The Best Boxers are Heavyweights

Avatar image for thehig1
#1 Edited by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

I love boxing, the weight class I watch the most are the heavyweights, they are the biggest and best fighters in all of boxing.

There are many people who would disagree, as the other weight classes like Welterweight and Super Welterweight are thought to have more skilled fighters. Let me explain why I think heavyweights are better boxers

The Top Heavyweight boxer would beat any other boxer from any other weight class, obviously because they are bigger and more powerful but they still win. If an open weight boxing tournament existed, so any boxer of any weight could enter then its pretty certain a heavyweight would win,

So basically what I'm saying is whoever wins a fight between fighter A and fighter B is the better fighter. Regardless of weight, reach, speed, power, chin etc.

If I said Wladimir Klitschko is a better boxer than Floyd Mayweather Jnr, the reason I think that is because Wladimir would win, then that reasoning makes sense ?

Only way Mayweather could prove he's better boxer than Klitschko is beat him in a boxing match, that wouldn't happen.

Lets face it, Wlad would knock out Mayweather, Pacquiao, Froch, Ward, Kahn, all in one night

The same would apply in MMA too,

Avatar image for KillzoneSnake
#2 Posted by KillzoneSnake (2391 posts) -

Yeh. This why i don't see what was all the hype about when Floyb and Pacquiao fought. Boring.

Avatar image for thehig1
#3 Posted by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

@KillzoneSnake: yep, I see the lower weight divisions as not important as a result, I do enjoy some fights from that division but the main event for me should always be heavyweights.

Avatar image for catalli
#4 Posted by Catalli (3451 posts) -

Well... yeah... And to a degree the argument could be taken to other sports: Men's football is better than Women's and the top male athletes will perform better than the top female athletes; a highschool basketball team will perform better than a middleschool team, and beat them. In each case, including your own, the body is the limiting factor, regardless of skill. It's for this reason there are other weightclasses and people find them interesting: skill.

I'm never going to argue against what you said. The Klitschko brothers, Lewis, Tyson, hell even lesser boxers like Haye would all knock out a Middleweight, that doesn't mean the Middleweight division in and of itself isn't interesting.

As for Mayweather vs Klitschko: of course in a 12 round fight going for the KO, Floyd would lose. But what about if we used a light-contact or semi-contact point system? Then you can't so quickly dismiss Mayweather (though in this particular case, due to reach, I doubt the outcome would be different)

Avatar image for thehig1
#5 Edited by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

@ianhh6: your right about other sports, thsame would happen in tennis.

A player ranked outside top 100 in men's tennis would beat who ever is women's world number one with ease.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
#6 Edited by deactivated-59d151f079814 (47239 posts) -

Define best boxer? Because Mayweather is not just fast he is extremely technical in showing a large range of knowledge and skill in boxing.. People don't give a **** in finding the biggest asshole out there and watch him beat the shit out of another person.. They want to see a close competitive battle in which equally matched opponents slug it out.. To me it feels like you don't even understand the point of the sport? Or sports in general with weight brackets?

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
#7 Posted by deactivated-57ad0e5285d73 (21398 posts) -

@thehig1 said:

Lets face it, Wlad would knock out Mayweather, Pacquiao, Froch, Ward, Kahn, all in one night

The same would apply in MMA too,

elaborate.

Avatar image for thehig1
#8 Posted by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

@Heirren said:
@thehig1 said:

Lets face it, Wlad would knock out Mayweather, Pacquiao, Froch, Ward, Kahn, all in one night

The same would apply in MMA too,

elaborate.

A top heavyweight would be a mismatch vs a top lower weight contender, there for hes a better fighter.

@sSubZerOo said:

Define best boxer? Because Mayweather is not just fast he is extremely technical in showing a large range of knowledge and skill in boxing.. People don't give a **** in finding the biggest asshole out there and watch him beat the shit out of another person.. They want to see a close competitive battle in which equally matched opponents slug it out.. To me it feels like you don't even understand the point of the sport? Or sports in general with weight brackets?

The best boxer is the one who would win if Mayweather cant beat Klitschko hes not better than him.

I get it wouldn't be entertaining to see weight mismatches,it would actually be very dangerous, what I'm saying is....why do fighters have to have the similar weight, height, and reach in order to say one is better than the other?

Avatar image for deactivated-57ad0e5285d73
#9 Posted by deactivated-57ad0e5285d73 (21398 posts) -

@thehig1:

I may agree in boxing terms, but using the term "fighter" I think I'd question. I'm not one to use the MMA as the be all end all for "best fighter" either.

