BoxRec

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:06**

Therefore Byrd was better as a heavyweight than a light heavyweight even though it was physically possible for him to make the light heavy limit.

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:09**

Ya, Chris Byrd, who fought as a 215 ish pound HW most of his career, was best at heavyweight, congrats for getting that one

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:10**

Pointless chatting to you really isn't it?

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:13**

You just try to disagree with me, so it's a bit funny when you post sh!t like this that I actually agree with and which supports what I'm saying. Maybe flying over your head

No doubt Ewster my man, HWs don't have to make weight and really have no incentive to cut, and they cut for hw fights nothing at all like non-hws do, and the day before weigh ins today also increase weight draining and the extent to which guys outside HW weigh in above their natural and ring weights. All good

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:18**

Flattering yourself a little there don't you think?

There was no cruiserweight division in those days so you got a fair bit of disparity in weights once you got above light heavy.

And, because there were was only one champion in each division it was a big deal for guys to try and win belts in more than one division.

Plus, the big money was at heavyweight, so guys wanted to move up and take their chances.

Similar to James Toney operating at heavyweight in recent times, or Roy Jones making a smash and grab for the heavyweight title. Difference was, with only one belt per division, it was harder then to pull it off than it was when Jones targetted the weakest alphabet belt holder

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:26**

But I'm not actually agreeing with you so maybe it went over your head.

I'm saying that a guy fighting at his natural weight all the time is a different animal from the same guy fighting weight drained and jumping up and down in weight.

Which was in response to your complaint that shorter guys fought for the heavyweight title back in those days.

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:29**

ewenhay wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 14:18 Flattering yourself a little there don't you think?

There was no cruiserweight division in those days so you got a fair bit of disparity in weights once you got above light heavy.

And, because there were was only one champion in each division it was a big deal for guys to try and win belts in more than one division.

Plus, the big money was at heavyweight, so guys wanted to move up and take their chances.

Similar to James Toney operating at heavyweight in recent times, or Roy Jones making a smash and grab for the heavyweight title. Difference was, with only one belt per division, it was harder then to pull it off than it was when Jones targetted the weakest alphabet belt holder

Above light heavy? What was that back then, like 150 lol. The guys whose size I've brought up were like 150s 160s or 170s (with Ketchel having just been MW champ and weighing 150s straight after). Burns was 167 or something, not some hulking light heavy who couldn't cut

Glad to see you agree with me so much when it comes to the nature of weight limits and cutting though. For sure hws don't have the same pressure to cut that we see, for example, among welterweights today who weigh 147 the day ahead after extreme draining but then fight more in the 160s. Hell, maybe without that draining guys like Keith Thurman and Danny Garcia would actually be more effective up at HW! jkjk

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:31**

ewenhay wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 14:26 But I'm not actually agreeing with you so maybe it went over your head.

I'm saying that a guy fighting at his natural weight all the time is a different animal from the same guy fighting weight drained and jumping up and down in weight.

Which was in response to your complaint that shorter guys fought for the heavyweight title back in those days.

LOL, but oh you did post so much that is exactly what I think and agree with Ewster, maybe you need to step up your posting just to disagree with me game.

For sure, guys fighting HW bouts don't have nearly the same weight cutting pressure and are fighting far closer to their natural weights than non-hws are, and this is even more pronounced in the era of day before weigh ins and heightened draining practices

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:31**

You don't understand the history of boxing.

Or you're trolling

Or probably a bit of both.

No wonder nobody takes your opinion seriously.

What's your top 10 bruh?

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:32**

Lol and you chirp in just to disagree with me, even when you actually don't, clear enough here

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:34**

I only comment on some threads that interest me or have an opinion on, like most folks do. I'm not in hiding as you seem to think.

Whereas, you like to copy and paste your opinions all over every thread.

Each to their own.

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:36**

Something like

Ali
Louis
Foreman
Holmes
Lewis
Holyfield
Frazier
Tyson
Marciano
DAVID HAYE!!

How bout you Ewster?

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:40**

ewenhay wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 14:34 I only comment on some threads that interest me or have an opinion on, like most folks do. I'm not in hiding as you seem to think.

Whereas, you like to copy and paste your opinions all over every thread.

Each to their own.

I'm happy you felt comfortable to at least come forward and agree with me so much regarding the weight game

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:41**

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 14:36 Something like

Ali
Louis
Foreman
Holmes
Lewis
Holyfield
Frazier
Tyson
Marciano
DAVID HAYE!!

How bout you Ewster?

Not sure what your point is then? Plenty of guys on your list who would be light heavy or cruiser in today's game, especially with the higher cruiserweight limit nowadays.

I'd have at least 7 of those in my top ten too. But it's pretty subjective once you get past the the first 3 or 4 isn't it?

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:43**

I think pretty much none of those guys had Johnson's track record for fighting such small opponents, especially deep in their careers like he was. And how many defended against a guy 6 years inactive as well?

Funny thing is that a guy like Tyson at 5'11 or so was considered a shorty, while 6 foot Jack was billed 'the giant'

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:45**

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑30 Mar 2020, 14:43 I think pretty much none of those guys had Johnson's track record for fighting such small opponents, especially deep in their careers like he was.

Funny thing is that a guy like Tyson at 5'11 or so was considered a shorty, while 6 foot Jack was billed 'the giant'

Yeah because 6ft was tall in 1900 whereas 5ft 10, or whatever Tyson really is, is just above average height nowadays

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:46**

Ya, a small time indeed

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:47**

So height wise, Mike Tyson is really just an 1980s version of a 1900s Tommy Burns

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:48**

I'm glad you finally came round

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:49**

Mike was a far bigger man of course, several inches taller and about 50-60 pounds heavier. Or did you want to use your time machine and body transformations again LOL

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:50**

I think you'll find that it's you who lives in an alternative universe

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:52**

Nah, I'm the one taking guys for what they were, not what they may have been in a time machine like you are

Mike Tyson was like 220 in his prime too, ya so small, barely above middleweight

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:53**

I'm glad that you finally understand. These lockdowns aren't easy on any of us.

Have a good evening.

Good luck trying to catch those fish.

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:54**

Since you only reply to what interests you, I'm glad I interest you so much. Don't worry, I wont keep you waiting long for the next batch

Posted: **30 Mar 2020, 14:55**

I'm sure you won't.

You post all over every thread after all. It's hard to miss.

BoxRec

Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?

Re: Is Fury the best heavyweight of all time?