Why does size matter?

No you thought you did. In truth you had no answer as to why the minority of elite heavyweights make the army requirements when it used to be the majority.

 

Size is important. It is one of the many key assets that a fighter can have.

 

how is this insanity still going?

50lb+ weight difference is huge, just massive. saying that for the most part a world class 230+ fighter beats a 180+ world class fighter is just common sense.

 

Hey, it's the classics forum.

 

against world class opposition?

by my count jd did it 0 times and louis did it once. the one time louis did it he was over 190lb and calling carnera world class is a stretch anyway.

 

There's not a one size fits all answer to this. It depends on a whole number of things. For Marciano size starts to become an issue when his shots no longer have the same effect on his opponents to enable him to implement his preferred style and when he finds that he's taking more damage than he's able to dish out. For Louis it'd be when he's unable to infight with his opponents effectively or take the shots that he'll inevitable get caught by without sustaining massive fight ending damage.

Of course, size alone isn't going to win a fight. The big men have to be world class in their own right.

 

It's not the weight that is the biggest problem, Marciano would be giving away massive height and reach statistics, that makes a big, big difference.....

 

the evidence of Rockys power is well documented. He not only knocked out elite heavyweights but they stayed unconscious for a long time. Joe Louis, Walcott, Rex Layne. These guys were out for a minute at least. Not just ten seconds.

if Joe Louis landed first, and film showed he beat everybody to the draw, then him sustaining punishment only becomes an issue after they sustain Joe's power. Fighters like Joe were unbeatable until the final decline.

Absolutely. But it has been argued that wearing a man down in the clinch with size is a big factor

 

carnera was the one i am counting, i don't include the others because;

simon - doesn't look world class on film, didn't get world class results.
willard - barely world class at any point, absolutley not when he fought dempsey.

the rest miss the weight disparity we are discussing by these amounts
b baer - 6lbs
galento - 17lbs
fulton - 30lbs
morris - 15lbs

when you say 'preconceived negative ideas based on what you heard online' you are making a massive and incorrect assumption. you could not be more wrong about how i decided willard wasn't all that and def wasn't world class vs dempsey. you are so self deluded that you can't even concieve of someone analysing willard's resume and watching all the film and not being impressed. Outside of his results and how he boxed on film, neither of which show a quality fighter, i'm not sure what you would call evidence anyway.

Since you are going to be a patronising dick to me whilst pretending that fulton was 50lbs more than dempsey there's no point continuing the discussion. You are free to live in lala land, but at least form arguments based on facts instead of easily disproved lies and insults about others knowledge.

 

Dempsey and Tyson heads were at knee level, yet Tyson was ko'd by Douglas uppercut a class C fighter. Tubbs was a bought in off the bar stool as were Holmes and Berbick.