Avatar image for babyjoker1221
#10 Posted by babyjoker1221 (939 posts) -

Heavyweights aren't inherently better boxers or more skilled just because their heavyweights. In fact, most heavyweights lack in skill compared to middleweight because they rely on power instead.

If you could shrink Wladimir down to 170lbs, Mayweather would destroy him while still giving up 10-15 lbs. Size alone doesn't make someone a better fighter. David Haye destroyed Valuev who was a giant. Roy Jones Jr utterly embarrassed Ruiz who was also much bigger.

Avatar image for thehig1
#11 Posted by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

@babyjoker1221: power is just one of many tools a boxer or anyone in a combat sport as.

If fighter a can't beat fighter b regardless of the reason fighter b is better.

Shrinking klitschko by 70 pounds is absurd, it would be a different boxer.

About valuev and hate, you do get the odd exception, but in general heavyweights would win.

If boxing was open weight the champion would be a heavyweight.

Avatar image for babyjoker1221
#12 Posted by babyjoker1221 (939 posts) -

You could've simplified everything you've said from the OP, to that last reply by simply saying...... Size matters.

Size does indeed matter. Moving along...

Avatar image for Legend002
#13 Posted by Legend002 (13403 posts) -

Heavyweights are the baddest dudes on the planet.

Avatar image for thehig1
#14 Edited by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

@Legend002 said:

Heavyweights are the baddest dudes on the planet.

sure are :D

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
#15 Posted by deactivated-59d151f079814 (47239 posts) -

@thehig1 said:

@babyjoker1221: power is just one of many tools a boxer or anyone in a combat sport as.

If fighter a can't beat fighter b regardless of the reason fighter b is better.

Shrinking klitschko by 70 pounds is absurd, it would be a different boxer.

About valuev and hate, you do get the odd exception, but in general heavyweights would win.

If boxing was open weight the champion would be a heavyweight.

And your comparison makes little sense.. If your going to throw out a key rule to the sport, lets throw them all out then.. Then Klitschko will get dominated by basically any competent fighter who can wrestle and grapple close to his weight..

Avatar image for thehig1
#16 Edited by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:
@thehig1 said:

@babyjoker1221: power is just one of many tools a boxer or anyone in a combat sport as.

If fighter a can't beat fighter b regardless of the reason fighter b is better.

Shrinking klitschko by 70 pounds is absurd, it would be a different boxer.

About valuev and hate, you do get the odd exception, but in general heavyweights would win.

If boxing was open weight the champion would be a heavyweight.

And your comparison makes little sense.. If your going to throw out a key rule to the sport, lets throw them all out then.. Then Klitschko will get dominated by basically any competent fighter who can wrestle and grapple close to his weight..

Lets not throw them all out, because by doing that its not boxing its MMA, you can then use the same comparison for Heavyweights in MMA anyway.

My comparison makes sense, I'm talking about Boxing, even at open weight it would still be boxing. If you find a fighter close to Klitschko's weight and put them in a boxing match he'd loose.

Avatar image for catalli
#17 Posted by Catalli (3451 posts) -

@thehig1: What do you say about what I said of a light-contact, no KO boxing match between a heavyweight and welterweight? Maybe Floyd would be better at covering himself, dodging and precision punching than Klitschko.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
#18 Posted by deactivated-59d151f079814 (47239 posts) -

@thehig1 said:
@sSubZerOo said:
@thehig1 said:

@babyjoker1221: power is just one of many tools a boxer or anyone in a combat sport as.

If fighter a can't beat fighter b regardless of the reason fighter b is better.

Shrinking klitschko by 70 pounds is absurd, it would be a different boxer.

About valuev and hate, you do get the odd exception, but in general heavyweights would win.

If boxing was open weight the champion would be a heavyweight.

And your comparison makes little sense.. If your going to throw out a key rule to the sport, lets throw them all out then.. Then Klitschko will get dominated by basically any competent fighter who can wrestle and grapple close to his weight..

Lets not throw them all out, because by doing that its not boxing its MMA, you can then use the same comparison for Heavyweights in MMA anyway.

My comparison makes sense, I'm talking about Boxing, even at open weight it would still be boxing. If you find a fighter close to Klitschko's weight and put them in a boxing match he'd loose.

No it doesn't, your basically saying lets throw out a critical rule in boxing.. So why not throw out numerous others? Why have gloves, lets see Klitchsko go against a bareknuckle fighter.. Why aren't we talking about fighter in general? Klitchko is a mediocre fighter because he is developed and trained in a the strict rules of boxing, we might as well say all boxers are mediocre fighters.

