BoxRec

Well, I guess I just don't understand your point. I named several fighters who moved up and were much better at the higher weight.

I can also name several other fighters who won a title at one weight class, then moved up and won a title at another weight class. Was their "prime" at the lower weight or higher weight class? For some fighters it was at the lower, sometimes at the higher, often they were about the same. Fighters move up in weight all of the time with out losing anything. It's the rule, not the exception. We rountinely talk about fighters and their fights that were above their original weight and don't think anything of it. However with Duran, time is supposed to stand still when he moved up at the age of 26. (Even though he had 8 non-title fights above lightweight before he moved out of the division as champion in 1978). He is forever a lightweight. Makes no sense.

Anyway, I guess we have beat this debate to death. I will give you the last word if you want it.

That can't be true, can it?

If fighters moved up in weight without losing anything then their arms would have to grow with them as would their height.

Did Hearns punch as hard at 175 as he did at 147?

Leonard was dropped by some less than stellar opposition when he went past 147.

If smaller men can campaign at higher weights without losing anything then why does anyone fight in the lower divisions?

Many complain about the bastardised weight classes and I understand why, but in any sport when you look at the very top there is little between the atheletes and the smallest of advantages can make all the difference.

Armstrong often fought at welterweight when he was closer to the lightweight limit. I don't know enough about the reasoning but surely had he fought more at 135 he would have been more formidable than he was at 147. This is just an example.

Forget Duran for a moment because I think he's clouding your judgement.

Moving up puts you at a disadvantage.