Does size count even just a little bit?

Great point. The bigger man's size and strength will become an ever-increasing factor as the fight progresses.

 

I don't think I have ever seen a thread while I have been a member here that matched up a 185lbr with no power and a short reach against a talented, strong 220 lb opponent. I think you will have to explain that one or provide an example at the very least.

Nobody thinks Hagler could go up to 175 because the guys there were killers and regarded as the golden age of the light heavy division. Never saw Hagler at 175 either so it is a lot harder to have him winning rather than a 185 lbr over a guy weighing heavier than anyone he ever fought.

Size matters depending on the fighters. Some fighters can fight successfully against bigger men and others can't. To say Joe Louis, for example, would have problems with the Klitschkos because of the size difference is preposterous because he beat plenty of bigger guys. More than enough where if he had problems it would be evident.

 

I think you've got that completely the wrong way around regarding styles.....

 

I just rewatched Frazier vs Quarry ,they both weighed 185 and 203....sorry but these guys are not winning a HW title at those weights to what they are now today in real life. lol

 

There is an element of hypocrisy in the way that the size argument is applied.

It is presented as being a crushing argument when it favours a modern fighter, but it is cast aside in the most casual manner, when it favours an earlier fighter.

When have you ever heard an exponent of the size argument say something like "i think that the modern superheavyweights would generally win because they were bigger, but we can make a bit of an exception for guy’s like Dempsey, Sharkey and Louis, because they did as much as they could with the superheavyweights of their era"?

 

Size isn't everything but it accounts for a great deal. Weight divisions exist in boxing for a very good reason. And since heavyweights have gotten so insanely big over the last 25 years they can almost be classified in an entirely different weight class than the predecessor heavys of decades earlier. Sure we've all seen examples of smaller men beating bigger men and yes I'd pick someone like Muhammad Ali to beat virtually any super heavyweight. But I also don't buy into the notion that ANY all time great could beat just ANY guy who never earned that honor. These things have to be studied and scrutinized on a case by case basis. And no it's not out of the question that a man like Anthony Joshua MIGHT have beaten Rocky Marciano no matter how ludicrous that may sound to someone who's infatuated with historical statistics. After being in numerous boxing debates over the years weather online, in a bar or sitting in a ring side seat, I have come to the conclusion that a person who deems size as being irrelevant has either A. Never gotten physical with someone who is much larger than they are or B. Had perhaps ONE experience in their life where they managed to get the better of someone who was bigger but not a fighter or C. Simply isn't honest.. Size defintely is an advantage. And as someone who has first hand experience partaking in such activities as martial arts, wrestling, boxing In a sparring sense and even a small amount of street fighting, it's always a different ball game against a bigger person. Particularly if the difference is vast and not marginal.

 

Back in 1990 Donald Curry fought and lost to Michael Nunn. After the fight he was asked what happened. He replied " Nunn was too big. "

 

I recently boxed a pro a few weight classes bigger than me.

His height and size was definitely an advantage. Definitely.
But he wasn't impossible to reach or to hurt. Definitely not.

 

Were you guys just casually sparring on friendly terms or was he actually TRYING to kill you ? I knew a guy in Florida who sparred with John Mugabi about 30 years ago. He described the beast as basically "toying" with him and yet handing him his ass at the same time regardless

 

Size means that the smaller man has to prove he can overcome it.

Not just HW though.

In 98 Mayweather and Pacman were SFW and FLW respectively, what right do they have facing future MW champions 15 years later?

In 1987 Hearns knocked out a man at LHW and a man at MW.

In 1986 Holyfield was nearly 40 pounds lighter than Tyson but ten years later he would bully him with strength and physical presence and ultimately knock him out.

In 91 Holyfield was over 50 pounds heavier than Toney but 20 years later he was being knocked out by him.

Size is a factor, but saying "x wins because he is bigger" flies against the face of recorded history.

 

I will throw something out there.

If size is such an important variable, then why do people who see it as such, try to discredit historic fighters who overcame enourmous size disparities?

You would think that they would hail them as heroes, even if they did not expect them to get the same results against more recent big fighters!

These fighters have surely proved themselves under their terms?

I have never sought to deny credit to any modern fighter whose record stacked up by my criteria!

 

In 1998 Floyd and pac were 21 and 19 years old. Hearns was also more or less a kid when fighting at welter and always had a large frame for a Welter to begin with.. We're not talking about scenarios where fighters gradually " grew" into upper weight classes where they were then in a position to beat bigger men. We're talking about the kind of situation where we're taking a 6'0" 190 lbs guy and putting him in with a 6'6" 245 lbs guy and claiming that size means nothing.. Little bit different. And Holyfield was so far over the hill when he fought ( a roided ) Toney that he was practically buried under it..

 

I think Joe Louis's wins over such fighters as carnera, B.Baer and Simon were impressive. Especially considering that one of them was a recent world Champion while the other two were ranked contenders.. But this was the exception not the rule. And part of the reason why those three men had even reached their stature in the first place was BECAUSE they were so much larger than most of their contemporaries. Now place Them in an era where almost everyone was at or near that size and how well would they stand out? If the answer is " not very well "then would Louis be able to do the same to their superiors?

 

Oh yeah, he was trying to kill me lol.
He is nowhere near as accomplished as Mugabi, he's undefeated with a few fights.

The sparring sessions when the main coach is at the gym are usually wars between guys of different sizes and levels of experience.