Why does size matter?

Never seen Reznick's video.

 

Been reading through alot of this and for the most part, there's decent discussion. Too bad it veers into the name calling at times. I'm very firmly on the "size matters" side, but I've always found reznick to be a reasonable opponent on that. Anyway, my position is that of course it's not the be all end all, but there are weight classes for a reason. And hw's have been getting consistently bigger for a reason. Generally, throughout hw history the top contenders have gotten both taller and heavier, an increase also seen in other sports where tangible results have increased. In addition most champs, with notable exceptions for Tyson and Rocky, have been bigger than the average contender of their era.So, from a logical perspective, while Louis and Ali will always be my top two hw's for legacy, it's unlikely they could hang with the shws of today h2h.

 

Genuinely curious, what was the height weight of you both? Would you say you were holding your own or having your way with him? Who had more experience? Who had more success against other fighters?

 

Im not comparing guys under 225 you are . Im also talking about a world of difference sparring friends at your house and sparring SHW's who know how to box at a gym as well ,ive done both.

Just be straight up? lol yea good one.

 

Yeah, people are talking as if they actually know how big all these fighters are/were, down to the half inch in height and reach, and down to the pound in weight.
Truth is, heavyweights and their teams have far less interest in accurately recording their size than some of the geeks on this forum do.
Even their announced weights are unreliable. Heavyweights are allowed to cheat the scales, makes no difference, no one cares.
And with my own eyes I've seen some of these men's recorded heights are way off what they are actually. Usually they are shorter in real life. I don't know if that was always the case.

 

I actually posted a thread one time empirically charting the height progression based on ring magazine's top 10 list by decade. Go look at ring and cross reference with box rec yourself if you don't believe me. I started around 1950 and found a progression of about a half inch and 5 pounds per decade, going from under 6 and 185 to over 6'4 and 230 now (give or take, would need to look at my old thread or the old ring rankings again to be perfectly accurate).
And if the smaller hw's of the past were better able to take a shw punch than fighters of today, why don't fighters of today lose weight? Also, today has a much larger talent pool of potential fighters than 60 years ago, due to population growth and opening of markets. To analogize, a small division school is unlikely to produce better athletes than a larger one, so they are put in divisions. Feel free to believe the fighters of yesteryear would beat today's, part of me would like that, it's just all the rational evidence suggests otherwise.

 

He's talking about the ring top 10, and you pick just a few to "disprove" his point.

lol.

 

Is there any way to find this thread?
My favorite thing about this forum is when somebody does some real in depth analysis or content creation related to popular topics. Would love to check it out!

 

You could pick a SFW May weather and say there's no way someone so small beats Miguel Cotto.

But once he'd bulked up we know that he did beat him.

There's a point when the extra weight is just fat and not helpful but there's a lot to be gained from increasing muscle mass and strength.

Anyone who bulk effectively to 215 pounds has a chance against any man no matter the weight.