Why does size matter?

Against you? Sure, if the money is right. This is assuming that your persona on this forum isn't an elaborate ruse (ala Keyser Soze/Verbal Kint) and that you haven't suffered any serious head trauma in the years since high school though.

All jokes aside though, I don't even remember why you called me "stupid" or questioned my English grades but there is virtually no chance that you are smarter than me or did better in school, at any point in your life. I would bet a LOT of money on this if I could.

 

Ok, I believe you now. You are 10X smarter than me for sure!

Figurative language use falls along a continuum, from mild exaggerations to completely figurative metaphors. Willard's statement struck me as the former. He obviously was speaking at least somewhat figuratively but the ultimate meaning of his words was crystal clear: he did not consider himself a particularly skilled boxer. Did you actually think that I thought that Willard considered himself to be absolutely unskilled?

 

Tyson Fury has self deprecated himself as a boxer many times.

 

lack
lak/
noun
1. the state of being without or not having enough of something.

 

Should we list all the smaller heavies that Foreman, Bowe, Vit and Wlad beat the cr*p out of?

Or do we even have time for that?

 

By the way, this type of assertion gets repeated all the time in forums like this but I see no basis for it. But at least you raised the lower weight to 215 (instead of the 200 that most people use).

 

Dempsey, Marciano, and Louis didn't beat up too many "super heavies." The ones they did weren't atg's...

 

Joe Frazier?
Evan Fields?

By the time Waldo came around, good small heavies were a thing of the past. Chris Byrd was the closest thing to a great small heavy and Waldo whacked him around like a straw doll.