BoxRec

Recently I made the argument that of all divisions, the Heavyweight Division is perhaps the most wealthy in terms of talent compared to other Divisions.

As such, the conversation moved to instances when the the reigning Heavyweight Champion defeated a lower weight Champion. There are numerous examples throughout history and in most of them the fights have been for the World Heavyweight Title.

Please name a fight and if you wish, give your analysis of it, if you watched it.

the most wealthy in terms of talent? Based on what?

Heavyweights have always been one of the weaker weight classes relatively, for the simple reason that most men in top shape are below 190 lbs.

Agree with Dempsey.

It simply isnt. Although this is an aside to the thread. I might come back to this.

The most recent example is
Adamek vs Klitchsko

Adamek was a world light heavyweight champion, although he had lost that title and wasnt undisputed at any time. I think he probably established himself as an undisputed top 5 light heavyweight and he was certainly to the top end of that top 5, despite his upset loss to Dawson. He also became a cruiserweight world champion and you would have to think that he was a top 5 cruiser champion. He was outclassed by the world heavyweight champion in Klitchsko, but so has everyone else been. it is interesting to note that he is also probably a top 5 heavyweight fighter.

This is interesting because his success against the solid top 10 (but not world champions) has pretty much been the same with Adamek. One would not expect this to be the case if the heavyweight division currently had more talent. In fact, (and this is a side issue), one has to wonder that if Adamek can do this, how many other light heavyweights would also beat top contenders. If we had no weight divisions at all (but lots of actual fights so that we could fairly rank fighters), it is quite clear that the Klitchskos would still be no 1 and 2 fighters. But there is an argument that they hold this position on a pound for pound basis (at least among light heavy and above). There is a solid argument that in such circumstances, the top 10 fighters might include guys who are not heavyweight, like Haye (cruiserweight), Adamek Light heavy, Dawson - light heavy (based on the Adamek win), Wlodarczk, Huck and several others. There is no doubt that the Heavyweight champion has for 90 percent of history been the world's best fighter. but below that, i dont think there are many times where the entire top 10 heavyweight fighters have been better than the world light heavyweight champion. And i think this has been borne out by results if you look at actual fights between the two fighters. The other thing to consider is that nowadays in particular, if a fighter does go up in weight it is always at the end of his career when he is past his best and arguably not in his prime. A fighter like Adamek really is getting old by the time he has elected to go up in weight. I am not sure he couldnt have done more if he fought at the weight earlier. Obviously Hopkins (although he hasnt gone up to heavyweight) is the prime example.

What do you guys think about another reasonable recent example like Spinks vs Holmes. Obviously Holmes had passed his best work, but do you think there is an argument that Spinks himself had also past his best? There is plenty of controversy obviously about the results of the fights. But is there an argument that Spinks might have done an awful lot better (at most stages of his career) than most people currently think.

Crease wrote:Recently I made the argument that of all divisions, the Heavyweight Division is perhaps the most wealthy in terms of talent compared to other Divisions.

As such, the conversation moved to instances when the the reigning Heavyweight Champion defeated a lower weight Champion. There are numerous examples throughout history and in most of them the fights have been for the World Heavyweight Title.

Please name a fight and if you wish, give your analysis of it, if you watched it.

I'd say the heavyweight division is most wealthy in terms of mainstream publicity but not talent.

Boilermaker wrote:The most recent example is
Adamek vs Klitchsko

Adamek was a world light heavyweight champion, although he had lost that title and wasnt undisputed at any time. I think he probably established himself as an undisputed top 5 light heavyweight and he was certainly to the top end of that top 5, despite his upset loss to Dawson. He also became a cruiserweight world champion and you would have to think that he was a top 5 cruiser champion. He was outclassed by the world heavyweight champion in Klitchsko, but so has everyone else been. it is interesting to note that he is also probably a top 5 heavyweight fighter.

This is interesting because his success against the solid top 10 (but not world champions) has pretty much been the same with Adamek. One would not expect this to be the case if the heavyweight division currently had more talent. In fact, (and this is a side issue), one has to wonder that if Adamek can do this, how many other light heavyweights would also beat top contenders. If we had no weight divisions at all (but lots of actual fights so that we could fairly rank fighters), it is quite clear that the Klitchskos would still be no 1 and 2 fighters. But there is an argument that they hold this position on a pound for pound basis (at least among light heavy and above). There is a solid argument that in such circumstances, the top 10 fighters might include guys who are not heavyweight, like Haye (cruiserweight), Adamek Light heavy, Dawson - light heavy (based on the Adamek win), Wlodarczk, Huck and several others. There is no doubt that the Heavyweight champion has for 90 percent of history been the world's best fighter. but below that, i dont think there are many times where the entire top 10 heavyweight fighters have been better than the world light heavyweight champion. And i think this has been borne out by results if you look at actual fights between the two fighters. The other thing to consider is that nowadays in particular, if a fighter does go up in weight it is always at the end of his career when he is past his best and arguably not in his prime. A fighter like Adamek really is getting old by the time he has elected to go up in weight. I am not sure he couldnt have done more if he fought at the weight earlier. Obviously Hopkins (although he hasnt gone up to heavyweight) is the prime example.

