do you think ringsize could be used as an advantage for certain fighters?

pretty much it

 

It's not a case of 'thinking' ringside might be used to a fighter's advantage - it's a tactic that has been used many times, and it makes sense why. Boxers want space to move in (big ring preferred), and punchers want confined space (small ring preferred) to corner their opponents in.

 

No question. Vernon Forrest fought Mayorga twice in very small rings and lost, Spinks fought Mayorga in a very big ring and he boxed rings around Mayorga. Its definitely not that simple, but I have to think Spinks would have had a harder time surviving Mayorga's rushes to win the fight.

Wasn't the ring for Monzon-Benvenuiti famously tiny? Could be wrong.

I'm sure I'll think of other examples to go along as well.

But then again how many times have we seen a mover put on a masterclass against a brilliant pressure fighter in a very small rings.

 

And, going off the last point I made, how many times have we seen a great pressure fighter corner and suffocate a brilliant mover inside a big ring?

When you get at the elite level ring size really inside a huge factor. Things like ring generalship, ability to cut off the ring, feints, speed, and experience all weigh a great deal more in shaping the outcome.

 

from my own limited boxing exerience (a few fights, lost of sparring) i definietly like a small ring more....due to the fact that i also modeled myself as a swarmer/banger.

 

its still a pretty big aspect in the negotions usually.

 

something that matters at least as much if not more is padding. A well padded ring will slow down dancers (also tire their legs out/think running in sand). For punchers it will slow them down a bit too (ability to close distance on foot i mean) but that wont be as negative a effect as it is on the movers...and having the padding to dig into actually allows you to get a bit more power on your punches.

 

are you serious ?