When is a fighter the bigger man?

Hagler was 157,5 and Duran 156,5 when they met. And Duran was actually the heavier man by half a pound when he met Hearns.

Would you say he was as big as them?

Edit: This is not a rhetorical question.

 

Hearns and Duran were near equal in weight but Hearns had 6" height and 12" wing span advantage. Hearns was bigger, and the way he used his massive height and reach difference in addition to his youth and speed, Duran had no chance. I think if Duran could have hit him, he could have hurt Hearns..but that wasn't happening.

Hagler was over 2 inches taller than Duran and had 9" wing span advantage. Despite the near equal weight, Hagler still had some considerable physical advantages. Size really wasn't the determining factor in this fight though, Duran held his own but he didn't have the stamina to box for 15 rounds like Halger did.

Duran was matching these guys in weight, but he was older and his conditioning was taking a hit.

 

I think Hearns was "bigger" if we had to choose. As far we know their weight was equal but Hearns had a considerable height and reach advantage.

I think most would even pick Hearns as the harder puncher. Hagler was simply freakishly more durable.

 

Tyson was a little heavier but Evander had the height and reach.

Evander was physically stronger and man handled Tyson quite a few times in those fights.

I guess it depends if you feel Tyson's 7 pounds is enough to over rule the 4 inches in height and 6 " wingspan, I don't think it does.

In the rematch, Tyson was in better shape and their weight was identical.

 

As I said I feel Holyfield was bigger in the ring that night. He had a considerable height advantage, just as heavy with most likely less body fat, and stronger.

It doesn't matter if Evander was a cruiser 10 years before the bout. In the ring, Tyson was staring at a mountain of muscle.

[url]http://www.boxing.com/images/sized/images/articles/evander-tyson-530x317.jpg[/url]

 

Ok. So for you it's more than just weight. You think Hearns was bigger than Leonard also, then. Bigger than all his opponents really until he ran into Barkley. This view would affected his p4p ranking adversely. And by that I'm not saying that you're wrong.

How do you see Spinks-tyson then? Tyson was somewhat heavier but Spinks had clear advantages in reach and height.

 

If you google image their staredown, GGG is at least an inch taller than Brook. His head is much larger and his frame seems to be larger too. To me GGG is the larger guy despite Brook weighing in higher.

 

I don't see how Hearn's p4p ranking is affected. He didn't lose to Hagler and Hearns because they were bigger, he lost because he couldn't match their durability and stamina. And yes, Hearn's success was based on the way he used his size to outbox shorter men. That's a big part of Stewert's coaching that he later used with Wlad and Lewis.

The whole Tyson blew out a light heavy thing is just a way of discrediting such a shocking win. Spinks was taller, longer, and almost equal in weight. Spinks was certainly a heavyweight and had physical advantages over Tyson, the problem is, mentally he wanted no part of the fight.

 

This picture...Golovkin has a slight height advantage. Maybe an inch. I don't see this "frame" business, people talk about. Golovkin has an abnormal head shape and size in general. Brook is clearly more muscular, that's about all you can see with the naked eye.

[url]https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/weighin-brook-golovkin7.jpg?w=620&h=475&crop=1[/url]

 

I must disagree....

Can you with a straight face say Samuel Peter is "bigger" than Vitali Klitschko

[url]http://www.saddoboxing.com/boxing_images2/Vitali-Klitschko_sam-peter31.jpg[/url]

Peter had a few pounds on him but Vitali was about 7 inches taller and man handled him with long range punches.

[url]https://graneyandthepig.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/vklitschkopeter.jpg[/url]


There is a difference between say 5'10" 215 pound Mike Tyson going up against a 6'1" 158 pound Hearns. Hearns is taller but Mike is "BIGGER".

But a 6'8" 245 pound guy against a 6'1" 253 pound guy. You can't side with the heavy guy as bigger.

There is not going to be a formula, it's always going to be case by case.

 

Weight should be the primary measure we have to go on, but we don't always get an accurate weight.
Height and reach are secondary, but important in considering match ups.
Assuming they were the same weight, Hearns was bigger than Hagler based on the other elements. I'm surprised people insist he was smaller. Hearns was a freak in the way he moved up and down weights. Hearns carried light-heavy and cruiser quite well, must have been quite a big man.
Hagler wasn't much bigger than Duran but people make out Hagler was a monster in comparison. Look at the fight. Hagler was bigger but it's not a huge difference. Hagler and Leonard were the same size, more or less.

Golovkin and Brook I'll have to watch the fight again.

I've argued already about James Toney getting credit for being a "blown up middleweight" competing at heavyweight, when he chose to load up heavily on steroids and carry a bit of fat bulk and weighed 217 and was effectively against Holyfield, and 220s and 230s in other decent performances, you can't argue he deserves credit for being a midleweight. The world is full of big men who are bigger than they used to be, due to weight-lifting, eating, steroids etc., it makes no difference whether they were bantamweights 10 years ago, especially when they are smacking you in the head.

Boxing has weight classes for a reason, as people often say here.
A boxer is responsible for his weight and is measured against boxers of the same weight. You don't get special treatment because you weighed _ pounds less _ years ago.