Which Heavyweight, Which Welterweight?

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?

When Amir Khan was 17 I thought I could beat him. I was 78kg and he was 60kg. I look back and realise I was an idiot.

Curry Ko 6 Louis   

Starling W12 Burns

Leonard W12 Sharkey

Backus ko 3 Foreman

All mannys punches would be below the belt against valuev.

I'd give tommy hearns a shout against floyd Patterson. Although it could be a case of who lands first.

This is a 65lb disparity. Thats 4.5 stone in weight at the very least. Thats the difference between a 7 year old child and a fully grown featherweight Boxer at the bare minimum, to put it into perspective.

Idiocy to try to claim any Welterweight would beat a heavyweight. Floyd vs Valuev would be a farce. Haye vs Khan would be a bloodbath, Ali vs Pacquiao would result in a state funeral in the Philippines.

The minimum weight likely to ever challenge someone at a professional level at 200lbs would be a light heavy at 175.

At some stage during a fight regardless of how quick a Welter is they are going to get caught and when they do its lights out.Leonard is the best I've seen and even he doesn't beat a Heavyweight Champion unless the bout takes place on fantasy island.

I kept scoring the winner in the FA CUP Final but the alarm clock kept going off before I'd received my winners medal.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:This is a 65lb disparity. Thats 4.5 stone in weight at the very least.
Thats the difference between a 7 year old child and a fully grown featherweight Boxer at the bare minimum, to put it into perspective..

The difference could be a little as 22lb (1 stone 8lb)

.... and a child fighting a man does not put it into perspective.

It's a disparity of at least 53lbs.

Its not. I'm pretty sure fitzsimmons won the heavyweight title weighing 77kg.

Would Ray Robinson in his welter prime pull off the RJJ feat and beat john Ruiz? Certainly possible I'd say.

Heavyweight is now 200lb+, you can no longer use the innovators from the 1890's because they would now be cruiserweights or light heavyweights.

I asked the question, therefore I make the rules

2 questions...

1) Which welters could beat a heavyweight champion throughout history?

2) If you're a heavyweight, do you reckon you could take any of the welterweights through historyL
or

....and you know as well as me, hypothetically, a flyweight could compete at heavyweight. As recent as RJJ a heavyweight champion was under limit.

Unless they weighed over 200lbs then no they could not, the division does in fact now have a minimum limit.

Jones was over limit, Cruiserweight was 190lbs back then.

valuev wouldn't need to land really, the leaning on Mayweather would probably break his back.
27 stone, 7ft2 man leaning on a 5ft 8, 10 stone man would result in broken bones.

Hammer the question still stands. Could any welterweight in your opinion compete and win against any heavyweight champion in history.

P.s. when you were ghosty you'd argue with Az and say marciano was a heavyweight thus should be rated against heavyweights, even though others would say he'd be a lightheavyweight or cruiser. Why the change of tack? Tobe awkward?

Anyway, since when was a minimum weight limit introduced? In my mind it wasnt. Source please.

3fingers wrote:the question still stands. Could any welterweight in your opinion compete and win against any heavyweight champion in history.

No, its a daft question. Robinson wouldn't even beat Audley Harrison if we're talking Welterweight vs heavyweight. His punches wouldn't hurt. Bare fisted perhaps, but not with gloves on, not in the slightest. He'd be faster yes, but to what end? He'd get caught at some point. I've taken heavyweight punches and it is no laughing matter.

Harrison weighed around 240lb. SRR at Welter around 147. Nearly 100lb difference. See why its silly? This isn't a street fight, its boxing. I'm assuming you've never laced up to say something like that. Think about it. Could you see Froch beating Klitschko? Ward? No. It wouldn't happen and thats at 168.

Its a daft question.

Wait.....I guess if you took the lighter heavyweights like Spinks and Marciano and put them against......erm..........no. Still daft.

I took the premise being as being, middleweights have competed and won the heavyweight crown. You have the remit to select an welter against any heavy, make a competitive fight.

