Talk:Heavyweight

200 or 201

I've had a look through the websites of the IBF, IBO, WBA, WBC and WBO, and all state that a Cruiserweight is not above 200 lb, and a Heavyweight is anything from 200 lb upwards. Some actually do metric conversions, and that a Heavyweight is above 200 lb or 90.719 kg (to 3 decimal places). I cannot find one reference of 201 lb or 91.3 kg. To me, the websites of the organisations are the best sources. Boxrec, as mentioned in a previous source, may not be reliable as it is a wiki, and we should certainly look for a more reliable source than that. We also cannot reference ourselves here, as has been previously attempted. The only 201 lb reference I can find is for the Olympic weight classifications (and which actually refers to super heavyweight). I feel the reference to the super heavyweight definition could be moved earlier in the article, to state that the amateur version is super heavyweight, which is slightly heavier, but in professional boxing, all the major bodies are clear: one ounce over 200 lb is heavyweight. Severo^TC 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful contribution. I'm sorry you had to get pulled into this, but hopefully this will put the matter to rest.MKil 16:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)MKil

The same goes for professional wrestling, most Cruiserweight wrestlers weigh under the 200lb mark, although when thinking of this, Ultimo Dragon comes to mind because during his WCW days he was around 225lbs and still considered a cruiserweight. So yeah, I agree with Severo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Падший ангел (talk • contribs)

Ok, so we will let it go, so it's over 200, but keep in mind 200 lbs is 90.90 and the rules say heavyweight is over 91kg, thus that is 201 lb if you convert from metric system, 91.3 kg, that is where the confusion arises, again, i mentioned over 200 lbs, so the word over is ok and when you say 201 or more, it still has the same meaning. I will however have a boxing expert check on this. I was aware of Mkil's claims and the 200 lbs, of course, the problem is the word over and as explained we are only talking about 1 lb here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.2.144 (talk) 19:49, August 7, 2007

As Severo said, not not one ounce over 200 is heavyweight, because that is not 91 kg yet, 91.3, as explained. Read the links again. The amateur is also over 200, meaning 201.

My edits were in good faith and I followed goos sources like britannica. http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-229625/boxing The 4 boxing organizations say above 200.

Superheavyweight? I wanted to include that, but it's seldom used, no need for that, also 1 lb difference. Silly! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.2.144 (talk) 20:12, August 7, 2007

You don't seem to understand that "super heavyweight" is only used in amateur boxing. The paragraph we were discussing had to do with professional boxing. MKil 20:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)MKil

True, so that's why we do not need it, there are people who wanted to create new division super heavyweight, but why, we already have 3. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.3.186 (talk) 20:37, August 7, 2007

I still don't understand where 201 is coming from. The sources I used above say above 200, which means any weight above 200 that is not including 200 exactly. As weight is a real number rather than a natural number, my weight could be 200.5, say, which puts me in the above 200 category. It is not logical to assume one weight division ends at 200, and the next starts at 201, since this discounts everything between 200 and 201. The sources say above 200 and therefore that is what the article should say. I'll work on the referencing for this. The history of the class may be different - I don't know - if it is this could be added in a proper history section. Oh, an can we remember to sign our posts? It took me a good few minutes trying to work out who said what here! Severo^TC 16:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no, partially right. Again, in europe, anywhere except us and uk, 200+ that is 200.5, never mind real or natural number. It has to equal to 91 kg, and 200.1 lbs is not yet 91 kg. I explained that many times. In the article, i included footnote which clearly says 91 or more. The reason they say 200 or more, is only in countries where they do not use metric system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.67.176 (talk) 19:34, August 8, 2007

What are you talking about? The upper limit for cruiserweight is 90.719 kgs, not 91 kgs. That's very clear from the information given by the organizations that sanction boxing. MKil 19:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)MKil

