Size doesnt matter its all about the skills and your ability to take a punch.. I can beat up a big dinosaur but cant do **** against a bug moving around
He is giving away 3 inches, Haye was giving away closer to a foot and to be fair to Haye he fought the majority of the fight with a broken hand and still managed to rock Valuev when he hit him with a solid shot.
Small boxers being skilled and durable will defeat unskilled boxers with only size and strenght any day! Only in wrestling or mma size and strenght alone can be usefull!
I know you want this underdog story to be true, but a good big man beats a good small man. Sure you can find examples of the opposite, but generally? It is true. Please don't use fighters operating in the old black and white days as evidence. Everybody and their brother was a "boxer" and only God knows how crappy athletic commissions where in those days.
Size in and of its self is not necessarily an advantage or disadvantage. However when you know how to use it it is a great advantage. One that can even over come a deficit in skills/talent/ability.
Indeed and I'd add Ketchel to that. Although these guys were big punchers, they defied the conventional wisdom regarding punchers. If we were asked whether Pavlik could hurt either Klitschko, I think a tiny minority would say "yes" but history says otherwise. In fact, wasn't there a poll back when Briggs was champion? I think it was Briggs vs. Pavlik and I'm pretty sure that thread proved the point I'm making.
Very true, but I would say NY, FL, NV, and TX are heads and shoulders above what they were long ago when guys were having hundreds of fights. Not knocking those old school guys, but those fight numbers plus KO percentages are insane.
I'd say it's debateable that Ketchel actually hurt Johnson. They were in an exhibition and Ketchel smacked him as hard as he could for real. Johnson in turn leveled him back pretty quickly knocking his teeth out and all that. Have you ever seen that punch? He swatted him like a fly. Styles also makes a difference too. Some are naturally suited to be used against bigger competitors, which is part of the reason Pacquiao, Barbados Joe Walcott, Armstrong, etc. enjoyed the success they have at weights blatantly higher than their ideal.
It depends on the weight division I think. If being a big man at the welterweight division means height, the smaller boxer will typically be stronger, so who has the advantage? Neither. At the heavyweight division, you can have strength, height, reach and weight without any definite disadvantage, so there I think it is the case. Honestly though, I don't see many argument for it. Not enough for it to be an accepted rule, anyway. That lack of regulation is the reason we can look back at it though. It happens far less now. A middleweight vs. heavyweight wouldn't be sanctioned by most commissions. I think they should see what would happen. I doubt the smaller guys would get blown out each time.
Exactly. A lot of people would say that these matchups and rules are barbaric and unfair but the fighters were definitely willing to make the matchups, and a lot of smaller fighters struck fear in the hearts of the bigger dudes. Dempsey wanted no part of Langford, for example. Well, nobody did.
Yeah, Johnson wasn't seriously hurt but you get the point I'm making. Is it interesting that the guys who typically have made it at the higher weights, have been attacking and strong at their prime weight? Without any thought, I think a guy like Pep or Whitaker would be more favoured to beat bigger men based on their elusiveness. I remember threads from years ago, where people dismissed Pacquiao at the heaviercweughts because he was hit often at 126, 130lbs etc..
Depends on how big, in regard to Pep/Whitaker. Most of the ridiculous weight jumpers have been big punchers, 1 hit KO fighters at their ideal weight. Pep and Whitaker won by outboxing most of the time, and that becomes harder at higher weights who have longer reaches. I can see fighters like these using their superior speed to win a decision, but they have a much more difficult fight than the human cannons.
I think if one boxer set the precedent today, the entire boxing world would think differently. Pacquiao beating Martinez? I think he would. Maybe Martinez going up against Bute? Or Dawson against Vitali? I don't see the modern fighters struggling any more than the likes of Langford did. Not all would win, sure, but they didn't then either. I just wouldn't be suprised to see a few...suprises