Reverting back to original 8 weight classes

First topic message reminder :

It's no secret id be delighted if the Junior/Super divisions were abolished. With 36 hour pre weigh ins I see no necessity. Some questions

Which modern world title holder would benefit most if these were scrapped, for instance would Andre Ward reign supreme as a light heavy ?

Which fighter would suffer the most ? For instance where would Canelo fit in , too big for a welter and a mere contender as a middle ?

Which division would benefit the most, imagine how stacked they'd be ?

Which fighter could you see being most successful in jumping weight and being man ?

8 divisions 1 world champ how would it look ? Amazing, I can dream.

Cheers Rodders

Hammersmith harrier wrote:If the current lot weren't so lazy ballooning up in weight between fights then they wouldn't need to.

Quite right.

You don't need to train for 12 weeks solid. Athletes in many other professions keep themselves fit all year round. Heck even amateur boxers do it.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:So let's consider Floyd is WW champ and Pac LW champ in a 'one belt' system. For Pac to get a crack at Mayweather he'd have to relinquish his title at LW, move up to WW, fight a few ranked WW contenders just to get a shot. If he lost his fight with Mayweather where would he go? Either back to fighting WW contenders or back down to LW to fight contenders. What fighter in their right mind would throw away a 'proper' world title for that sort of risk? Champs would simply never step up in weight unless they can't make weight.

no need to relinquish title to get a shot, if both want it. Sadly both don't want it, so even under a one belt, if they campaigned at different weights, it would be just as unlikely to happen as it is now.

Most professional boxers could fight 3-5 rounds of amateur boxing throughout the year.

Day before weigh in's means its safer to cut, so, a 12 week camp is as much about making weight, and getting the correct sparring, as it is about fitness. Some need the fitness more than others. Its unfair to tar all professionals with ths same brush.

Plus amateurs, in the main, fight all year round so they need to train to keep their weight down aswell as maintain fighting fitness.

3fingers wrote:Plus amateurs, in the main, fight all year round so they need to train to keep their weight down aswell as maintain fighting fitness.

My point it that professional boxers can also do this. Rugby players batter their bodies every week and manage to play the next weekend.

Its something thats well worth considering boxers across generations. Archie Moore for example fought hundreds of fights and still was champion in his old age. Compare that with Old man Hopkins now. How does it stack up?

catchweight wrote:Its something thats well worth considering boxers across generations. Archie Moore for example fought hundreds of fights and still was champion in his old age. Compare that with Old man Hopkins now. How does it stack up?

It also contributes to a decline in skills or at least the number of fighters with better skill, shot placement, footwork etc, if youve got two or three months to recover, you'll do without the necessary graft and focus on physical aspect much more than the skills required to have an attack with a decent defense. This is largely due to the lack of urgency in avoiding injuries that might have you out of action for the next couple of weeks (back then, costing you a couple weeks work), cuts, bruising etc. But by far the worst problem caused in the modern game is the robotic nature of the camps - you train for each fight individually so you focus on the skills you'll need at the moment then you'll move on to the next fight and the next fight and you it becomes a series of plays you unleash when you are told rather than when it is needed.

This is why younger fighters face up to Mayweather,Calzaghe, Ward or Hopkins and get a serious beating because once theyve done what they can do and it hasnt worked - theres little else for them. Whereas Calzaghe against Kessler for example upped the ante twice, Mayweather against anyone, Hopkins vs cloud, vs pavlik, and Ward spanked froch like he was a naughty schoolboy, even with one hand. These fighters proved head and shoulders above the rest because they've retained every tidbit of use from every one of their fights and can drop em in at the drop of a hat. In eras where weekly fights were the norm, this was a necessity.

Before TV coverage boxers had to fight every month or so because they were paid peanuts for each contest. Were they in peak condition - no, but they knew their opponents also weren't. Journeymen fighting 100's of fights in small hall shows still goes on today. Why can't Floyd Mayweather be a bit more like Peter Buckley hey?

Difference today is that there's so much money involved in big single fights that boxers need to come in at 100% peak condition. The likes of Mayweather, Hopkins etc can only do that a maximum of twice a year.

If you want a 'one world title' system with boxers fighting 10's of times per year then you're watching the wrong sport - amateur boxing is the one for you.

If you're happy to see the best fighters fight once or twice a year I'd be inclined to think you know nothing about the sport.

The boxers of yesteryear were almost always in top condition because they didn't balloon up in weight like the current crop.

I'd much prefer watching the best fighters fighting at 100% twice a year than at 50% four times a year.

