Are Super heavyweights really Super?
+8
88Chris05
Steffan
Union Cane
John Bloody Wayne
Hammersmith harrier
mobilemaster8
TRUSSMAN66
catchweight
12 posters
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Boxing
Page 2 of 2
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Are Super heavyweights really Super?
First topic message reminder :
This popped up for discussion on another thread. Size matters, brawn over brain, bigger is better you know the argument. To my knowledge, and dont hold me to this, the current heavyweight scene is as big as its ever been and spearheaded by a double headed monster known as Klitschko. The division has got bigger, this much is true. Is this boxing evolution? The proof of the mantra that bigger is better? That the increase in the average size in males over the decades is being reflected? There is the argument that that the sheer size of these larger heavyweights gives the a distinct advantage over their smaller counterparts and the future of the division lies with big, 250lb 6'6 plus "super heavyweights" for this reason.
My take. No no no NO! The best size for heavyweights are 200lb-220lb. They can take something from everything. They can blend speed, movement, power and agility much better than there bigger counterparts. Once above 220lb you see a steadily diminishing return on size. Loss of mobility and speed are sacrificied for size. History suggests that the greatest heavyweights with some exception have come from this bracket. I dont believe its because there werent supersized boxers around. I see it as evidence that the supersized boxers were not as successful when there was more heavyweight talent in abundance. And this brings me to the crux of the matter. Talent. Or lack of it. The division is dire in terms the actuals skills and talent on display. You may get the odd good rockem, sockem type clash but quality match ups and skills are rarer than hens teeth. Its the lack of talent coming through (possibly lost to other sports in this day and age) thats allowing oversized, and in many cases, overfed but almost always underskilled supersized heavyweight to lumber around the division like Frankenstein. The Klitschkos have stayed on top by pretty much using the basics well. ABC boxing. Jab, right hand, sound fundementals, staying in condition, using their experience. But the opposition has been rubbish.
This popped up for discussion on another thread. Size matters, brawn over brain, bigger is better you know the argument. To my knowledge, and dont hold me to this, the current heavyweight scene is as big as its ever been and spearheaded by a double headed monster known as Klitschko. The division has got bigger, this much is true. Is this boxing evolution? The proof of the mantra that bigger is better? That the increase in the average size in males over the decades is being reflected? There is the argument that that the sheer size of these larger heavyweights gives the a distinct advantage over their smaller counterparts and the future of the division lies with big, 250lb 6'6 plus "super heavyweights" for this reason.
My take. No no no NO! The best size for heavyweights are 200lb-220lb. They can take something from everything. They can blend speed, movement, power and agility much better than there bigger counterparts. Once above 220lb you see a steadily diminishing return on size. Loss of mobility and speed are sacrificied for size. History suggests that the greatest heavyweights with some exception have come from this bracket. I dont believe its because there werent supersized boxers around. I see it as evidence that the supersized boxers were not as successful when there was more heavyweight talent in abundance. And this brings me to the crux of the matter. Talent. Or lack of it. The division is dire in terms the actuals skills and talent on display. You may get the odd good rockem, sockem type clash but quality match ups and skills are rarer than hens teeth. Its the lack of talent coming through (possibly lost to other sports in this day and age) thats allowing oversized, and in many cases, overfed but almost always underskilled supersized heavyweight to lumber around the division like Frankenstein. The Klitschkos have stayed on top by pretty much using the basics well. ABC boxing. Jab, right hand, sound fundementals, staying in condition, using their experience. But the opposition has been rubbish.
catchweight- Posts : 4339
Join date : 2013-09-18
Re: Are Super heavyweights really Super?
Carry on insulting each other on here, I have not banned anyone for a week I could do with the practice.
Rowley- Admin
- Posts : 22053
Join date : 2011-02-17
Age : 51
Location : I'm just a symptom of the modern decay that's gnawing at the heart of this country.
Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Similar topics
» The most Underappreciated Heavyweights of alltime !!
» Top 10 Heavyweights...again
» the 6 heavyweights looking to take the WBC title
» My take on the Light-Heavyweights
» Boring heavyweights?
» Top 10 Heavyweights...again
» the 6 heavyweights looking to take the WBC title
» My take on the Light-Heavyweights
» Boring heavyweights?
The v2 Forum :: Sport :: Boxing
Page 2 of 2
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum