Is it really an advantage of being a tall boxer instead of a short one ?

Especially being in the same weight division ?

 

Doesn't matter really. If you dont know how to use your advantage, then being taller has little advantage.
The range is different, but thats about it.
Even Paul Williams got outjabbed by much shorter guys.

 

Both have advantages and disadvantages

 

Depends on your style and the guy your fighting:

Tyson for instance wasn't very tall for a heavy so built his style around head movement, getting of center and then ripping combos to head and body.
Vitali Klistschko used his height and reach to do everything wrong - leaning straight back from shots etc but his height allowed to lean so far back he was out of range.
Dwight Muhammad Qawi was tiny as a LH in terms of height so he used to bull forward, close the gap or roll under shots then let his hands go. If your doing that to a tall fighter your putting them in range of your power but you arent on the end of their shots.

David Price was bigged up when he was coming through. Tall and seemingly powerful - but he can't control range so his height (and other issues like poor defense, lack of stamina etc) etc meant he was a sitting duck.

You have to work with what you got. If you have height and reach advantages you can really make them work but its not the be all and end all

 

Was it an advantage for AJ in his 2nd fight vs Ruiz?

now ask yourself if it mattered in his 1st fight with Ruiz?

it only matters if the fighters with that advantage utilize it.

 

Of course it is an advantage. If you are shorter you have to look up to your opponent. By doing so you cannot tuck your chin to defend yourself like you are supposed to.

 

And shorter guys have better leverage up close. Their centre of gravity is a lot more stable. Thus when up close, a shorter guy can force the taller man off balance and into bad positions.

 

If you can box well and are adept at keeping range..... Ya, its a huge advantage, especially if you are also faster than your opponent.

Watch Chad Dawson vs. Adamek for a good example of this.

 

Speed can beat tall guys so not always SRL & Hearns is one example.

 

Same weight is a leveller. 6'3" Callum Smith vs 5'9" John Ryder the most glaring recent example.

 

As to the HWs all the champions from Ali to today were tall over 5' 11'' (Frazier was 5' 13'' tall) except Tyson (5 '10 ''). Another exception was Tua who was tall under 5' 11'', he never was champion but he knocked out many fighters taller than him. So.. yes, height is very important at least in the HWs but its not an absolute value.

 

Height, weight, strength, speed, power, timing are all attributes, and by themselves they just are what they are, neither positive or negative. If a fighter has attributes like those stated above and knows how to use them and apply them -- of course they are a big advantage.

But a 6'3 LHW who can't fight at range and cant keep or close distance is just a bigger target. Something that should be a big advantage is now a disadvantage because they can't use it.

 

This post made my brain explode.

 

I had to convert meters to feet and I messed up a bit.

 

There probably is a moderate advantage in being taller, on average. But much of it, perhaps most of it, possibly comes from the increased reach and arm length associated with being taller. A shorter fighter with longer arms probably won't be at a disadvantage.