Size seems much less a factor as it did in the golden ages. Do you think that Manny's demolition this was do to his natural ability more than Oscar's age. Also does a 2-4 inch height advantage means that much when the smaller fight is exceptionally strong and skilled? ex. pac vs. de la hoya and hagler vs. hearns.
I think ultimately the bigger guy usually wins...but it ultimately depends on the intagibles of the fighters... Cotto vs. Margo was a good example when Speed and Power go for nothing against size because of the X factor of Margo's chin... I think in this fight the X factor was the weight drain of Oscar
I was honestly very BITTER about the victory...but I now am warming up to Margo a bit... But he SERIOUSLY needs to tighten up that defense if he wants to last long enough in the sport...all those head shots will shorten his longevity
I take speed and boxing ability every time. Size is a factor if you are closely matched. Otherwise it ain't going to mean **** barring the size difference being something like Joe Calzaghe against Lennox Lewis. They were not closely matched Saturday and you saw what happened. In the good old days people fought fights that now people would give them no chance based on size, and they often won.
Size means very little when the guy with the size has nothing else. Oscar DLH is a very bad fighter at this point very shot even more weight drained. No bad big fighter is going to beat a great smaller fighter. It feels weird calling Oscar a bad fighter but he is at this point hes been great for so long even when he lost it was always competitive and you could say hey it was close he looked good hes still great.
In order for this to apply in a relevant sense, the larger fighter has to be more than a walking corpse.