What do you guys think about another reasonable recent example like Spinks vs Holmes. Obviously Holmes had passed his best work, but do you think there is an argument that Spinks himself had also past his best? There is plenty of controversy obviously about the results of the fights. But is there an argument that Spinks might have done an awful lot better (at most stages of his career) than most people currently think.

I really don’t think so.

Spinks went straight in against Holmes. He didn’t want a tune up because he knew he was always one flush shot away from Bedfordshire. After his smash and grab raid of the title he then wanted a bumper pay out and retirement. He wanted Tyson but was in no way going to enter a tournament with any other giants.

So he side-stepped all the contenders and waited for Tyson to do the right thing.

Of course, this doesn’t prove anything other than Mike was protecting a potential fortune.

One thing we should factor in is that moving up in weight has never been easier. Fighters have PED’d their way through the divisions. And will continue to do so.

I know this sounds crazy, but..........

Valuev vs Flloyd Mayweather - 5 round fight. Can Mayweather win a points decision?

Mayweather’s reach isn’t long enough to penetrate through the force field of chest hair.

Ezzard wrote:Mayweather’s reach isn’t long enough to penetrate through the force field of chest hair.

That's a writer speaking right there.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Mayweather’s reach isn’t long enough to penetrate through the force field of chest hair.

That's a writer speaking right there.

How are things Keith?

Ezzard wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Mayweather’s reach isn’t long enough to penetrate through the force field of chest hair.

That's a writer speaking right there.

How are things Keith?

Canny mate. My second short is done (the noir one you read), but I want to tweek the edit.

Re-writing my comedy feature after some sound advice from a screenwriter buddy.

It's slow going because I've had major surgery on my stomach and I can only have liquid food for a while. Still, 4 weeks paid leave from the day job!!

How you doing mate?

keithmoonhangover wrote:I know this sounds crazy, but..........

Valuev vs Flloyd Mayweather - 5 round fight. Can Mayweather win a points decision?

He beat The Big Show, so...

dempseyfire wrote:the most wealthy in terms of talent? Based on what?

Heavyweights have always been one of the weaker weight classes relatively, for the simple reason that most men in top shape are below 190 lbs.

yes, but that is all of the weight divisions. Pick a specific weight division, and it only includes a small pool of fighters that weigh in that range. for example, the featherweight division only includes fighters up to 126; 122 and below are other weight classes. There usually isn't a lot of good fighters above 122 and not over 126. Even if you go back to pre Jr Featherweight days, you are only including guys over 118 and not over 126. It's a small talent pool.

For several decades, the heavyweight division included many fighters in the 180-220 weight range. That is a much bigger talent pool to begin with. Of course there have been times (like now) when the heavyweight division has been horrible. However, it usually has as much talent in the Top 10-15 than most other weight classes at a given time.

Ambling Alp wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:the most wealthy in terms of talent? Based on what?

Heavyweights have always been one of the weaker weight classes relatively, for the simple reason that most men in top shape are below 190 lbs.

yes, but that is all of the weight divisions. Pick a specific weight division, and it only includes a small pool of fighters that weigh in that range. for example, the featherweight division only includes fighters up to 126; 122 and below are other weight classes. There usually isn't a lot of good fighters above 122 and not over 126. Even if you go back to pre Jr Featherweight days, you are only including guys over 118 and not over 126. It's a small talent pool.

For several decades, the heavyweight division included many fighters in the 180-220 weight range. That is a much bigger talent pool to begin with. Of course there have been times (like now) when the heavyweight division has been horrible. However, it usually has as much talent in the Top 10-15 than most other weight classes at a given time.

This sounds good in theory, but it doesnt hold up through history.

We could say there isnt much room between 126 and 130, or 135 and 140, or 147 and 154 --- yet Feather, Light, and Welterweight leave the Heavies in the dust in terms of overall talent.

They arent the only divisions historically deeper than Heavy, either.

The pool for heavyweights is bigger to start with. You have a huge weight range of fighters as opposed to other weight classes that only include fighters from a very small weight range.
I don't agree with the notion that other weight classes are far superior at all. For example, how often at one given time in boxing history, has there been a lot of depth at featherweight? What were the glory years at 154? Or 130? How do they stack up against the top heavyweights of the 1970s?

I think what happens is that when people make all time rankings in a particular division, they often count fighters who only spent a fraction of there career in that division. For example, Fighting Harada gets ranked as flyweight and as a bantamweight. However, he didn't spend all of his career at both weight classes. Part of the time he was a flyweight, part of it a bantam. (Part of it at feather for that matter.) Some people think he was the best bantamweight of all-time. However, he only was a top bantamweight for about 3 years.

However, with most heavyweights, they can only spend their entire career at heavyweight. So naturally sometimes the #17 fighter all-time from a particular weight class may be better than the #17 heavyweight, but that is not always a fair comparison.

