Proof that being muscular/bigger doesn't fit into the equation...

Err...hate to be unoriginal,but so was I...!

 

Wlad Klitschko vs Corrie Sanders

 

:goodbrilliant.i remember reading about his diet which included brocolli back in 78' and wondering wtf brocolli was.

 

doug beat us hands down there

 

This content is protected

 

Mike "The Bounty" Hunter vs James Thunder is one of my favorites of this genre:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOAtk9w-js4&feature=related[/ame]

 

Since this thread is about muscularity, it makes me wonder: Has there ever been a big puncher with narrow shoulders?

 

Great question

 

Im gonna post this just to **** Klit fans off

Byrd Vs Vitali, Byrd was so small and he made VK quit....

:fire

 

Not according to those pictures shithead.:deal

 

"I can't go on, it hurts too much!"

 

Think this almost-forgotten lightweight fits the description, PP:

Tommy Collins

 

I personally don't think that a fighter of lesser muscle tone beating one of greater tone, is proof of anything. I think that it takes a well rounded athlete to win a boxing match over another one of respectable abilities, and if we take a muscular fighter who has the full package of skill, speed, chin and stamina, then I would likely favor him over a man who has all of these things,minus the muscle. For example, Bruce Seldon had a hercules physique, but lost in one round to Mike Tyson, due to a weak chin, poor skill and low mental resolve. Now take another incredible hulk like Holyfield, but who has all the right attributes and put him in the same ring.. See what happens?

 

Marciano had very narrow shoulders.

 

They asked for it
A Klit fan recently commented and said the Klits were better than Tyson because he fought nothing but bums and lost to all the greatest fighters he ever fought (!)

Yes, read that again, a Klit fan said that to me.

And then he added the usual crap "Klits too big etc etc"