Are the heavyweights the only division where size doesn't make a difference?

size makes a difference in the heavyweight division. the all-time heavyweight list is almost like a lb for lb list for the division now because of the difference in size of the fighters. with day before weigh-ins in this era of boxing, marciano would more than likely be a light heavyweight but yet he's consistently ranked in people's top 10 all-time heavys. no argument here but i can name lots of heavys, some of them not great, that would have given rocky fits because of the size difference.

 

Joe Louis blasted out a few "Super Heavies"...but across the board, size and weight will beat a smaller man.

 

Actually, glen johnson is the type of fighter Arguello's style has always had intrinsic problems with. A lot of great standup boxer-punchers have issues with crowders of a much lower class(Robinson-Basilio, Louis-Godoy, Gans-Nelson, Jofre-Harada, Arguello-Pryor etc). They cant get the proper distance for their punches, usually aren't mobile enough to create that distance with legs, and get outworked.

On topic: Size matters in every division. The heavies are interesting because they sometimes give us a really good look at how certain styles work against different sized fighters and such. There is such a thing as being too big and too small; the big guys lack dexterity, fluidity, and speed. The smaller guys have to absorb hits from a bigger mass, and have to work hard to land their shots due to range discrepancies as well as having to push against it in an infight. I liked the division before cruiser was created; it forced bigger heavies to come in at lower weights for stamina and speed, and the smaller fighters carried a bit more skill with them imo.

If you ask me the ideal size for a heavy all time is somewhere from 200-225. I think of the Louis's, Tyson's, Ali's, Holyfields there.

 

They dismiss it because they're in denial that a modern fighter could completely dominate their hero's. That's why 'size doesn't matter'. It's not the only factor in boxing, but a good big man beats a good small one.

 

Depends how "good" & whose opinion...

In the general forum, Klit-Hugger idiots are saying the Klits dominate Ali, Tyson, Holyfield, Holmes etc in Peak-for-Peak fights, with that same argument of "a good big man beats a good small one." :nut

 

It's all relative to your weight remember - 30 lbs is much more to a 10 stone man than it is to a 15 stone one.

As for what Swarmer was saying, if a puncher like Arguello struggled with crowders he's pretty ****ed, 'cos he sure as hell couldn't handle boxers. To be honest, most of his challengers spent a few rounds trading on the front foot with relative success before getting knocked out.

 

That type definitely struggles with movement as well. Which is why i reckon Robinson never wanted a thing to do with Burley...

 

The truth!

 

Honestly, save for the Frazier/Tyson types, everybody struggles with movement. Movement be good.

 

it makes a difference, but it is not mentioned as though a guy 220 or 260 is the same thing. Which it apparently is not.

 

Boxing has weight divisions for reasons. In most examples a good skilled big man beats a good skilled small man. So a welter is not likely to beat a light heavyweight.

Size, which I prefer to be described as reach, height, and weight is an asset as long as it does not diminish flexibility, speed, and stamina. There is a reason why Bowe, Lewis, Klitschko, and Klitschko who have ( you can count them ) at least 160+ fights between them have only lost one decision, and it was a very close one at that!

Simply stated modern skilled super heavies have too much to be out boxed on the outside. The best way to beat them is to cash in on your puncher's chance ( which they also have in abundance ) while trying to navigate past their jab and right hand.