To suggest every top fighter on the planet is "lazy" because they don't fight 10 times per year is just, well, lazy.

That's not what I said is it but it is fairly true, with the exception of a few boxers don't keep themselves in shape. If they did they wouldn't need 10 week training camps and could fight more often.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:That's not what I said is it but it is fairly true, with the exception of a few boxers don't keep themselves in shape. If they did they wouldn't need 10 week training camps and could fight more often.

How do you know Floyd Mayweather doesn't need a 10 week training camp?

He simply doesn't, if you train all year round then you don't need specific camps , it's just laziness from the majority.

Are seriously saying you think Floyd Mayweather is lazy?

Read what I'm typing, the majority are lazy.

So guys like Mayweather and Hopkins are "lazy" and should aspire to be more like Peter Buckley. OK.

Have I once said that, no I've said the majority, anybody who needs to cut weight is in my opinion lazy.

So HW's aren't lazy and nearly all the others are...OK

The majority of the heavyweights are lazy too, if you're not in good condition all year round then you're not exactly a very committed sportsmen in my opinion.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:So HW's aren't lazy and nearly all the others are...OK

Are you deliberately being stupid? Fighters have 12 week camps mainly to make weight. If they kept themselves fit all year round they could fight more often because weight wouldn't be an issue.

How is it that other sports, both individual and team, don't need 10 week camps?

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:So HW's aren't lazy and nearly all the others are...OK

Are you deliberately being stupid? Fighters have 12 week camps mainly to make weight. If they kept themselves fit all year round they could fight more often because weight wouldn't be an issue.

How is it that other sports, both individual and team, don't need 10 week camps?

Isn't it obvious?...because 'other sports' are no where near as intense as boxing.

So if lazy slobs like Hopkins and Mayweather "kept themselves fit all year round" they'd be able to fight more often?...It's laughable.

Let's use WW as an example, which of the top WW don't "keep themselves fit all year round"?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The majority of the heavyweights are lazy too, if you're not in good condition all year round then you're not exactly a very committed sportsmen in my opinion.

Give me your best examples of these lazy fighters?

Tony Galento..

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The majority of the heavyweights are lazy too, if you're not in good condition all year round then you're not exactly a very committed sportsmen in my opinion.

Give me your best examples of these lazy fighters?

Almost every HW outside of Haye & the K's?

Tyson Fury
Derek Chisora
Oldanier Solis
Mike Perez
Chris Arreola

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:So HW's aren't lazy and nearly all the others are...OK

Are you deliberately being stupid? Fighters have 12 week camps mainly to make weight. If they kept themselves fit all year round they could fight more often because weight wouldn't be an issue.

How is it that other sports, both individual and team, don't need 10 week camps?

Isn't it obvious?...because 'other sports' are no where near as intense as boxing.

So if lazy slobs like Hopkins and Mayweather "kept themselves fit all year round" they'd be able to fight more often?...It's laughable.

Let's use WW as an example, which of the top WW don't "keep themselves fit all year round"?

Yeh, because tennis is a walk in the park I hear. That's why they all look like darts players........oh, wait....

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:So HW's aren't lazy and nearly all the others are...OK

Are you deliberately being stupid? Fighters have 12 week camps mainly to make weight. If they kept themselves fit all year round they could fight more often because weight wouldn't be an issue.

How is it that other sports, both individual and team, don't need 10 week camps?

Isn't it obvious?...because 'other sports' are no where near as intense as boxing.

So if lazy slobs like Hopkins and Mayweather "kept themselves fit all year round" they'd be able to fight more often?...It's laughable.

Let's use WW as an example, which of the top WW don't "keep themselves fit all year round"?

Yeh, because tennis is a walk in the park I hear. That's why they all look like darts players........oh, wait....

compared to boxing......are you serious?

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The majority of the heavyweights are lazy too, if you're not in good condition all year round then you're not exactly a very committed sportsmen in my opinion.

Give me your best examples of these lazy fighters?

Almost every HW outside of Haye & the K's?

Tyson Fury
Derek Chisora
Oldanier Solis
Mike Perez
Chris Arreola

Chisora and Arreola went 12 rounds with VK.

Just because some HW's don't have body-builder physiques doesn't mean they are lazy. Tell me a time when HW's were all ripped.

WW is prob the most popular division today so which WW's are lazy?

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Lumbering_Jack wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:So HW's aren't lazy and nearly all the others are...OK

Are you deliberately being stupid? Fighters have 12 week camps mainly to make weight. If they kept themselves fit all year round they could fight more often because weight wouldn't be an issue.

