Boxing Forums


.



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 22

Thread: Super heavy? Super stupid

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Fighting City of Philadelphia
    Posts
    2,469
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1315
    Cool Clicks

    Default Super heavy? Super stupid

    By Eric Raskin


    RingTv.com



    The heads of three major sanctioning bodies a few weeks ago discussed the possibility of instituting a super heavyweight division to accommodate giants like the Klitschko brothers, meaning the existing heavyweight division would have a weight limit. Of course, the alphabet bodies like the idea of an 18th weight class at least in part because added sanctioning fees would make them richer. However, if they go through with it, it could be harmful to the sport on many levels.
    It wasn’t easy, but somehow the cretins running boxing’s for-profit sanctioning bodies – men and women gifted with the divine ability to turn wine into water, diamonds into coal and Ricky Frazier into a mandatory – have succeeded in turning the word “super,” a term previously free of negative connotations, into one of the most dreaded words in the English language.

    It started nearly a decade ago with the WBA’s introduction of the “super champion” concept, whereby they found a way to give title belts to two fighters in the same division. And it threatens to get worse in the months ahead if the alphabets succeed in creating a “super heavyweight” division.

    The heads of the WBA, WBC and IBF, Gilberto Jesus Mendoza, Jose Sulaiman and Marian Muhammad, respectively (that’s the only way you’ll ever see the seven letters that form the word “respect” share a sentence with those names), met in Cancun earlier this month to see whether they could more effectively rape and pillage our sport. One order of business was initial discussion of introducing a super heavyweight division.

    It doesn’t take a genius to see why this idea would appeal to the alphabets: An 18th weight class equals new opportunities to extract sanctioning fees.

    But if you’re a boxing fan, this idea should hold zero appeal. Those sanctioning fees won’t land in your pocket. And the value of what once was the most prestigious title in all of sports – heavyweight champion of the world – will be rendered almost nonexistent.

    We all know hard times have fallen upon the heavyweight division in recent years. But as bad as things are, splitting the heavyweight division in two will make it even worse. It could become so bad that we someday look wistfully back upon the bygone Klitschko Brothers era as something we wish we could recapture.

    For starters, consider the talent pool. There isn’t enough to properly populate one heavyweight division right now. Look at the RING rankings. Alexander Dimitrenko and Tony Thompson are both still in the Top 10. If you divide the division into “heavyweights” (presumably with a weight limit of 220 or 225 pounds) and “super heavyweights,” you’re making each division twice as diluted as heavyweight currently is.

    Almost everyone agrees that the NBA and NHL have over-expanded and watered down their products, but at least they did so just a couple of teams at a time; they didn’t go around doubling the number of teams in the league. That’s approximately what the creation of a super heavyweight division would do from a depth-of-talent perspective.

    And following right in line, the addition of a super heavyweight division would destroy the cachet of titles in either weight class. Suddenly, “heavyweight” would become a second-rate title, given approximately the respect that “cruiserweight” is given now. And “super heavyweight” would not inherit all of the prestige “heavyweight” once held, because there is no history behind the term.

    Imagine that you’re one of the Klitschkos. If your heavyweight belts are suddenly replaced with super heavyweight belts, then you’re no longer a part of the same all-time-great discussions as Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali. Every debate about where to rank you among the legends of the division becomes complicated and perhaps altogether moot. Is Vitali Klitschko a Top-25 all-time heavyweight? Well, he’s not a heavyweight at all, so can we really have that discussion?

    Similarly, if the 220-pound Alexander Povetkin claims one of the new “heavyweight” titles, can he be properly assessed in the annals of history if he never has to defend his belt against the best big men of his era, namely the Klitschkos?

    There’s an argument out there that it isn’t fair for 220-pounders to fight 250-pounders, that they don’t stand a chance of winning. We heard some of this chatter after Cris Arreola lost to Vitali Klitschko last September (it was a rather comical argument since Arreola was himself a 250-pounder, just not as tall a 250-pounder as Klitschko) and then ironically we heard it again after Arreola was the bigger man pummeling 218-pound Brian Minto in December.

    If Minto feels he’s too small to compete against these guys, well, it’s not like anybody’s forcing him to fight them. He can go ahead and compete exclusively against guys like Povetkin, Eddie Chambers, Ruslan Chagaev or David Haye. But he’ll find that the results are the same. He’ll lose to those fighters because he’s just not as good as them. Minto is an honest heavyweight who tries hard and can beat some of the B-level guys, but he’s not at the world-class level.

