Is Wladimir Klitschko unfairly advantaged over his opponents?

As compeared to other champions of the past?
The answer is "NO!"

Let's Compeare Wladimir's physical advantage with three champions whos ATG's status is unquestionable by most boxing fans.

The great Muhammad Ali, George Foreman and Larry Holmes!

Number of fighters fought who were as tall or taller:

Wladimir: 8 of 59 fights.
Ali: 11 of 61 fights.
Foreman: 7 of 76 fights.
Homes: 16 of 69 fights.

Greatest weight avantage in a fight:

KLITSCHKO VS Chambers: 34lb.
Ali vs Foster: 42lb.
Foreman vs Zouski:60lb.
Holmes vs Greer:38lb.


Number of fighters fought who were as heavy or heavier:

WK: 29 of 59 fights.
Ali: 19 of 61 fights.
GF: 16 of 76 fights.
LH: 23 of 69 fights.

Greatest highth difference in a fight:

Klitschko vs Martin: 6"
Ali vs Frazier: 5"
Foreman vs Qawi 10"
Holmes vs Ocasio 4"

Fighters under 2" shorter:

Klitschko: 22 of 59 fights.
Ali: 26 of 61 fights.
Foreman:21 of 76 fights.
Holmes: 28 of 69 fights.

And thats not even getting into "reach advantage!"
So Wladimir Klitschko has had no more "unfair" physical advantage over his opponents than most of the "Greats" of the past.......
:good

 

Great post.

 

Great thread :good..

 

Good post. And to take it further, pure physical advantages mean almost NOTHING to me.

There are a lot of big people who can't box, or play basketball, etc... You must have the SKILL to go along with it. Simple as that.

 

Great job. I'm glad you did your research. Did you use Boxrec (not a rhetorical question)?

 

Interesting.

 

good thread.

Wlad's height is only an ''unfair'' advantage in an era of relatively poor heavyweights. and i mean that in terms of the shape they come into fights (chambers, peter, arreola, Briggs, Holyfield etc).

Hes just too skilled for these heavyweights out there. combined with his height hes near unbeatable by the current crop of heavyweights. Since its not his fault hes this tall nor is it his fault the division is quite weak atm its ridiculous to blame any of this on wlad.

 

very true manute bol, ex pro basketball player, tall as shite, 7'7", cant score for his life.

 

Exactly.. Boxing (and basketball for that matter) have seen big guys who didnt have any skill and got sparked..
Physical advantages is great if you know how to use them, which is easier said then done..

 

its like with tyson, he was listed at 5'11", but, he was shorter than that. he didnt need height or reach to help him beat his opponents. its all about ability

 

I think most would agree that a bigger person would indeed be better than a smaller person, a majority of the time.

With that being said, these are HEAVYWEIGHTS. If you don't want to face tall dudes, then lose weight. In fact, many bigger people are kind of forced into specific styles when they may not be fit for it, which allows shorter fighters to exploit that.

Best athletes in their sports;
Jordan
Gretzky
Ruth (arguably)
Ali or Robinson (arguably)
Brown - Montana - Rice - White (football is kind of hard lol)

My point, none of those guys were big at all and they managed to DOMINATE their sports. In fact Gretzky only weighed 180 lbs! Size can be relevant, but for the most part, it cannot be labeled as unfair.

Great thread.

 

Some, I've a lot of boxing books, old magazines, ect.....

 

**** and pointless thread.

Its the heavyweight division.

 

:deal.. Brown was 6"2" 230 IBS which was huge for a RB back in the 50's through..

 

:good