How is it that other sports, both individual and team, don't need 10 week camps?

Isn't it obvious?...because 'other sports' are no where near as intense as boxing.

So if lazy slobs like Hopkins and Mayweather "kept themselves fit all year round" they'd be able to fight more often?...It's laughable.

Let's use WW as an example, which of the top WW don't "keep themselves fit all year round"?

Yeh, because tennis is a walk in the park I hear. That's why they all look like darts players........oh, wait....

compared to boxing......are you serious?

Are you?? go post your views on the tennis forum and see the response you get.

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

TopHat24/7 wrote:

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The majority of the heavyweights are lazy too, if you're not in good condition all year round then you're not exactly a very committed sportsmen in my opinion.

Give me your best examples of these lazy fighters?

Almost every HW outside of Haye & the K's?

Tyson Fury
Derek Chisora
Oldanier Solis
Mike Perez
Chris Arreola

Chisora and Arreola went 12 rounds with VK.

Just because some HW's don't have body-builder physiques doesn't mean they are lazy. Tell me a time when HW's were all ripped.

WW is prob the most popular division today so which WW's are lazy?

1. And? How much better could they have performed actually in shape??

2. There's ripped and there's fat. Not having a Haye-esque 6-pack is not the same as having love-handles.

As the great philosopher Tex Cobb once said.

"If you screw things up in tennis, it's 15-love. If you screw up in boxing, it's your ass."

I'm sure if I asked the Tennis board they'd tell me to stop comparing chalk-and-cheese sports.

If they're out of shape they don't go twelve rounds with VK. Guys like Fury, Chisora and Arreola are always going to look a bit tubby no matter how hard they train. No different from any other era.

Anyway if almost all boxers are lazy it should be easy to name a few lazy WW's, so come on.

Ortiz, Brook, Thurman, Porter and Broner for starters, would any of them being able to fight at 147lbs with 1 weeks notice, no they wouldn't because they need a 12 week camp to get into shape.

How do you know Hammer.

It's the only explanation for 12 week training camps, they either need them or they don't.

Broner blows up in weight between fights while Thurman and Brook are so big at the weight it will take more than a week to lose that weight.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ortiz, Brook, Thurman, Porter and Broner for starters, would any of them being able to fight at 147lbs with 1 weeks notice, no they wouldn't because they need a 12 week camp to get into shape.

They cut weight because they fight in a weight category lower than their natural weight, how does that make them lazy? The opposite makes more sense.

Take Sergio Martinez as an example. He probably doesn't cut much weight to make MW so you think he's not lazy, yet if he dropped to LMW where he'd have to cut weight, suddenly you think he's lazy?

Guys like Ortiz can't maintain 147lbs all year round, they'd be dead.

They do 12 weeks through choice
.....yes


Not to say they couldn't be ready sooner..Mate.

Being a bit harsh..

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Ortiz, Brook, Thurman, Porter and Broner for starters, would any of them being able to fight at 147lbs with 1 weeks notice, no they wouldn't because they need a 12 week camp to get into shape.

They cut weight because they fight in a weight category lower than their natural weight, how does that make them lazy? The opposite makes more sense.

Take Sergio Martinez as an example. He probably doesn't cut much weight to make MW so you think he's not lazy, yet if he dropped to LMW where he'd have to cut weight, suddenly you think he's lazy?

Guys like Ortiz can't maintain 147lbs all year round, they'd be dead.

I think the fact they only fight twice a year or less is in itself lazy, it's also very unprofessional as far as i'm concerned not to be at your fighting weight all year round. Froch and Mayweather keeps themselves in shape all year round, don't blow up between fights so therefore are anything but lazy.

To be honest, it seems a bit fanciful to me to suggest that, all of a sudden, a subculture of laziness just randomly emerged in boxing in recent times. People forget that massively respected operators, or even sometimes all-time greats from back in the day (such as Archie Moore, who made light of it by saying, "I'm not a glutton - I'm an explorer of food!", Ike Williams and Jake La Motta) regularly ballooned up in weight and left themselves a lot to do in training, and that this issue was often the subject of a lot of media coverage surrounding them.

Moore evidently couldn't make Light-Heavy without a long, long camp when he held the title - he only managed to get down to 175 lb once a year or so, and usually packed a load of non-title fights in between which often saw him going up to and even above 200. But nobody is calling him lazy. A cursory glance at the other two shows a similar trend, even in their peak years, and there will be others from that same era, too.

The difference is that, unlike yesteryear, it's no longer the norm for fighters who hold titles to cram their schedules with a long list of non-title bouts as well, so therefore these long training camps are the only ones open to them, effectively.

