Physical size is an overstated asset

There's a thread on here about the old saying "a good big man, beats a good small man" and whilst I agree that is true, if the smaller boxer is that much better, I don't believe the size disadvantage he faces plays a big part.

Looking at the history of boxing, there are a lot of precedents to disprove the "size = advantage" theory, but there really aren't that many to back it up. If a boxer gives up more than 3" inches now, it's seen as an impossible feat to overcome, yet Joe Walcott, a great fighter, beat fighters who were 7" bigger. More interestingly, he beat great boxers who had a massive height edge too.

Whenever a fight is analysed, it's just assumed that a smaller fighter can't hurt the bigger man. I'm thinking about the Mayweather/Pavlik debates I had and I maintain that Mayweather could stun Pavlik, if he could stun De La Hoya. There really isn't a precedent for smaller guys having their punches ping off a guys head, because he's outweighed by 20lbs. Pacquiao will be outweighed by this and many people predict he will stop Margarito. Thinking about it, Duran hurt tough Barkley many times and Duran is only a great at 135lbs and 147lbs. There are too many examples to be listed but tough men like Jack Johnson were hurt by much smaller men and I don't think that's changed. I see no reason why it should have.

As long as the gap in size is smaller than the gap in talent, I will always pick the smaller man. I think Pacquaio beats Margarito and Williams and I think Mayweather does too. I don't see people like Adamek being too small to beat the bigger men, if he's got more talent. I don't think it's unrealistic to say Chad Dawson could win a title at heavyweight, providing he could add some solid muscle, either.

Whilst size is an asset, I think people go too far by picking any boxer solely on size. If a bigger man has the skills to use his physical advantages, but a better boxer will negate those advantages and turn them against him.

 

Exactly, look at Sugar Niko Valuev, he uses his ability to win fights, not size

 

Size is hard to deal with when the big fighter also has skills.

That net effect is you both have skills, and only he has the size advantage.

So size does make quite a difference when the big fighters are also very skilled and athletic, as the K bros are. The size, coupled with their skills and athletic abilities make them almost unbeateable to the rest of the division.

So when size is coupled WITH skills, its not overstated, no.

 

Except for Sugar Niko, of course

 

I don't think anybody who knows boxing will say that size by itself can make a fighter good. Like any other physical asset, it can only do you good if you know how to use it. The same goes for speed, reach, strength, punching power, agility and whatever else you might think of. It only makes you a good fighter if you know what to do with it, or as someone said: skills pay the bills lol

 

It is tempting to write persuasively about how boxing is all about skill and not about size... but the facts are stacked against this idealistic viewpoint. History tells us that the bigger man wins far more often that not. Boxing is a physical game, and physical advantages are obviously crucial. When the little man wins, it is the exception that proves the rule.

 

It's all in how you use it.

This content is protected

 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypGM2KkMLl0[/ame]

valeuv only wins because he fights no one with any true punch.....heres what haye should have done but had no balls to do....witherspoon is 6 ft 3
ecklund has been listed as 6 foot 7 but the announcers say 6 ft 6

This content is protected

 

Are Irishmen always drunk? Or is that just something that applies to you?

 

that thread was meant to entertain.... but im gladd it provoked a little thought....why could you hav jus commented on that thread?atsch

 

If you looked at SNV properly, the way he throws that crunkercut, you'd say the same too

 

now thats prooooooof right there......

 

dont use it like that if ur chris bird.u may hurt yourself.**** that ****

 

It depends on other things. Will the smaller man's skills and other physical gifts outweigh the bigger opponent's size along with skillset?

The upcoming pac-marg fight is one where the little guy's skills and physical traits > than anything the bigger man has.

Great big man beats great little man.

 

If by "smaller men hurting jack johnson" you're talking about murderous punchers like McVey and Langford. These dudes ****ed everyone up. I agree that size is overrated and you have to use it properly.. PW is a guy for example who is really shitty at taking advantage of size based attributes.