Avatar image for thehig1
#19 Posted by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

@ianhh6: we could also who's better at backgammon

Avatar image for thehig1
#20 Posted by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

@sSubZerOo: let's not, an open weight tournament, while not entertaining would still be boxing if such a thing existed a heavyweight would win.

So by logic a heavyweight is a better boxer than a welterweight because the welterweight would never win.

I regret using fighter ...I should have stuck to the word boxer.

Avatar image for catalli
#21 Posted by Catalli (3451 posts) -

@thehig1: sure, we could, and then somebody else would beat both their asses. The rules of a sport make it so that a certain type of people are better suited to the sport. In the case of professional boxing, strength, size, speed and the such triumph. Change the rules ever so slightly and then you might have a different victor. Nonetheless, it doesn't make the other weight classes redundant.

Avatar image for transk53
#22 Posted by Transk53 (564 posts) -

Mmm, I'll pick an obvious middleweight in Gennady Golovkin and the art of shifting. Watch and see how he gets the power into his punches. To say that heavyweights in MMA are the best is quite frankly ridiculous. They are martial artists. Yes ok, a BJJ practitioner who is heavy and large may have a perceived advantage with size, but there are so many more setups available than just doing what Vlad can only do in a boxing ring.

Avatar image for jamzmaxwell
#23 Posted by jamzmaxwell (17 posts) -

Obviously, the title fights are much more intresting to watch

Avatar image for supermeatman
#24 Posted by supermeatman (66 posts) -

Boxing was the most exciting when Mike Tyson was in his prime, so I'd agree.

Avatar image for nw_boxing_fans
#26 Posted by NW_Boxing_Fans (9 posts) -

@thehig1: your argument is stupidly flawed. If i drive a formula 1 car and lewis hamilton drives a 1 litre family car round a track chances are ill win. Does that make me a better driver?

The greatest boxers of all time are from the lower weights.... Are you telling me Wladamir is a better "boxer" than this guy?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KPU5qFJAJGg

Avatar image for thehig1
#27 Posted by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

@nw_boxing_fans said:

@thehig1: your argument is stupidly flawed. If i drive a formula 1 car and lewis hamilton drives a 1 litre family car round a track chances are ill win. Does that make me a better driver?

The greatest boxers of all time are from the lower weights.... Are you telling me Wladamir is a better "boxer" than this guy?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KPU5qFJAJGg

if they got in the same ring to have a boxing match, then Wladimir would win. The F1 comparison doesnt make sense, Hamilton can use an F1 car to race you by choice in that situation, however a welterweight couldn't go up to heavyweight, there for there are many boxers welterweights could never beat.

I get why there are weight divisions, if someone like Joshua had a fight vs a welterweight, joshua might accidentally kill him with a jab.

Avatar image for nw_boxing_fans
#28 Posted by NW_Boxing_Fans (9 posts) -

@ianhh6: Klitchko is 6ft 8, olympic gold medalist, with a 81 inch reach. Floyd is 5ft 8 with a 72" reach advantage.

Wladamir weighs roughly 245lbs, Floyd 147lbs - so 100lb weight advantage

Whether its light sparring or a fight Wlad will win. How does floyd get inside a ten inch reach advantage, without getting hit, land a punch and get back out? He doesnt.

However. That doesnt make Wladamir a better boxer.

Is someone going to tell me Frank Bruno is better than Roberto Duran? Or Tyson Fury better than Sugar Ray Leonard?

Avatar image for nw_boxing_fans
#29 Posted by NW_Boxing_Fans (9 posts) -

@thehig1: clearly you dont understand, and have no experience, of watching the sport. To say, for example, Frank Bruno is a better boxer than Sugar Ray Robinson is at best ridiculous. Its a sport, a science. At the ultimate top level the bigger man will beat the smaller man, but this is (invariably)down to size and strength as appose to skill. To say the top 10 boxers on the planet are heavyweights because they'd beat those at lower weights shows complete ignorance to the technique involved.

I assume youve never boxed.

Avatar image for nw_boxing_fans
#30 Edited by NW_Boxing_Fans (9 posts) -

@thehig1: how come skill won over size in UFC1?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zuzImQo7cdg

Avatar image for catalli
#31 Posted by Catalli (3451 posts) -

@nw_boxing_fans said:

@ianhh6:

Whether its light sparring or a fight Wlad will win. How does floyd get inside a ten inch reach advantage, without getting hit, land a punch and get back out? He doesnt.

I've slipped in and out to get one or two bodyshots in before getting hit back by way taller dudes. Sure they were hella ineffective and the amount of energy I spent on footwork alone was crazy, but I guess Mayweather could have a chance, especially with his good defense and speed.

