Comments Thread For: Thank You, Oleksandr Usyk, for Eviscerating the Bridgerweight Concept

[landotter]

The problem with MORE divisions is that it masks the actual problem: The division limits are in need of adjustment. From the lightest (105) there are 3 or 4 pounds separating the first 8 divisions:

105
108
112
115
118
122
126
130

Than 5 pounds for the next two:

135
140

Than 7 pounds the next two:

147
154

Than for some strange reason, 6 pounds:

160

Than 8:

168

Than 7 again:

175

Than freaking 25:

200.

Than unlimited. 201+.

It is crazy. First of all, standardize the first 5 divisions to 5 pounds. Obviously, the smaller the fighter, genetics just makes it harder to add or cut weight, But 5 pounds is a fine set limit. So now we have 105- 130 covered. Next, open it up to 7 pounds for the next three divisions: so 137- 151. Again, genetics. Makes sense.

So that is eight divisions of the 16 listed. We are now up to 151, and into an area where weight is a little easier to deal with in modern times. Now bump the next three to 10 pounds (we can 9 pounds for the first one to even out the limits) So we are up to 170 pounds. That is with 5 divisions left. We can get to HW starting at 220 with zero problems if that is what people want. WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER DIVISION TO WATER DOWN THE TALENT. I apologize for the length of this post, but I wanted to drive the point home. Raskin is basically right, the desire to make sanction fees is a blight on boxing and destroying the sport. There is a world where we recognize that HW is expanding to where 6-6 and 240 is the base, and it dangerous enough sport as it is. Just open up the existing divisions. Adding another division just makes it harder for elite to fight elite, not easier. And this sport NEEDS the elite to fight.

Also, maybe... just maybe... we can put CW before LHW instead of between it and HW? The other combat sports are laughing at boxing not even being able to name divisions in order.

[DeeMoney]

But it has happened throughout the history of boxing.

Generally, bigger is stronger, longer, but slower less coordinated and lesser stamina. Smaller is weaker, shorter but faster, more coordinated and better stamina.

Humans haven't increased height in the last decade or so - so why wasn't the heavyweight champion always 6ft 6in+ and 250 pounds+?

My take is bigger keeps on beating bigger until they just get too big. Then a smaller guy comes along and outboxes them and outworks them.

As for Bridgerweight. The only benefit I can see is that it might give a developing young boxer the chance to add size progressively and optimally. It's kind of weird to think that heavyweight fighters are generally heavyweights from a very young age. Maybe that's why the standard of opposition is typically so poor for such a long time in a heavyweight's career

To your first point about advantages of size:
You are right that all other factors being equal, gaining size has traditionally meant a reduction in speed and coordination. However, as athletic training has constantly improved we have found ways to improve those abilities in attributes, without having to sacrifice size. The best example is seen in NFL linemen. Look at linemen of the late 60s (specifically chosen because this is post Bednarik, the last two-way player, so stamina is not a relative factor) compared to those of today; those linemen on Lombardi's lines would get manhandled today due to their lack of size. Additionally, modern linemen are significantly quicker and more skilled. So they we are able to add size without sacrificing athleticism or skill.
Now, this isn't to argue that in modern times, with trainings being equal, smaller doesn't allow for greater stamina, and greater relative body control. Rather that with improved training we are able to close the gap between those who are slower and less skilled with those at the top. However, the one thing we can't teach or train is size. You can't teach length, you can't teach height, and you can't teach natural body structure (at least not legally).

To your second point, regarding height changing in the last decade:
I don't think your point about average height being stagnant over the last decade makes the point you think its making- why havent champs always been this big. The truth is people have gotten taller over the past century, thanks in part to a better diet. You see a leveling off of this height increase in western nations post WWII, which makes sense because after years of rationing and depression kids were being raised on full plates, and growing bigger.
Now, mix that (a larger talent pool of taller people) with the knowledge that we can train these taller people to have better speed and skill than their predecessors, and it makes sense that you have a series of bigger heavyweight champions who can fight with a relative amount of speed and skill.

