Couple things and then we're done talking to each other. First you lack power so you load up on you're punches. In a big fight there's not enough time, a good fighter is going to paw you with his jab like wlad and double on his right hand, upper- cut followed by a right-cross. understand the concept of a slap hook used by wlad to pull down on the back of the neck that why shorter fighters under 6'0 ft haven't been able to beat him. Have a blessed day.
Someone on another thread tried to tell me Wlad wouldn't be a titleholder at any point in the 20th Century. I think Wlad would KO Dempsey, Louis, and Marciano. He's too big and strong for them.
Truth! Wlad would bare down on his neck and when Dempsey tired from lifting himself upward. Wald would have field day by throw right-uppercuts and right-crosses. Its fight science there are no promotional companies willing to sign a heavyweight under 6'5- exceptions are a long reach over 80.
name one short fighter wlad fought who was world class. theres a good reason he beats them - because they are b levels at best.
Size matters. Lets take two retired certified ATG fighters. Lewis v Wilde. Once you appreciate how stupid that is, you just gotta decide where you draw the line.
But where does it start to not matter, I doubt acute scientific research went into the creation of the Cruiserweight and Heavyweight divisions.... If you're good enough you're big enough, a good enough Cruiserweight will likely beat a poor enough Heavyweight just like a good enough Light-heavyweight would beat a not so good Cruiserweight.
His point is that size is indisputably a factor, but that said, it might be reasonable to draw the line at 176lbs versus 250lbs. I don't think so, but a person might think that.
I understand his point perfectly clear. I am however tired of entertaining Flyweight versus Heavyweight debates. I am concerned with realistic match ups.