    History has shown us that smaller heavyweights who are world-class fighters can beat heavyweights who have three or four inches and 20 or 30 pounds on them. How else would you explain Lennox Lewis getting knocked out by both Oliver McCall and Hasim Rahman? Or Wladimir Klitschko getting KO’d by Lamon Brewster? Or Vitali Klitschko losing to Chris Byrd? Jack Dempsey hammered Jess Willard, and Max Baer brutalized Primo Carnera. More recently, Chambers schooled Dimitrenko. And Haye outpointed Nikolai Valuev despite giving away nine inches and 99 pounds.

    The Klitschkos are obviously much better fighters than Dimitrenko and Valuev, but the reason they keep winning isn’t that 220-pound heavyweights can’t beat them. It’s that at this moment there aren’t any 220-pound heavyweights good enough. We likely wouldn’t be having this discussion about whether the Klitschkos are too big for everyone if Ali or Larry Holmes or a prime Evander Holyfield were around right now.

    Yes, times have changed, athletes have grown and most 195-pounders wouldn’t stand a chance against the Klitschkos. But that problem was already addressed with the creation – and later, the 10-pound limit increase – of the cruiserweight division. (And you’d still have a hard time convincing me that Louis, at about 202 pounds, wouldn’t have a realistic shot at upending one of the Klitschko brothers.)

    Should we penalize Wladimir and Vitali by inventing this new division just because the current 220-pounders aren’t good enough to beat them?

    Lurking within that question is the solution to this potential super heavyweight problem: As the most powerful – and, importantly, the most financially valuable – names in the heavyweight division, the Klitschkos need to stand up to the alphabet boys. Wladimir holds two alphabet belts. Vitali holds one. If they refuse to play ball, if they talk to Sulaiman or Muhammad or Mendoza before this thing becomes official and they tell them, “We’re heavyweights and we’re not paying sanctioning fees on super heavyweight titles,” then there’s a good chance this atrocious idea never gets off the ground.

    Wladimir and Vitali, the boxing world needs you to step up right now. I don’t know exactly where I’d rank you among the all-time heavyweights. But it’s up to you guys to make sure I’m at least engaging in that discussion after your careers are over.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Beyond the wall
    Posts
    17,198
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    4167
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Super heavy? Super stupid

    Ug, as long as the end result is the lords of the land making more money in sanctioning fees you know they will do everything in their power to make it happen.
    For every story told that divides us, I believe there are a thousand untold that unite us.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Levittown PA
    Posts
    1,888
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1130
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Super heavy? Super stupid

    I honestly think boxing should go back to the way it was with only a few weight divisions. Flyweight, Bantamweight, Featherweight, Lightweight, Welterweight, Middleweight, Light heavyweight, bump the cruiserweight up to 210lbs, then heavyweight. I am so sick of these 14 different belt organizations with these ridiculous weight divisions.
    Let's be honest is there any difference between 122 and 126? If you answer yes you should be slapped.


    Now that I vented a little bit. No I don't think there should a super heavyweight division but I do think cruiserweight should be moved up like I had previously stated.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Boonies
    Posts
    4,103
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    709
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Super heavy? Super stupid

    There has never been a weight limit in the HW division. I say a prime Ali or a 21 year old Tyson could beat any of the HWs today and Tyson was only around 220 and Ali around 215. Even a 208 Holyfield (his prime weight) would be able to beat the Klit brothers.

    We have to say thank you to the WBC, WBA, IBF, WBO for expanding the weight classes to 17 and having 4 champs per division. That's the problem right there.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    West,Yorkshire,UK
    Posts
    3,832
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1182
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Super heavy? Super stupid

    If this happens then boxing will never become the huge attraction it once was ever again!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Boonies
    Posts
    4,103
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    709
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Super heavy? Super stupid

    A few weight divisions they can get rid of would be the ones separated by 3 or 4 pounds as someone mentioned already. Weight classes separated by at least 5 pounds or more keep them like the jr. lightweights, jr. welterweights, jr. middleweights, supermiddleweights, etc. They can also get rid of the strawweight and jr. flyweight classes and have the flyweight class as the lowest weight class.