I think a majority of elite-level fighters out there today cut a fair amount of weight before hitting the scales. You can't just say it's because boxers in general suddenly started getting lazy a couple of decades back. The weigh ins taking place 36 hours before the fight play more of a part in that, in my opinion. A good boxer will know how to make best use of any possible size / weight advantage he might have over an opponent, so can't blame fighters for often squeezing themselves down to a certain weight in order to do that when they're not breaking any rules.

If weigh ins still took place a few hours before the fight, then instead of labelling the likes of Ortiz, Brook, Thurman etc lazy Welters, we'd likely be viewing them as in-shape Light-Middles / Middles who walked around between fights only a small few lb above their fighting weight. But because the rules regarding weigh ins these days allow them to manipulate their weight somewhat, and because it's not the norm for high-level fighters to pad their record with keep-busy fights, the fact that they cut so much weight in camp gets highlighted more, and automatically means they're viewed as being lazy.

I'm not denying that there are fighters who cut corners or don't dedicate themselves properly between fights, but that's always been the case. But for whatever reason, it's sometimes painted as if it's a new phenomenon. Rather than just lambasting the majority of modern-day fighters as lazy and being out of shape between fights, I think more of a watchful eye needs to be cast on how the rules of weighing in have changed, and how the way boxing is run has altered as well. Like I said, the fighters produced by the sport can't just have suddenly fallen to an epidemic of bone idleness.

Think the big difference is the pay is better these days..oldtimers had to fight regularly to make ends meet..

Same in bodybuilding now..the money has improved so many just do the Mr O...

Are they lazier too...

If you have to do something you do it..

Mayweathers cellmate wrote:As the great philosopher Tex Cobb once said.

"If you screw things up in tennis, it's 15-love. If you screw up in boxing, it's your ass."

And your 'ass' promptly gets 3-6 months to sit on a cushion doing nothing.

Typical pathetic and unreasoned excuses re the heavyweights.  Look how different Chis performed during the VK fight you praise him for and the Fury fight he's rightly derided for - difference between the two? About 20-30lbs in weight! Ergo, laziness.

And if you're talking 'no different to any other era', then how about every other era pre-90s when people were fighting 10+ times a year, sometimes double that??

Chris08 and TRUSSMAN have hit the nail on the head.

To think all boxers have suddenly become lazy is just nonsensical.

Old timers had to fight regularly because no single fight ever brought in that much cash. How could it when the only revenue came from gate receipts. With mainstream TV coverage and PPV nowadays, single fights for the top guys are so lucrative they'll spend 12 weeks training so they can be at their absolute peak.

As for tennis being comparable to boxing - As the great John McEnroe once said "you cannot be serious."

TopHat24/7 wrote:And if you're talking 'no different to any other era', then how about every other era pre-90s when people were fighting 10+ times a year, sometimes double that??

Well as I've said, Toppy, if you look at the likes of Moore, Duran, La Motta, Williams etc, you'll see that they were almost always a good few lb over their championship weights when they took these keep-busy fights. In Duran and Moore's cases, they were sometimes as much as two weight classes up, if we go by modern definitions.

People arguing that boxers by and large are lazier than the ones from bygone eras seem to be suggesting that the greats of yesteryear were always at fighting weight or could make their suggested weight class at the drop of a hat. I'm just trying to point out that this isn't really true. Moore made 175 to defend his title only when he had to, and did so with relatively long training camps. The same thing which apparently means a fighter is lazy for doing today.

Someone like Thurman may only weigh in for a big / title fight at 147 every few months, but I'm pretty sure he could wedge four or five small / non-title fights in between while scaling about 155. Ditto Brook, Broner etc. But with records being more closely scrutinised, tighter TV / promotional contracts and the like, that just ain't the norm anymore.

I just don't see any real evidence to say that boxers in general got swept up in a lazy culture all of a sudden.

Regardless of the weight issue, I still don't think fighting twice a year is the sign of supreme sportsmen. If you're Mayweather then there's the money excuse but for Brook or Thurman they really should be fighting more often, to me it's just laziness. It was good enough for Duran and Chavez to fight more often so why not for lesser fighters.

You made your/the point a whole lot better than MC, Chris.

Though personally I was only ever talking about the slovenly modern HW scene.

Harsh to call fighters lazy, but I used to wonder why Chad Dawson wasn't more active a few years ago when he was champ. He wasn't a major star like Pacquiao or Mayweather, but only fought twice a year. Hardly the sign of a committed athlete.