Why does size matter?

theres an awful lot of drugs cheats right now. ortiz and Fury for starters. and thats just the ones that have gotten caught!

to be fair its all sports.

yes they are still good fighters, just as there are great cyclists who cheat.

if everyone was clean there still would be great fighters.

was HW better to watch before top guys got busted for juicing?

 

Evidence would suggest that not to be the case.

 

And you don't think guys were juicing in the 80's and 90's, possibly even the 70's???

I think Anthony Joshua is as exciting as any fighters that's been before him, the fans certainly think so.

 

Because not getting KO'd is a combination of skills, many subtle, more than it is merely waiving your chin in the air knowing it is made of iron. Tommy got caught young but later became one of the most skilled (along with being incredibly talented) fighters in history. He had accumulated more than enough guile by that point to go the distance with Carnera.

If you really don't think size matters, try out a guy in your gym of equal experience but two divisions up and tell me your thoughts. I wasn't particularly fond of the times I had to do that, maybe for a round but not much more.

 

Aren't these all reasons for why size is not the end all be all? If I were to argue on the behalf of size not being as important as some think, I would use the line of reasoning in your post.

Because you're basically saying that guile can nullify size.

The day will come soon enough where I'm in the ring with someone much bigger, and I'll let you know my thoughts then. Would be interested to hear you elaborate more on your experience.

I think we as a community are getting closer to understanding the effects of size in the HW division, but there are still big gaps in all of our assertions.

 

I think it's important we keep this conversation going, so we continue to test assumptions under scrutiny, in hopes that it will refine our understanding of the matter.

 

I find it puzzling how anyone can actually say size dont matter when they havent fought guys who outweigh them 50/100 pounds . Its like saying you can outrun someone in a mile when you only ran 40 yard dashes . Personally my old sparring partner had me by 80 to a over 100 pounds at times but was the most difficult guy to fight just based on size ,he wasnt even a boxer . lol I usually won because i did have power over him but getting to a 6'4 giant was no easy task .

 

No one was ever saying size is an end all, be all. No one.

Guile can nullify size but there is more than one type of guile. I was taught that when you are the bigger opponent, fight big. When you are the smaller, fight small. Those are two somewhat different skillsets. In general, it seems easier to do the former than the latter but I have more often had to do the latter. You have a much more forgiving margin of error fighting big, IMO.

As far as my experience, I sparred regularly with a giant mofo, an Irish kid who was at least 6-5, 240, not overly fast but long and good at enforcing range and just a beast in clinches. It took a ton of effort and timing to get in my shots and everything he threw had a baseline hurt, even when not on target. Cliinches were just holding on for life at times and learning how to do some dirty work. Hell, I tackled him a few times. I could definitely hold my own for a round or even two, depending on how much I wanted to use the ring, but it was really exhausting to get an attack going. And I was young and in top shape. For reference I was 5-11, 190.

And yes, I understand that we were relative scrubs. He went to do some pro fighting but seemed to quit after 8 fights. But the point is that we were about equal in skills.

 

Great post, and I actually agree with you.

Maybe it needs to be more clear that "size proponents" don't believe that size alone can take you far.

And that "size detractors" do acknowledge size as a very important asset.

 

size is an advantage that can be nullified. But it is an advantage.

the fight starts on the outside, no matter what the fight it always starts on the outside. so this is an advantage for the boxer. however on the inside the shorter guy has the advantage.

if anything, the taller guy has more room for mistakes than the smaller guy.

 

Jess Willard had problems with Jack due to the fact that Willard was extremely rust and quite old... and Jack was an ATG, while Jess is routinely ranked among the worst of the heavy champs. That's too many disadvantages to drag into the ring.

Wlad was 40 years old and 25 years into his fighting career.

The most telling trend regarding size in the heavy class is the fact we have had so few dominant smaller fighters since Frazier's time. Tyson brought incredible speed and attacking prowess to the ring but even his great success was short lived. Holy was never really the truly dominant heavy of his day. Meanwhile, Ali, Foreman, Holmes, Bowe, Lewis, Waldo... all very big dudes had dominant stretches.

 

5'9 ,if you fight another 5'10 guy with better skills it should still be easy for you ,im also talking about a 250 plus guy not some 200 pounder you can just walk through .