Then again what's the point of arguing hypothetics...

Avatar image for thehig1
#32 Posted by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

@nw_boxing_fans: mayweather would never beat klitschko, so klitschko is the better boxer.

How could that be proved, they have a boxing match and klitschko wins.

Avatar image for catalli
#33 Posted by Catalli (3451 posts) -

@thehig1: Skill isn't related to size though. Where we differ seems to be in what we both mean when we say "better boxer". For me a better boxer is one with more skill, technique, ability and the such, regardless of the physical advantage to knock someone out with ease or not.

It seems that what you mean by "better boxer" is simply who would win if it came to a fight, regardless of skill. We're literally arguing the opposite :P

Avatar image for thehig1
#34 Posted by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

@ianhh6: I see your point, I just see the skill as irelavent if a welterweight or even a middleweight gets in the ring with a heavyweight, regardless of skill the smaller man wouldnt win a boxing match.

There for if boxer A can't beat boxer B has not as good a boxer, the pound for pound shit does annoy me

Avatar image for frank_castle
#35 Edited by Frank_Castle (1982 posts) -

Historically...yes.

Over the last 15 years?

LOL...no.

Who even really cares? Manny vs Floyd was boxings last dying breath.

MMA really already overtook boxing damn near a decade ago.

Avatar image for cainetao11
#37 Edited by cainetao11 (34814 posts) -

@thehig1 said:

I love boxing, the weight class I watch the most are the heavyweights, they are the biggest and best fighters in all of boxing.

There are many people who would disagree, as the other weight classes like Welterweight and Super Welterweight are thought to have more skilled fighters. Let me explain why I think heavyweights are better boxers

The Top Heavyweight boxer would beat any other boxer from any other weight class, obviously because they are bigger and more powerful but they still win. If an open weight boxing tournament existed, so any boxer of any weight could enter then its pretty certain a heavyweight would win,

So basically what I'm saying is whoever wins a fight between fighter A and fighter B is the better fighter. Regardless of weight, reach, speed, power, chin etc.

If I said Wladimir Klitschko is a better boxer than Floyd Mayweather Jnr, the reason I think that is because Wladimir would win, then that reasoning makes sense ?

Only way Mayweather could prove he's better boxer than Klitschko is beat him in a boxing match, that wouldn't happen.

Lets face it, Wlad would knock out Mayweather, Pacquiao, Froch, Ward, Kahn, all in one night

The same would apply in MMA too,

This is why the term "pound for pound" was created. Because we try to compare boxing/fight skill regardless of weight. It's why Sugar Ray Robinson is STILL the overwhelming choice as pound for pound best fighter in history.

Stanley Ketchel was middleweight champion when he fought Jack Johnson the heavy weight champion. Ketchel floored the big man but then the heavy weight knocked the middle weight out.

The only loss on heavy weight champion Gene Tunney's record was from a middle weight named Harry Greb, an all time great himself. Greb had over 300 fights that were known of. See these guys today are nothing compared to the days when a fighter literally fought twice a month.

I am 43, saw my first fight in the late 1970's, it was Howard Davis fighting someone at the Garden. Davis was voted the best boxer and won lightweight gold at the 1976 Olympics, the same one Ray Leonard won gold at.

I love boxing, but I disagree and there is plain evidence to prove you are wrong about Heavyweights factually being better. Roy Jones won the Heavy weight championship from John Ruiz. He was outweighed by 47 pounds and made an absolute fool of Ruiz on the way to a unanimous decision and the WBA heavy weight title.

Avatar image for thehig1
#38 Posted by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

@cainetao11:

@cainetao11: roy Jones gave away 33lbs, and 3 inches of height.

John Ruiz wasn't a big heavyweight himself only weighing 226lbs

You get bigger weight margians in heavyweights, like glazkov and wilder have often been 30+lbs lighter than some of there opponents.

roy Jones never won at heavyweight again after that fight.

However I get what your saying, there will always be the odd anomalie were sheer boxing ability can overcome a physical disadvantage.

in general a heavyweight would win vs smaller guys more often than not, and the lower weight classes You go down the more certain it will be.

Avatar image for cainetao11
#39 Posted by cainetao11 (34814 posts) -

@thehig1 said:

@cainetao11:

@cainetao11: roy Jones gave away 33lbs, and 3 inches of height.

John Ruiz wasn't a big heavyweight himself only weighing 226lbs

You get bigger weight margians in heavyweights, like glazkov and wilder have often been 30+lbs lighter than some of there opponents.

roy Jones never won at heavyweight again after that fight.

