Which Heavyweight, Which Welterweight?

First topic message reminder :

Which heavyweight world champion could Floyyd Mayweather (or other suitable elusive fighter below welterweight) beat, if any?

I know it sounds silly because they'd be KO'd the first time they got hit, but is it really that silly?

Could Valuev actually lay a glove on a younger fleeter footed floyyd or Manny? It's difficult to punch down for starters and he'd look as though he was moving in semi-dry concrete.

Would it be possible for them to run for 12 and pick up points by throwing body shots?

Alternatively, if you're a big lad, do you think you're sufficiently large enough to beat any of the numerous welterweight champions through history? Maybe you tjink uou'd walk through Malignaggi, for instance?

Great bit of info rowly. I didnt know a welterweight had fought a heavyweight before, and won!

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I can't quite work out why you keep changing from pounds to kilos then back again but in the process miscalculating 22lbs to 1st 7lbs when it's 1st 8lbs to be pedantic.

The difference between Fitzsimmons at 167lbs and a Welterweight rehydrating to 160lbs is just 7lbs, for some reason you're trying to look smart with pointless maths.

The maths was a P!$$ take by the way, just a bit of light hearted fun.

I think you're are a mean bully hammer  

the welter would have to avoid being punched for 12 rounds, even the best get hit sometimes and a punch on the gloves from a big heavyweight would knock a welter over.

I thought that too...that a welterweight would only be able to win by running for 12 rounds (because as soon as they got hit theyd be ko'd) but rowley proved me wrong by saying years ago a welterweight actually pummelled a heavyweight, albeit not a champion but a contender. It makes you wonder.

I'd love to set up an experiment where the hardest hitting welterweight champion and the weakest hitting heavyweight champion verse each other on Sonic Blast Man so we could see what the power difference is.

Another experiment could be a comedy glove on a spring with a pressure pad in the padding, we could punch the best chinned welterweight champ and the worst chinned heavyweight in the face and knocked them out and compare the force needed.

I wouldn't call Turner a contender, he was awful.

Never heard of him.

You remind me of some of the officers I meet in the military Hammer.

milkyboy wrote:

AdamT wrote:I'm sure Tommy Hearns could beat Mike Tyson. Don't you guys know, only takes a good jab and someone not afraid to beat Tyson. No such thing as peak Tyson. Most overrated fighter ever.

Got collared in a bar in the 80's by some guy who was convinced that hearns was the major threat out there for tyson. He discussed Tommy's offensive armoury in great detail. I asked him what would happen when mike hit him back. Apparently this was irrelevant because Tyson wouldn't get chance to get his shots off.

Much of my time in the 80's, 90's and 00's was spent in bars heavily under the influence. Many good times came and went, some great nights, some lovely ladies, some ladies who just looked lovely after half a bottle of tequila in a dark bar. I can barely remember any of it, but for some reason I remember some muppet telling me hearns beats Tyson... And that was before we had to worry about prime, peak, pomp Tyson.

Hearns actually did talk about moving up and fighting Tyson....seriously.

It must have been around the time after he'd beaten Andries. Just as well for Hearns that it never happened though.

milkyboy wrote:

AdamT wrote:I'm sure Tommy Hearns could beat Mike Tyson. Don't you guys know, only takes a good jab and someone not afraid to beat Tyson. No such thing as peak Tyson. Most overrated fighter ever.

Much of my time in the 80's, 90's and 00's was spent in bars heavily under the influence.

Suspected as much if I'm honest

Should also mention Barbados Joe Walcott also bounced heavyweight Joe Choynski off the canvas for fun, and Choynski was most assuredly not awful.

He was a heavyweight in the same vein of Fitzsimmons though Rowley, fought there because of the lack of a light heavyweight division, rarely weighed much above the middleweight limit. In todays day and age they would be super middleweights, now granted in the 1890's he was a heavyweight but a rather loose use of the term.

An impressive feat from Walcott nonetheless stopping one of the stand out fighters of the time.

Agreed flip side is though, no day before weigh ins so a welter was an actual welter, rather than a half starved middle.

Any idea what weight he was Rowley, he doesn't look too much smaller than Johnson, not that means anything because I don't know how heavy Johnson was.

https://i.servimg.com/u/f57/18/87/55/18/johnso13.jpg

https://i.servimg.com/u/f57/18/87/55/18/390px-11.jpg

Choynski was around 165lbs whereas Johnson was closer to the 210lb mark, he was a lot thicker set than Joe who appeared quite gaunt and skeletal in comparison.

You make a fair point Rowley, the 1890's were a bit of a free for all, if you weren't a middleweight or lower you were a Heavyweight and was the case that's where the money was. Also a bit wary of the given weights, Fitzsimmons used to fluctuate up to 20lbs in the space of a couple of months which seems a bit of a stretch.

What cannot be denied is that Fitz, Walcott and Choynski were all devastating punchers who belied their size, I shudder to think what knockout ratios they would have had were there more concise weight divisions.

kingraf wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

AdamT wrote:I'm sure Tommy Hearns could beat Mike Tyson. Don't you guys know, only takes a good jab and someone not afraid to beat Tyson. No such thing as peak Tyson. Most overrated fighter ever.

Much of my time in the 80's, 90's and 00's was spent in bars heavily under the influence.

Suspected as much if I'm honest

Being blessed with my intellect was a heavy burdon to carry kingy. I felt obliged to kill a few brain cells off with alcohol to level the playing for others. It worked to a degree, but debating with cocky little upstarts on here has made me realise that the slope is still quite steep for some.

3fingers wrote:Jabby surely a man of your calibre and experience has sparred with heavies which are unable to lay a glove on you.

I don't see why this has to be the calling card of those who lose arguments.

Simple fact is, there isn't a Welterweight Champion in the last 100 years that would beat a Heavyweight Champion. I'm not adding credence to this topic any further as it would appear that mockery is your weapon of choice.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:

3fingers wrote:Jabby surely a man of your calibre and experience has sparred with heavies which are unable to lay a glove on you.

I don't see why this has to be the calling card of those who lose arguments.

Simple fact is, there isn't a Welterweight Champion in the last 100 years that would beat a Heavyweight Champion. I'm not adding credence to this topic any further as it would appear that mockery is your weapon of choice.

huh? I didnt say there was, and I didnt argue one way or the other so theres nothing really to win or lose?

I asked a question and you gave your opinion (which incidentally is the same as mine). I cant really ask for more than that.