reach vs height

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by josip, Apr 18, 2013.


  1. josip

    josip Guest

    who has the bigger advantage,a boxer with bigger reach or the one that is taller?
     
  2. Uncle Rico

    Uncle Rico Loyal Member Full Member

    39,748
    3
    Jun 28, 2009
    Reach.

    Being tall is only helpful if it's accompanied with good reach. Otherwise it can be a hindrance in some ways. Taller fighters find it hard to duck and weave their way out of trouble. Their upper bodies are stiff and they're more static.

    That's how see it, anyway. But that's not to say being tall doesn't have its advantages. I just see more with reach.
     
  3. RonnieHornschuh

    RonnieHornschuh ESB indie police Full Member

    6,024
    17
    Mar 21, 2007
    Being tall. Hasim Rahman actually had a longer reach than Wladimir Klitschko. Didn't help him much. If you are tall you can also lean farther forward, which improves your effective reach.
     
  4. JohnAnthony

    JohnAnthony Boxing Junkie banned

    9,988
    4
    Jul 9, 2010
    reach all the way.

    Height without reach would be like a t-rex trying to box
     
  5. JohnAnthony

    JohnAnthony Boxing Junkie banned

    9,988
    4
    Jul 9, 2010

    but also it makes your chin more exposed so it works both ways.

    Tyson used to love fighting tall guys
     
  6. RonnieHornschuh

    RonnieHornschuh ESB indie police Full Member

    6,024
    17
    Mar 21, 2007
    No, he didn't. He struggled with most of them (Bonecrusher, Tucker, Green etc.).
     
  7. josip

    josip Guest

    that is just what i was thinking.although rock had bigger reach he struggeled to get to wlad.i think leaning forward and backward is a big factor here.
     
  8. dealt_with

    dealt_with Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    9,931
    1,230
    Apr 27, 2012
    Neither makes any difference imo, you can have a fantastic advantages in both and if you fight someone with better rhythm and timing it means jack. Having shorter arms means you can extend them quicker and with less energy, guys like Russell, Gamboa, Tszyu, Tyson, Ward etc. all have very short arms. The shorter and more compact you are the better your timing tends to be so it negates any reach advantage.
     
  9. Cableaddict

    Cableaddict Boxing Junkie Full Member

    13,705
    292
    Jun 15, 2011
    Reach.

    Being tall (without a reach advantage) tends to be a disadvantage, as has been discussed many times.
     
  10. Robney

    Robney ᴻᴼ ᴸᴼᴻᴳᴲᴿ ᴲ۷ᴵᴸ Full Member

    93,103
    27,838
    Jan 18, 2010
    Reach!
    Just look at the ATG toplists. Many of them were know to have a big or even huge reach for their weightclass.
    I think it's the most underrated attribute in boxing.

    Like said, being tall without reach advantage is clearly a disadvantage.
     
  11. PowerBack

    PowerBack Well-Known Member Full Member

    1,921
    2
    Nov 17, 2012
    :huh. I think most boxing coaches will disagree.
     
  12. §weet §cience

    §weet §cience Doctor of Pugilism Full Member

    607
    0
    Mar 27, 2013
    He's said that crap before

    Reach is an advantage but just like everything it has to be used right, see: Paul Williams
     
  13. dealt_with

    dealt_with Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    9,931
    1,230
    Apr 27, 2012
    That's great, they'd be wrong. If boxing was fencing it'd make a difference. There are countless ATG's with short arms. You only need to look at guys like Ward and Gamboa to see that you don't even need good reach to fight from the outside.
     
  14. Kid Cubano

    Kid Cubano Boxing Junkie Full Member

    14,086
    9
    Aug 8, 2004
    He coudnt get to Wlad because he was shot as hell.
     
  15. catch22

    catch22 Member Full Member

    322
    0
    Jul 28, 2008
    Reach, as long as you have the footwork to utilise it