Please please please sign posts by inserting four tildes (~~~~) after what you write. Please go back to the sources - the weight used is 200 lb in imperial, then approximately converted to metric in parenthesis. Verifiability is a core Wikipedia policy. It requires us to cite anything that is challenged. As this has been challenged, it must be sourced. I have found no source for 201 lb or 200.5 lb now; please provide the source for this. Regards, Severo^TC 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the source is on your page, britannica and a footnote, above as explained, again, keep in mind metric system, as explained. I gave you many links in that regard. I am also requesting, email other experts, do not look at my links or mkil's, make your own decision, talk to the experts, the way i explained it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.67.176 (talk) 21:02, August 8, 2007

Here's one for example: (trust me, there are many, like i said, do what i asked...)

http://www.boxingfury.com/boxing%20fury_004.htm these are heavyweights and these are official ratings from november 2006! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.67.176 (talk) 21:13, August 8, 2007

Please remember to sign your posts. The source you provided in the article does not uphold your assertion, since it quite clearly states, Heavyweight, over 200+ lbs. and then provides a metric approximation. I'm sorry that the reliable sources I found do not match your viewpoint, but it is by the sources that we must go. I really don't understand what the problem is here any more, since all the major boxing organisations say the same thing and, whilst I appreciate you are trying to make good faith edits, they cannot and simply are not being backed up by any sources nor does there seem to be an intention to find them. With this in mind, I ask you to refrain from reverting this page on sight. I would at this point like to thank you for your interest in this article, and urge you to sign up to Wikipedia to help the project in the long-term. Regards, Severo^TC 21:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, 200+ means 201, you need to concentrate on one thing, that is exactly what i mean over 200 as i told you on the first day, means and implies what i said. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.67.176 (talk) 21:25, August 8, 2007

Also: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.67.176 (talk) 21:25, August 8, 2007

I am not welcome here, so no need for an account. And yes, yes, yes, they are backed by many sources, but you simply do not want to ask others to prove my point, you do not want to understand, you do not owant to print my links and read them step by step. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.67.176 (talk) 21:31, August 8, 2007

Also, i have a doc file with me right now with new world boxing ratings and it's well above 200, i can not attach it here, then you have contacts there and you can directly email the professionals who make up the ratings, not some sites who advertise fights. I would also appreciate YOU STOP discriminating me with reverting those names I am not on your talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.67.176 (talk) 21:31, August 8, 2007

Again, these people are in charge of ratings: And I am sure you can get in touch

www.geocities.com/ratingsrating/augratings07.doc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.67.176 (talk) 21:43, August 8, 2007

It covers wbc wba ibf ibo all major boxing organization, their job is to do ratings for all different boxing organizations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.67.176 (talk) 21:44, August 8, 2007

I was certainly nice to you and respected you, so i expcet that back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.67.176 (talk) 21:47, August 8, 2007

National Boxing Association

The current National Boxing Association is a minor organization that has no impact on the sport of boxing. The ratings they produce recognize a "super cruiserweight" class that no other major organization recognizes, the media does not recognize, and the fighters do not recognize. To rely on this minor body's ratings to change a Wiki article would be ridiculous. They certainly do not "do ratings for all different boxing organizations." MKil 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)MKil

Note, mkil will do everything in his power now to discredit, if they are minor or not, that is not the word, you wanted real source, i gave it to you, and now its up to you to do your own investigation and realize that i was right on many points. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.67.176 (talk) 21:47, August 8, 2007

National Boxing Association is a recognized boxing ratings company, they do not have boxers, they do ratings and they are respected and they have many readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.67.176 (talk) 21:47, August 8, 2007

However if you people want to argue over one pound, be my guests, block all the sites! That speaks for itself what kind of people i am dealing with... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.67.176 (talk) 21:52, August 8, 2007

So if mkil wants it to be 200.000000000000000009 whatever! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.67.176 (talk) 21:54, August 8, 2007