Third point, about bigger beating bigger:
I agree. Though it isn't necessary for it to be a smaller guy, just one who can fight like a smaller guy. Most successful heavyweights seem to be all about being big outside fighters. They are brought up that way, and because size is a natural advantage they usually win and move up the rankings. So once you get to the upper echelon of the heavyweight ranks its mostly big guys who fight like big guys, at which point the one who is biggest usually wins. But once you do get a skilled fighter who is relatively smaller they can do damage, if for no other reason, that they are a changeup & those big heavies who have just fought big heavies arent used to defending against it. But as you noted, they would most likely work their way up from Bridgerweight.

[StephenM]

Raskin says "not necessary" an then quotes a dozen examples where lighter HWs prevailed over much heavier guys. That would be fine if it had happened over the last 10-15 years but he shoots his own argument in the foot by quoting examples from 1919 - 105 YEARS AGO FFS

In short much smaller HWs dominating much larger HWs is not a common occurrence. Why fight the logic. We're always told there's weight classes for a reason and weight and reach are meaningful measurements. Now you're saying that doesn't count at HW but is true of all other weight classes? Give your head a wobble Eric Raskin.

I propose something a bit more interesting. Handicapping of fighters. Happens wwith horses - why not fighters? Lets say Fury's 40lb heavier weight is deemed an advantage. Not many wouldd disagree with this judging by how many were advising him to just lean on Usyk and tire him out. So given that he has a perceived advantage then calculate how much of an avantage. Handicap him a point or points in the fight.

Ryyan Garcia came in 3 lbs overweight - ? Handicap him a point etc.

The worst thing about Bridgerweight class is the name. Keep HWs and anything above 250 is Fat Bassstard weight

Interesting. And you almost have a good name here...

[Tag, You're Hit]

Simply put, it ain't broke, so there's no need to fix it.

[-Kev-]

I just don't understand the logic of all the weight classes and then all of a sudden when you hit 201 pounds weight doesn't matter any more. Small heavyweights can beat big heavyweights. Sure. A small welter weight can beat a big junior middleweight: should we do away with welterweight?

It’s pretty much discrediting what Usyk did, to think that just any pro fighter of his size can do that. Not everyone that is Usyk’s size can be undisputed HW champ by beating Joshua and Fury. And the author should get a clue of how hard that is when it hadn’t even been done in 25 years by anyone at all and many undersized HW’s tried to dethrone Wlad and Vitali and couldn’t. The last guy who beat Vitali was a big guy himself and that was Lennox.

[Wacked_Out]

Yeah another thing, a smaller guy can in fact win against a bigger fighter, there are examples. But how many get the snot beat outta them? Lots and lots more than won. Landotter has the best idea.

[techliam]

Bridgerweight should have been 185lbs

There’s definitely a gap between Light Heavy and Cruiser that needs addressing

Heavyweight has no lower or upper limits. But generally over 200+ is well accepted and respected
The current bridgerweight is redundant. The article is correct

The WBC don’t have the influence to make this work as they intended

[famicommander]

Bridgerweight should have been 185lbs

There’s definitely a gap between Light Heavy and Cruiser that needs addressing

Heavyweight has no lower or upper limits. But generally over 200+ is well accepted and respected
The current bridgerweight is redundant. The article is correct

The WBC don’t have the influence to make this work as they intended

Badou Jack won belts at super middleweight, light heavyweight, and cruiserweight. Seems like there's no problem.

[techliam]

Badou Jack won belts at super middleweight, light heavyweight, and cruiserweight. Seems like there's no problem.

An exception rather than the rule. There’s not many Light Heavyweight champions who go onto win Cruiserweight titles (or Heavyweight for that matter)

I’m fine either way. If there needs to be a new division, it needs to be between 175 and 200

[famicommander]

An exception rather than the rule. There’s not many Light Heavyweight champions who go onto win Cruiserweight titles (or Heavyweight for that matter)

I’m fine either way. If there needs to be a new division, it needs to be between 175 and 200

Michael Spinks, Michael Moorer, and Roy Jones Jr skipped cruiserweight altogether and went right from light heavy to winning a heavyweight title.

It's supposed to be hard to become a multi-weight world champion. We don't need to dilute their accomplishments any more by making it easier for future generations to match them.