Physical size is an overstated asset

If you think about it Pac's weight jumping is already a similar example. The example of the modern fighter who I think has accomplished a langford esque feat is RJJ. If you think about it he's kind of like a modern bob fitzsimmons in terms of titles won.

 

I can agree with that somewhat due to the fact that smaller weight divisions put serious limits on the physical tools the human body can bring to the table and tend to lean toward "ideal" body types. Dominant fighters tend never to be "too" anything. However style for style length is usually a positive for a boxer.

I do IF you say you only count it if the tall guy fights tall. If a tall guy fought tall using a punishing jab, movement, a quick 1-2, uppercuts, and clinches? Or, in the case of a brawler, stayed at range and kept the shots coming non stop? I think it is hard to beat a big guy.

Lack of regulation, IMHO, is more about gross mismatches in skill level than size. I think the old commissions where just throwing wood into chippers. Bzzzt!

 

Look at the Klit girls.
They have no real skills, yet their height, weight, and size are their most credible and formidable advantages. If either of these girls was 6'2" they'd have been KO'ed long ago.

 

It certainly seems to play a part, opposition that is. I think that in regard to punching power and chin, a knockout is a knockout. Heavier guys can put more mass behind their shots. Lighter guys can typically put another gear of speed. it completely depends on the puncher and punchee, i wish there was some actual scientific resarch on both subjects.

This is why I laugh when people say that lighter and smaller heavies like Dempsey, Tunney, Marciano etc couldn't hang with the heavyweights of today. In the history of the division the hugest guys aren't necessarily the best. If you think about it, the two contenders for HW GOAT, Louis and Ali, are smack dab in the middle size wise.

Like both of us have said, style plays a big part in whether the big guy or small guy will win. The style of the david and the goliath determine the outcome as much as size do. As for the old commissions... If we're talking about mismatches in skill level the modern fighter possibly experiences it more often. Look at how prospect fighters in our day and age wreck 20-25 bums before taking on a challenging fight. The consequences of a loss are much worse in today's environment and thus these types of matchups are promoted, not discouraged by modern boxing regulatory bodies.

 

Agreed! LoL

This content is protected

 

IMHO physical size (height, reach, stride length) present distinct advantages:

-- Your head is placed high so it presents a slightly harder target to hit and maximizes lean/waist movement efficiency
-- Your jab is longer to disrupt the other fighters rhythm
-- Your stride length is longer so it maximizes retreating speed.
-- Your attacker will most likely focus on your body providing you opportunities to work at range and/or tie up.

Now there are a few disadvantages:
-- Your punches and movements can end up being telegraphed
-- Your body may be far too open to attack
-- Your punching arc may be easy for a shorter attacker to navigate.
-- Your length usually creates lankiness (thin neck) which can make punch resistance suffer, but this is debatable.

So size alone is not the deciding factor. I would say using a fighting style that maximizes your physical dimensions is the most important factor.

 

I want to know how his big butt got some Mizuno boxing boots! :cus

 

Size does matter in boxing. Thats why we have weight classes. With equally skilled opponents, the bigger man's size usually becomes a factor.

 

Im not saying I'm happy about it, but the fact is the heavyweights of the past couldnt hang with many of the more modern heavys.

Not just because of their lack of size( however that is a big part) not just because the difference in atheliticsm, but also the difference in overall boxing skill up untill maybe the early seventies in the bigger divisions means those people wouldnt stand a chance.

I know its difficult to admit but some of our favourite boxers and (i mean heavies mainly) arent as good in head to head terms as we'd like to think.

Come on Dempsey compared to Gypsy stylings of the day hes better than the lot.

Size does matter and in the lower weights like he said earlier its a matter of physical advantages:skill.

In the heavyweight division because its unlmited it is that much more vital.

 

Please. Dempsey has the skillset to beat the klits: very hard to hit in his prime with his bob and weave, ridiculous hand and foot speed, and enough power to crack Wlad's egg chin. Vitali would give him more issues because he can take a beating, but if a prime dempsey got on the inside what the **** would the klits do? They don't throw uppercuts. They have awful/nonexistent inside game. Dempsey throws better sustained combinations than either brother. Boxing did not reach it's technical peak during the 70's, by any means. The 10's-50's had many marvelous technicians, on the outside and inside, any range. As for the difference in athleticism, i find that faulty as well. How many heavies today are as talented physically as someone like Jack Johnson? Or Jim Jeffries? There is no gap in athleticism. You think that somehow the human body has evolved to become significantly more powerful in 90 years? That doesn't make a whit of sense.

Here's what has improved: Nutrition and weight control, strength conditioning, and application of certain skills like sustained combination punching and the varied usage of the jab, which wasn't as massively important until a certain point in time.

 

Chambers wanted a look at Klitschko's arse haha

 

Yes boxers athleticism has improved that much in that amount of time and that has to do with nutrition and training techniques. General skill set. All sport has improved by that amount in that time.

Its not neccasarily the human body evolving its just types of athletes that have come to boxing, we dont just have white american/italians/irish/anglo saxons, the white boxers who dominate the bigger weights today are from the eastern block thus different gene pool different advantages.

Just like Black Americans dominated for so long because for those bigger weights theres more advantages with regards to athleticism.

Plus now the boxing world is just based in america as it was in the past much deeper pool of fighters.

And Id go as far to say if we had a time machine and you took dempsey at his peak i think id beat him in mine. Im sorry people are too nostalgic about a day when white americans where competitive in proper sport.

 

only over stated for those who have the physical advantages and chose not to use them.....or they just don't have the "know how" with regards to utilizing those advantages.