The National Boxing Association is not a reliable source, and the source does not assert your point. Indeed, in its classifications, the top division is over 210 lb (and not 201 or 211). Even if a source implies something, you cannot make the inference as the inference you make may be different from the one I make and different to the one someone else makes. We do not read a source and the write down what we think it means, we write down what the source actually says. As far as I can see, you have inferred what the sources say incorrectly, but are determined to push your inference. This is simple: we write down what the reliable sources say. We do not find unreliable sources on pages with no editorial oversight to discredit the perfectly good reliable sources, such as you have done with this National Boxing Association page from a geocities site (which anyone can make up) and this boxingfury site which, the front page tells me, is written by a fan with a gmail email address. These are not reliable sources. As you have failed to provide reliable sources, and have made it clear that you have no intention to do so (but offer me the chance to ask people who you deem will give me your answer), the case for over 200 lb strengthens. Finally, please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~). Regards, Severo^TC 08:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is reliable, you work with mkil, you are all hypocrites from mkil pawn to administrators, at least you could have put 90.72 kg in parenthesis.Duh! Im not signing anything, you just dont follow instructions, arguing over little stupid thing, not important? I have other links to prove my point, they will always be unimportant to people like you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.125.116.198 (talk) 19:36, August 9, 2007

First of all, IT IS NOT GEOCITIES SITE, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM, GO AND CALL THEM, THERE IS AN EMAIL THERE AND ALL THE CONTACT INFO. It is obvious you are on mkil's side, how many times do i have to tell you, if you go to countries which do use metric system, they will NEVER EVER USE 200 LBS 90.72 BUT 91KG OR MORE....

nbaboxing.com/main.html Is this geocities, is it? 

Also, on heavyweight, why was other information reverted on dempsey and other, ali, that has nothing to do with 91 kg, all that information was correct, that proves wikipedia's total ignorance, as http://wikipedia-watch.org proves it. I asked you to follow instructions, you are not doing that, it does not matter if its geocities or wikipedia site, that doc file is authentic for august 2007. news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/low/boxing/4721089.stm If you follow this link from europe and even england bbc where they still do not use metric system, you will recognize i was right again, it says over 200 but also in parenthesis 91kg and we have picture of ali, how credible do you want to get, how much ignorance do you want to present? You could at leats show some respect to my time and efforts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.3.69 (talk) 20:10, August 9, 2007

Wow, i just found out severo is not administrator, pretending to be, how nice and helping

a vandal User:Peer-to-Peer is total vandal Mkil. Great, more mistakes on wiki as usual! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.99.1.94 (talk) 21:55, August 11, 2007

Cruiserweight example

Since 2003, the 'cruiserweight' maximun is 200. Anything (even an ounce) over is 'heavyweight'. GoodDay 15:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We know that, of course here, i never dispute that, it has to be like that in non-metric countries, in europe or anywhere else, read above. And wbo says so.

www.wbo-int.com/revised/RANKINGS-WBO.asp The problem here was with morons like severo and others0 who do not listen, it's not easy to communicate. I should not be an administrator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.2.144 (talk) 15:02, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. The WBO's rules and regulations clearly say that heavyweight is over 200 pounds. Why do you keep bringing this up? The answer couldn't be more clear that "over 200 pounds" is a heavyweight in professional boxing. The only thing you have to bolster your case is the fact that some people use imprecise metric conversions in their rankings. But professional boxing weights were originally made in English units and continue to be, even though most of the world uses the metric system. Therefore, boxing weight classes are set in pounds and then converted to kilograms.MKil 20:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)MKil

add weight

on all the pages for heavyweights etc while many / most have the height given and somethe reach given, about none have the weight given, a key important point to add and so will you all add that to all those pages ...

power-slow or fast

this key fact esp of heavyweights but also of all boxers needs further explanation on these pages... esp by experts, i will add some thoughts of my own first

compare slow versus extreme fast power, and ultimate power

slow, large power-you have seen this, where a larger power is clear to all as it knocks the

opponent up in the air, off his feet and backwards and even out of the ring, i'm guessing this is a form of power that has yes huge power to e.g. knock the opponent out but it is esp much slower power than that next discussed, and so it has features also of not only power but also of a push, and that is what knocks the other person up in the air and backwards...

