:40
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 10:58
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 10:55
From me, what are the results when big heavyweights fight heavyweights in title fights?
Lets use 225 as the limit for smaller heavyweights.
Don't list big heavyweights vs another big heavyweight.
Before I go out of my way to consider your question, let's take a step back, shall we?
Here's what you previously claimed:
Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑08 Oct 2021, 10:48
You keep saying that you don't know what to say. and
you keep ducking obvious questions.
Which question have
YOU actually asked me that I haven't responded to?
It seems you're the one that "
keeps ducking obvious questions", because I've asked you the same simple question twice and you refuse to answer it!
Are you frikkin kidding? What question?
Again, what are the results when big heavyweights fight smaller heavyweights in title fights? How many different ways do I have to ask it?
Use 225 or less for a smaller heavyweight.
Don't want to hear about fights involving two big heavyweights. Just big vs small.
No!
Answer the damn question!
You accused me of ducking obvious questions!
Which question have YOU actually asked me that I haven't responded to?
I’ve asked you the same question three times, to force you to justify your derogatory accusation, but you refuse to answer it!
You are the only person ducking obvious questions in this thread!