    The author of the article makes a valid point that the expansion of weight classes just like the expansion of teams for certain sports have diluted the talent level.

    Boxing would get rid of many problems if they trimmed it down to something like 11 or 12 weight classes with just 1 champ per divison.

    Hell with boxing the state that is in, I wouldn't be surprised if the alphabet gangs ceated an pound for pound division.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Birmingham, UK
    Posts
    6,156
    Mentioned
    15 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1157
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Super heavy? Super stupid

    The fact that a Cruiserweght just beat the biggest Heavyweight in the world for a world title should suggest there is no need for a Super-Heavyweght division. We can barely put together a Heavyweight division, so what is the point of splitting it in half?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Fighting City of Philadelphia
    Posts
    2,469
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1315
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Super heavy? Super stupid

    And consider the weights of the fighters that most recently beat Wladimir Klitschko:

    Lamon Brewster 226


    Corrie Sanders 225

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,485
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1493
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Super heavy? Super stupid

    I agree we need to bump up the weight of the cruisers & get rid of these timy increase lower weights! less weights & 1 title per division is the way to get boxing back on top!

    regarding the heavyweight division i remember when u could pick up a book & look at every heavyweight champ all thru history (cos there was only 1 belt) now its a fkin mess & super heavy would make it 10 times worse.

    i started a thread asking was it time for a superheavy catergary & i got slated & rightly so!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    7,040
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1495
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Super heavy? Super stupid

    Ridiculous.............
    Hidden Content
    "There's nothing special about him." -Sergiy Dzinziruk

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    The Fighting City of Philadelphia
    Posts
    2,469
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1315
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Super heavy? Super stupid

    I think HBO and showtime need to agree not to acknowledge this crap.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Montreal/Luxembourg
    Posts
    6,399
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    816
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Super heavy? Super stupid

    I would vote that in 10 years they create the seriously super heavyweight belt as well. As all credibility is lost, why not going to the end in that remark?
    Hidden Content
    That's the way it is, not the way it ends

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    437
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    570
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Super heavy? Super stupid

    Quote Originally Posted by Lance Uppercut View Post
    I think HBO and showtime need to agree not to acknowledge this crap.
    But think of the problem it would create. If my understanding is correct they have a contract with the Klitschkos so they would be obligated to broadcast or just cough up the cash. So given the diluted nature of a super heavyweight division, HBO and Showtime should step up and say no as well. The ABC titles must make a nice amount of cash off their associations with the two networks.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    kentucky
    Posts
    4,289
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    924
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Super heavy? Super stupid

    Klits are tall and big but shit I'm not even sure they'd fall in the super heavy category, it would mostly be short fat guys to lazy to get in shape...dum fuckin idea but hey could we expect anything else from the sanctioning bodies...how did they ever come to control the sport...

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,622
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1156
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Super heavy? Super stupid

    How bout boxers concentrate more on offensive defense like slipping the jab and getting inside, head movement of any sought on the way in. This is where the problem is, its not the size of the fighter. The heavies just need to improve their skill set, gone are the days of just walk in and hit hard. I say anyone with good head movement would trouble wlad, he is no where near cofident on the inside and nor should he be...hes 6'6 and if hes fighting on the inside then hes got a fuckin problem coz that shouldnt be his gameplan. Exactly like if your 6'2 and fighting Wlad and your on the outside then you should just quit now, thats not how you beat someone with a height advantage.

    Fuck the idea of a super heavyweight division, its just fuckin stupid.
    Hidden Content

    Please see above for my opinion

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 164
    Last Post: 05-30-2010, 12:51 PM
  2. Super 6 - UK TV
    By GuyIncognito76 in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-10-2009, 09:57 PM
  3. Al Bernstein On Boxing: Super Six Will Be Super
    By Saddo in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-18-2009, 11:01 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-16-2007, 12:12 AM
  5. WILL I BE OKAY IF I FIGHT IN THE SUPER HEAVY DIVISION?
    By LIL_IRON_MIKE in forum Ask the Trainer
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-18-2005, 01:03 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  





Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Videos | Boxing Forum | Boxing Books | Boxing Posters | Learn to Box | Advanced Fighting Methods | Boxing Rankings | Boxing Schedule | Auctions | Fun and Games | Boxing Equipment

Copyright © 2000 - 2019 Saddo Boxing - Boxing