Why does size matter?

Modern training has changed so so much..

Did anyone see how seriously gassed Joshua was at the end of his fight with Klitschko?

He leant against the ropes and his trainer Rob McCracken screamed at everyone to give him space for a full 90 seconds before he would allow anyone to celebrate with him. He would not allow him to be mobbed because he knew it would have been too dangerous given how seriously Joshua needed to recover.

I can't prove anything but it seems to me almost fishy that a spurt like that in the 11th round (as strong as the other spurt in the 5th) could be produced after several rounds of looking so tired.

Perhaps Joshua really is a physical phenomenon but usually reaching the stages of near exhaustion produces a more weary and less explosive appearance? Especially from a fighter reaching the 11th round for the very first time.

His trainer was so concerned, worried enough he might faint,that it was serious enough to keep everyone away from Joshua at the end of the fight. No immediate celebration!

I think the training diets, and all the other stuff that cannot yet be detected in urine tests, is so very scientifically measured that the trainers know the dangers of an athlete tipping into the highest physical limits of a body. It's almost like a balancing act. It's entirely artificial too.

 

Good post.

 

I know longer think Fitz looks awful after revaluating him, but I stand by everything else I said.

Garcia is probably better than Spence but does that mean he'll beat Spence if they fight? Probably a not.

At some point size is enough to overcome skill, it just is a matter of where that point is.

 

This thread is still going...

It just is, look at who the top prospects are these days. All medal winners in the 2016 Rio games were super heavyweights over 6'4" tall, and pretty much all of the top young prospects are the same size or more.

Why is it? Height and reach are advantages. So is weight.

 

Hate Fact! Hate Fact!

 

Why does size matter? That's a funny question on a boxing site. It's like asking why technique matters... weird question.

 

Great post. Some are delusional here

 

So Dempsey defeating unskilled oaf Firpo, old inactive willard, beanpole Fulton, and tomato can Morris means he can tackle an actual talented modern super heavyweight?

He obliterated crap big men. And nearly lost to Firpo.

Their was one talented big man of the era, one who was overwhelmingly better than the other big men...harry wills.

Jack refused to fight him

 

But it does matter at some point doesn't it.

Ward was p4p number 1, but no one would pick him against Joshua or Wilder. Probably not even Usyk or Gassiev.

Rocky should beat Briggs but if he's forced to give away 50 pounds I don't see it.

 

Firpo wsa 6-2 1/2 per every tale of the tape I can find. Willard was 37 1/2 years old again Dempsey. That was very old for a fighter in that day... and quite old even today. Dempsey, Corbett, Tunney, Jeffries, Sullivan, Hart... all were retired by that age. Worse yet, Willard had fought 10 middling rounds in 4 years. He had retired in the press multiple times, far preferring the action of the rodeo to boxing. There is no way you can make the argument he was in his physical or boxing prime. That is simply ludicrous and intellectually dishonest Fulton weighed 208 against Dempsey. That is version that Jack faced before the Fulton myth blew up and he was KO'd 10 times. Not 220. Lastly, Morris was so unreliable and so unprofessional when he was scheduled to face Dempsey that the hottest wagering was on whether Carl would actually show up for the fight. At his first meeting with Dempsey, he had lost 4 of his previous 6. He simply didn't train or care anymore.

 

Thanks for putting Mr Dago Wop in his place

 

Riddick Bowe is many levels above the big oafs Dempsey beat up on. Dempsey beating up on the big men of his era does not prove he could handle a skilled athletic powerful heavyweight like Bowe. Not to mention dempsey refused to fight the clear cut best big man of his era!!