Of course we already knew it, boxers such as Tyson, Pacquiao, Povetkin and so on had already proven it, but we still have a lot of cases this year. Canelo (1m73) clearly dominated Jacobs (1m82) and knocked out Kovalev (1m83). Ruiz (1m88 officially and probably rather 1m85) knocked out Joshua (1m98) and held twelve rounds in rematch. Ryder (1.75m) gave a very difficult fight to Callum Smith (1.91m). Many believe that he deserved the victory.
Jack Dempsey showed us this almost 100 years ago when he beat Jess Willard to a pulp. It’s nothing new.
Lee McGregor vs Kash Farooq. McGregor was much taller, longer reach, much much heavier but still got dominated.
Whoever said it didn't? The thread says not so important which is to say size alone won't carry the day.
It is the single most important factor in boxing. Bar none, end of period. Loma wouldn't even crack the top 500 in the HW division. Seriously.
Yes there are still people out there who claim the super HWs (HWs above 6 foot 5) are unbeatable monsters who could never lose to anyone shorter than them. Look at the conversations going on around Usyk at HW
Most of the time a good big guy beats a good smaller guy. AJ easily beat Ruiz in the rematch. Kovalev was shot. Prime Kovalev clowns the roid midget. Povetkin lost lost to Joshua and Wlad, but looks good against fighters his own size even in advanced age.
Depends on the extent to which a tall fighter uses his height and reach effectively against a smaller fighter.
Nope. All those examples are exceptions. Size is and always will be important. Providing a couple examples throughout the year where smaller fighters are victorious doesnt negate that size is usually a very large influence on outcomes.
This goes without saying, but I think when people say “size not so important”, they mean that a great small fighter beats a good big fighter.
Ruiz had a bad rematch fight. I agree with Kovalev. Klitschko should have been disqualified against Povetkin and Joshua struggled despite Povetkin's age.
