Is George Groves' reach only 71 inches?

Thta's bollocks i reckon

 

Doubt it his gloves are by his ankles

 

I'd say closer to 76-78 inches

 

David Lemuix's reach is listed at 64 inches.

 

groves leans over alot so his arms look longer then they r but u dnt see him keeping ppl at bay at end of jab unless ur just not punching back like glen johnson. but lucian bute's reach is only 71 aswel which prob shows y he good at bodyshots im only 5'8 1/2 and my reach is 73 so thats good as mayweathers is 72. andre wards is 71 also. cottos is only 67 mind you froch's is 76 :shock:

 

Does it not usually go like how tall you are is what your reach is or very close it..?

I am 5'9'' 1/2 and I have 76 reach also. Sometimes I feel like I am Thomas Hearns.:bbb

 

Reach is overrated IMO.

 

That tale of the tape **** is what they get off Boxrec. So bloody inaccurate and old statistics.

 

It says Mayweather has a 72" reach which is aload of nonsense.

 

Reach is not over-rated! Guys like Hatton who prosper with crap reach are unbelievable and usually have to eat punches to land punches...

 

His is exceptionally ****, though. And the fact he eats punches is because he doesn't move his head and isn't a very good defensive-offensive fighter.

The vast majority of people are within the average range for their height and the couple of inches here or there means absolute **** compared to footwork. It's footwork that gets you into a position to throw a punch, not having a few inches reach. Most of the time its only that significant when somebody like Wlad combines being several inches taller than his opposition with the reach AND technical skill and footwork. Then its part of the package, but I have to say the vast majority of the time a guy having 80 inches to 76 doesn't mean anything IMO.

 

Reach is only good if you can use it effectively, There's some guys who use it against you and some who have massive reach and get schooled cos they have no idea hot to utilize it.

 

Think about how effectively your feet can move inches, forward or backwards relative to your opponent. In the vast majority of matchups reach is completely meaningless, occasionally it has significance. But the credence its given is out of proportion to something like footwork that dictates the distance between fighters FAR more than reach. Because...footwork is not relatively evenly distributed between fighters, its usually what separates the best from the rest.

Pacquiao's reach is on the short side at welter yet he's boxed rings around people on the outside over the last 3 or 4 years.

 

Groves is a like a ****ing spider he's so gangly.

His ****ing neck is longer than 71 inches.