A thought on the really big heavyweights

One common point I see made on these and other forums, as well as in some actual publications, is a complaint about the size of certain heavyweights. Specifically, that the only reason that guys like the Klitschkos and to a lesser extent (or greater, depending) Valuev, have any success, is due to their size. The argument usually is that "if they were smaller, they would be nobodies."

This argument misses a couple of key points. For one, any "IF" argument is just speculation anyway and basically amounts to intellectual masturbation. The fact is, these guys ARE much larger than most of their opponents and have developed styles to maximize the effectiveness of their frames. Whether or not they could be successful if smaller is irrelevant, because they CAN'T be smaller.

The other point is that if they were smaller, they wouldn't be the same fighter. Who says they would fight exactly the same way they do now? Who says Wlad or Vitali would stand up straight, lean away from punches, and in Vitali's case, keep his hands low? That would be silly to do if they were say, 6'1" or 6'2". They would be smaller, but also quicker, so doubtless they would have different styles and different physical tools. This leads us back to point number 1, that the whole argument is meaningless.

People love to trash Valuev, who is of course, not a great fighter by any stretch of the imagination. But to say all he has is his size? Well, sure, but that's not the point! If he were 6'3", he would have a completely different skill set. He's slow because he's huge, not huge because he's slow. People seem to miss that. He has managed to fight on pretty much even terms with a host of top ten heavies over the past 5 years or so, win or lose. Limited skill set? Sure. Slow? Sure. But, he fights the way he does because that's what makes sense for his size. Different size, he would be a different person, and the whole thing wouldn't matter.

Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe got a bit of this treatment back in the 90's, but as that era has slipped by, boxing historians and fans have given more credit to their skill sets and resumes, rather than just saying, "they only won because they were big." They utilized the tools at their disposal with more effectiveness than most other heavyweights in their era. That should be what counts. In a decade, we will likely judge the Klitschkos the same way.

There have always been heavies much larger than their contemporaries. Harry Wills, Jim Jeffries, Buddy Baer, Primo Carnera. All were contenders or champions, but none were sublimely skilled (maybe Wills to a certain extent). They won and lost with the skills at their disposal. Smaller bodies, maybe would have led to more losses, or maybe would have led to quicker and more athletic frames and better chances against the best. No way to really tell.

"They only win because they're big" is a tired excuse and missing the point. The modern giant heavyweights win because they are better than their opposition. And when they lose, it's because they aren't the better man on that particular night. They use their size as a tool, not as an excuse.

 

I do often repeat myself, I'll admit, but I think the point was successfully made.