I think there is food for thought there. The great George Carpentier went from French national welterweight titlist to European heavyweight titlist.

It's fantasy stuff, but most threads on here of the hypothetical. Apart from the ones that say FACT, after them, and they seem a dying breed.

Theres been some terrible champions and i did say in my Original Post thatt a welter could be KO'd the first time they were hit cleanly, however it was meant to be a bit fun. It only a becomes silly question when you take a 240lb fighter who is fast, can move and is technically very good. However if you take bob fitzsimmons who was 77kg and Sugar Ray Robinson or Hearns 67kg it not so silly. Its also silly when you take, arguably, the best lightheavyweight in history, and one of the best heavyweights in history and put them in with a welter.



Oh and no ones bothered if you've SPARRED a couple of times. Get over it.

He rehydrates like a modern fighter, then you'd think Tommy Hearns may have a shot at Patterson, or Little Spinks, but I still doubt it

3fingers wrote: Oh and no ones bothered if you've SPARRED a couple of times. Get over it.

Always makes me chuckle, this

3fingers wrote:Theres been some terrible champions and i did say in my Original Post thatt a welter could be KO'd the first time they were hit cleanly, however it was meant to be a bit fun. It only a becomes silly question when you take a 240lb fighter who is fast, can move and is technically very good. However if you take bob fitzsimmons who was 77kg and Sugar Ray Robinson or Hearns 67kg it not so silly. Its also silly when you take, arguably, the best lightheavyweight in history, and one of the best heavyweights in history and put them in with a welter.



Oh and no ones bothered if you've SPARRED a couple of times. Get over it.

Fitzimmons at 77kgs that's over 12 stone not a 10stone 7pounds Welterweight so your argument doesn't hold water, and the reason a Welterweight doesn't challenge for a Heavyweight title is because they're not daft.

I dont have an argument Nico? I have a question? Could a welterweight (from history or present) overcome a significant weight difference (as little as 1st 7lbs, but mostly more) and beat any of the poorer heavyweight champion from the last hundred and something years simply by avoiding being knocked out (punched cleanly) for twelve rounds. I didnt say they could or couldn't, I asked for opinions.

3fingers wrote:I dont have an argument Nico? I have a question? Could a welterweight (from history or present) overcome a significant weight difference (as little as 1st 7lbs, but mostly more) and beat any of the poorer heavyweight champion from the last hundred and something years simply by avoiding being knocked out (punched cleanly) for twelve rounds. I didnt say they could or couldn't, I asked for opinions.

IMO they couldn't.

I wonder what the most weight a fighter could give away and still win a title in a fantasy matchup. Kind of could a featherweight Henry Armstrong beat a poor welter world champion. I dont even know why im bothered, I guess im bored.

Maidana wrecks Wlad.

That goes without saying

I don't see where your figure of 1st 7lb comes from? If you're talking about a career Welter and where they finished, then you can make a case for Hearns or Leonard who finished at Light heavyweight taking on a low 200lb'er - but there haven't been many heavyweight champions at that minimum weight requirement. if you're talking in the ring on the night a Welterweight champion vs a Heavyweight Champion there honestly is no contest at all.

It's based on Fitzsimmons winning the title weighing in little over the middleweight limit, which makes it a rather tenuous link suggesting it's between a Heavyweight and a Welterweight.

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I don't see where your figure of 1st 7lb comes from?.

WW = 67kg
Lightest HW champion in history (Fitzsimmons)= 77kg

77kg - 67kg = 10kg
10lb x 2.2 = 22lb
22lb ÷ 14 = 1.5
1.5 stone = 1st 7lb
(i round the figure down in step 2 so the figure is probably cliser to 1st 8lb)

However.....

Modern fighters weigh-in the day before the fight
Pre 1983 fighters weighed-in the day of the fight

So.....