extreme fast, like shock wave or impulse power- you see this , all see it if you think about it , you see very short punches as in the louis / schmeling fight where the punches are very short about 1 foot , but each is doing very large damage to schmeling .. and the punches are not in any way

knocking schmeling backwards or upwards or off his feet BUT the punches are devastating, as they are huge impulses that wreck the cell, bone, muscle structure... it is said that schmeling in this fight had a back vetebrae broken from one of the body punches ... etc that is transmission of huge power through to break that vertebrae and no where in the fight did schmeling get knocked so much upward or backward etc...

ultimate power limits - esp in karate , which has focus training to achieve max limits of power,

esp in punching only very short distances and esp e.g. in exercises to break boards, etc there is an attempt to obtain max power... i will explain in my way of thinking the ultimate power;

many realize the power coming from combining various speeds of different body partrs to increase power, the same as a baseball pitcher; first you move the knees and hips to begin with e.g. speed of say 30 MPH, then you add the twisting of the torso to add 20-30 more MPH then you add the turning of the upper shoulders to add another 30 MPH (total now 70-90 MPH) and then you add finally the thrusting outward of the arm adding another 20-30 MPH so total is now 100-120 MPH in speed and that is best done in proper sequence so that it it like cracking a whip...

and THEN, to that speed is added your weight ... people saying in boxing you get "set" or PLANT your feet; and in karate you practice STAMPING down to "set" the feet at the "last moment" ... all this is best done the speed that is when the entire body is completely loose to increase speed WITHOUT any slowdown from having any part of the body tense,

THEN at that last very small instant (so as to NOT slow down that speed any at all ... you LOCK DOWN to tie to the speed being delivered your weight and so you would have most believe then your body weight times the speed you achieved , say 200 lbs (with a heavyweight ) x 120 MPH easily enough power to injure, to knock any one out etc etc

but the ULTIMATE limit in such power is much higher as in karate training you stamp down to add to your own BODY weifght even the entire weight of the earth , a fantastical upper limit to power ,that if you achieve even a very tiny part of this idea, you are delivering dangerous higher level power that can crush, injure, and surely kill....and you see that with karate masters, they can do that...

another class , super heavyweight

the larger esp present champions being over 6'5" to 6' 7" and with larger weight say from 240-280 lbs and not the usual past size of 6' and 200-220 lbs it seems fair to point out that the larger weight differences from some heavy weights to the larger ones means that it seems unfair esp because of the extra larger weight and even more because of the extra much longer "reach", tohave only one heavy weight class, no more that it would be fair for a welter weight fighter to fight a heavy weight fighter (50 lb difference) ...

and so why not add an extra heavy weight class of super heavyweight (note the olumpic super heavy weight class does not add the weight class im talking about as it is about the same as the regular heavy weight class)

see present boxing weight classes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_weight_classes

Why US-centrism?

If you have not noticed, whole world is using metric measures. Why pounds everywhere? It should be in kilograms, with pounds in parenthesis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.235.129 (talk) 04:46, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Because boxing weight classes were originally devised in pounds and that has continued with the creation of new weight classes. The weight limits are in pounds and that's why you see them with nice round numbers when they are pounds (200 pounds, 175 pounds, 160 pounds, etc.) and uneven numbers when they are in kilograms.MKil 17:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)MKil

Makes no sense arguing with this guy, bla, bla. Let him think what he wants, still wrong! He will always be right. If 69 user wants evidence i can email directly, makes no sense giving it here, it goes nowhere! Wikipedia is total timewaste! For people who have connections, have time to argue, thats why no college takes it serously, good! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.16.55 (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Why it is no realy unlimited?

What if I want to see fight between 175 cm 55 kg man and 175 cm 110 kg bodybuilder? Or 175 cm 55 kg man vs 175 cm 80 kg muscle man. Or it is obvious that 175 cm 55 kg man in both cases would win?

Lennox Lewis

Just curious why Lennox Lewis is listed as the UK? He competed for Canada, not the UK.