However I get what your saying, there will always be the odd anomalie were sheer boxing ability can overcome a physical disadvantage.

in general a heavyweight would win vs smaller guys more often than not, and the lower weight classes You go down the more certain it will be.

I apologize, the first search I did was stating a larger difference in weight.

If 226 wasn't a big heavyweight than what about Marciano (189); Joe Louis (205); Holyfield (207-218 generally); Tyson (215-224)? I'd put my money, in their primes against any of these Klitchko type giants any day. Hell Joe Lous knocked out Primo Carnera who was 265-270 in 7 rounds. He was outweighed by 55-60 pounds. It didn't matter. Louis was one of the top three greatest combination punchers in history. Plus, punching power is a god given gift just like a baseball player's homerun power. You can teach fundamentals all day long and must. But if God didn't give someone KO power it just isn't there.

Did Roy Jones Fight again at heavy weight after that fight? I remember him finishing up with Tarver and Hopkins bashing him around at Lt Heavy.

The heavyweight division to me is a snore fest. Its absolutely devoid of excitement imo. But that can change with a good fighter with respectable power any time.

Avatar image for thehig1
#40 Posted by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

@cainetao11: rocky marciano was one of a kind.

roy Jones fought and lost you glenn Johnson in his other heavyweight fight.

heavyweights fights can have huge differences in weight, it's why I respect the division because they will just fight.

were you have featherweight up to super middleweight, in between all those weight classes you'll get fighters refusing to fight at a certain weight.

there might be other smaller extemrly skilled fighters who could have beaten klitscko, but chances are it's another heavyweight like those you listed.

all hyperthoetical anyway.

I do think the term pound for pound is meaningless, if can't be truley measured other than just making the guys fight , which as a I said the current number 1 pound for pound fighter would get seriously hurt against a heavyweight

Avatar image for cainetao11
#41 Edited by cainetao11 (34814 posts) -

@thehig1: I disagree on the term pound for pound. Its purpose is if Tyson's skills were in a middle weight along with his style, could he have defeated Hagler? I don't believe so. Same goes if you just compared styles and skills but made both Heavyweights. It is all hypothetical as you say.

I get it, really I do. Big and powerful is your thing. Its not mine. I find lower divisions since Lenox Lewis retired so much more exciting. The heavyweight division has been boring and that's why the biggest fights have been coming from the welter to light heavy divisions hype and coverage wise. I'd much rather watch GGG against the other champs at middle than another Klitchko sleeping fest.

Avatar image for thehig1
#42 Posted by thehig1 (6701 posts) -

@cainetao11: sorry to bump this but only just seen this reply then notification system was probabily screwed up at the time.

Anyway, you'd rather watch GGG, he cherry picks smaller fighters who has a size advantage over, although a lot of middleweights duck him, come on canelo fight him already.

Also, the heavyweight division has been the most exciting division for a while now, there had already been done great fights this year.

Parker vs takam was excellent

Duhupauas vs Helenuis was excellent

Browne vs chageav is probabily fight of the year

Even Klitschko has had some exciting fights, the pulev fight was exciting and we seen a devastating knockout.

Heavyweight fights coming up are looking great too

We have

Parker vs Ruiz for the wbo belt

Chisora vs whyte for British title

Pulev vs Peter for ebu title

Briggs vs Browne for what regular title

Povetkin vs sterverne for a mandatory shot at the wbc

Fury vacating his belts has made the division very exciting

Avatar image for dreik
#43 Edited by dreik (13 posts) -

agree, klitchko brothers are legendary

Avatar image for cmpepper23
#44 Posted by cmpepper23 (3281 posts) -

Heavyweights are not the best, but they are the most exciting.

Your argument makes a lot of assumptions. A heavyweight would most likely knockout a welterweight due to the size difference. That is not always the case though. There are some lower weight fighters that could beat some heavyweights. Power only works when you can land those punches. A good smaller boxer could just move a lot, tire the heavyweight out and get him in the later rounds. A middleweight with good power like Jermall Charlo has enough size to knockout any size man. Skill and ability would still play a large part in the outcome of the fight.

I know this is referencing the elite levels, but you made a general statement based on size. I have witnessed 150 lb guys sparring guys over 200 lbs and working them over because they were too fast and too skilled. There was a lower weight boxer in the early 1900s who fought and beat heavyweights. I can't think of the name. Jimmy Wilde comes to mind, but it wasn't him. He is just one of the hardest punchers ever.

The Joshua v Klitschko was a great fight, but I would argue the welterweight division is currently the most exciting with some of the best possible matchups especially if you include Terrence Crawford and Mikey Garcia.

Just came to me. The lower weight fighter I was referring to previously was Sam Langford.