A WW might weigh 160lb on fight night
Fitzsimmons when he won his heavyweight title was 77kg
160lb ÷ 2.2 = 73kg
77kg - 73kg = 4kg
4kg x 2.2 = 8.8lb (decimal)
16oz x 0.8 = 13oz (ish)

Therefore, hypothetically,  the difference between a modern WW and the lightest recorded Heavyweight champion  could be as little as 8lb 13oz (but probably still too much)

If you thought I couldn't get any sadder after doing that math then you were wrong.

I'm going to spend 60 pence on a gem and have a game of Brave Frontier

(...and Milky thought his Saturday nights were bad!)

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.

Have to agree with the tenuous link - If you take the heaviest ever welterweight on fight night vs the lightest ever heavyweight then theoretically you're doing a Truss and assuming one situation automatically assumes another.

"could ANY welterweight beat ANY heavyweight champion in history"

You asked where the 1st 7lb came from, and I explained.

I then thought about it some more and realised, in the context of the original question, the difference could actually be smaller.

Equally, the weight difference could be  much larger. Valuev was 145kg (?) thats a staggering difference of over 80kg, potentially.

There is no tenous link, and I have not assumed anything. Im certainly not implying such small differences in weight are the norm.

These are facts.

The range in weight between the lightest (77kg) and heaviest heavyweight champion (145kg) is 68kg.

The range in weight between the lightest and heaviest WW champions is more than the 3.5kg range of the category.

Heavyweights ALWAYS outweigh Welterweights.

Being a small heavyweight doesn't mean they're are disadvantaged in anyway. Quite probably, being faster means theyd probably knock the welterweight out quicker.

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

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.

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.

I'll defend you somewhat 3fingers, your premise, whilst a stretch is not without precedent. Charley Burley beat heavyweight contender JD Turner whilst still in and around the welterweight limit. Also should be noted he gave him a right shellacking as well. Accept doing it against a champion is a trickier proposition than doing it against a contender, however as we all know the term champion is pretty devalued nowadays. Reports reckon Turner came in around the 220lb mark so whilst not a huge heavy by modern standards, neither was he midget

3fingers wrote:

JabMachineMK2 wrote:I don't see where your figure of 1st 7lb comes from?.

WW = 67kg
Lightest HW champion in history (Fitzsimmons)= 77kg

77kg - 67kg = 10kg
10lb x 2.2 = 22lb
22lb ÷ 14 = 1.5
1.5 stone = 1st 7lb
(i round the figure down in step 2 so the figure is probably closer to 1st 8lb)

I did say it was closer to 1stone 8lb Hammer.

It's not closer, it is 8lbs, pounds into stones isn't divided by 14.

A long winded load of crap that didn't need to be done on a subject that's a load of crap.

What are you talking about? There ARE 14lbs in a stone?

and I took there to be 2.2lb in a 1kg, hence the maths coming out at 1st 7lb, whereas in reality its closer to 1st 8lb.

go back to school.

What I love about this board... 1 day its fighters who could be film titles, another its a maths lesson. Sometimes we even talk boxing.

You can't divide in the imperial system, that's what decimalisation was for.

22lbs is 1st 8lbs, in no shape or form is it 1st 7lbs.

Can I also add that it was not the practice for heavyweights to weigh in during Fitzsimmons' days. As such all weights mentioned for Bob are guesses at best.

There are 14 pound in a stone as well.

Yes 14 plus 8 = 22 hammer

I didnt realise boxers didnt weigh in back then, and here were are arguing about the difference between 77kg and 67kg saying its either 1st 7lb or 1st 8lb, when the difference might actually be enormous.

Hammer, You can divide in the imperial system if you have a calculator, just because its difficukt doesnt mean it cant be done.

I said 22 divided 14 was 1.5 but that was top of my head.

I just punched (excuse the pun) it into a calculator and its 1.57142857143 stone which will be 1stone 8lb.

I'm not a maths genius so I rounded up and down to make things easy for me. I then came up with the answer 1st 7lb but said it would be closer to 1st 8lb in reality.


zeeeeshh!