Heavyweights certainly get way more than their share of attention; however that doesn't mean that they didn't have the depth as other weight classes.

Fighting weight and walk-around weight are two different things --- they always have been, and are even moreso since day-before weigh-ins.

Obviously, your point still makes theoretical sense, but that part of your two posts read (to me, at least) like boxers literally have to walk around within their division. The margin for error is obviously greater than that.

You would surely agree Feather is historically deeper than Heavy, wouldnt you? Compile a top-20 for each division and tell me HW is better --- you cant. Look at LW --- being a top-20 all-timer in this marvelous division is comparable to being top 8-10 at Heavy.

You wouldnt say 147 was deeper than Heavy? 160? Really? Dont you think fighters should be rated by their best years? Does someone like Juan Manuel Marquez not qualify any one place between 126-135 to you?

You have a sound theoretical point, but the reality doesnt reflect it. That happens sometimes with theories.

...but, if you take into account the point about fighting in more than one division, you could divide your best FW list by two or even three. If you only rank a fighter in their best division I think it would be tighter. FW & WW > HW for me. Not too sure about the others.

LW is the deepest of them all, IMO.

No surprise seeing LW up there too. It depends on the sample of comparison (top 3, 5, 10, 25, 50, overall depth etc) - could make a different case for each with the odd tweak here and there. It's something to look at a bit more closely from my perspective. Too much work for now though.

Feather, Light, Welter, Middle & Light Heavy are all better than Heavy. Someone like lennox lewis, who is in a ton of top 10's, wouldn't be in any in those divisions.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Feather, Light, Welter, Middle & Light Heavy are all better than Heavy. Someone like lennox lewis, who is in a ton of top 10's, wouldn't be in any in those divisions.

Thats a good point of comparison.

Lewis is in mine at #8, but its true a fighter like he is not top-10 material in several divisions. Hell, he's starting to become quite a bit over-rated in his own weightclass the last two or three years.

It also slights the discussion to put guys in one division, of course if you do that the heavies would lose some of their top 20 anyway. I understand a fighter like Leonard not being considered at Middleweight, but someone like Armstrong, Ross, Canzoneri, Langford, Greb, etc. certainly did enough to count in more than one division.

Good point. A heavyweight list, with no Charles, Tunney, Langford and without the option of Moore etc, would lose quite a bit of bulk also.

Though I do think it is difficult to "template" across weight divisions, I certainly don't think HW is the pound for pound top of the mountain. There is however, good reason to support LW as being the deepest division of all time I suppose. ( For example, GI picks that weight class because that is where Duran lurks)...............ok that's just my sense of humor....

But I personally harbor the opinion that WW is the most efficient weight class.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Fighting weight and walk-around weight are two different things --- they always have been, and are even moreso since day-before weigh-ins.

Obviously, your point still makes theoretical sense, but that part of your two posts read (to me, at least) like boxers literally have to walk around within their division. The margin for error is obviously greater than that.

You would surely agree Feather is historically deeper than Heavy, wouldnt you? Compile a top-20 for each division and tell me HW is better --- you cant. Look at LW --- being a top-20 all-timer in this marvelous division is comparable to being top 8-10 at Heavy.

You wouldnt say 147 was deeper than Heavy? 160? Really? Dont you think fighters should be rated by their best years? Does someone like Juan Manuel Marquez not qualify any one place between 126-135 to you?

You have a sound theoretical point, but the reality doesnt reflect it. That happens sometimes with theories.

It's not a theory, it is a fact that there is a greater amount of of heavyweights than any other weight class.
I made a top 50 list a few years ago; here are the top 20 from it:

Featherweight Heavyweight
1. Pep 1. Ali
2. Saddler 2. Louis
3. Sanchez 3. Foreman
4. Saldivar 4. Johnson
5. Kilbane 5. Frazier
6. Attell 6. Holmes
7. McGovern 7. Holyfield
8. Dixon 8. Lewis
9. Pedroza 9. Marciano
10. Ramos 10. Dempsey
11. Jofre 11. Liston
12. Armstrong 12. Tyson
13. Arizmendi 13. Jeffries
14. Canzoneri 14. Langford
15. Arguello 15. Wills
16. Battalino 16. Jeannette
17. Miller 17. McVey
18. Barrera 18. Tunney
19. Morales 19. Bowe
20. Marcel 20. Charles

Of course no two people are going to have the exact same rankings, but these are basically the top 20 of each weight class. Of course there a few guys in each weight class that are not included that could be.

These are is comparable lists; in fact I would favor the heavyweights. Remember you can't count anything that any of these guys did at any other weight class. For example Henry Armstrong's time at lightweight and welterweight don't count. Do a top 50 list and you see that the talent level drops farther with featherweights than heavyweights. Do a top 100 and it really favors the heavyweights.

No I certainly don't think that historically the featherweight division is deeper than heavyweight.

I have respionded to your request for a list. Again, give a period of time where the featherweight division had a lot of depth? The 1940s, 1950s whenever. How does it compare to the heavyweights of the 1970s?