Much is made about height and reach advantages. About weight advantages and how they all can impact on the result of a fight. But is there any examples you can think of where a fighter used his lack of size to his advantage? Im going to use a recent example Im hoping illustrates my point. Cory Spinks vs Jermain Taylor. Most expected JT to be to big, to physically imposing and to strong for the natural welter in Spinks. I gotta say I did not think it would be so competitive or hard for Taylor. I mean sure Spinks did run a lot but what else could he do? And at times it truly buffudled JT. Spinks was already pretty fast for a welter. I think he carried this speed up pretty well and he often made the bigger Taylor look cumbersome. Against a guy bigger then him his awkwardness and speed seem to have a relatively greater impact then against guys his own size. Thoughts on this and what other examples can you think of?
Mike Tyson in many of his fights. Although Tyson usually weight as much, or almost as much, as most of his opponents, he always gave away a lot of height and reach. But I think Tyson's size - his short height and short reach - were actually a benefit to him. If Tyson were 6'4" I don't think he would have been as explosive or as good as the 5'11"(or 5'9 1/2"?) version.
What's interesting, Walcott fought differently against men of his own weight and against bigger men. Against his equals he was standing straight behind the guard, while against heavier opponents he was usually crouching low. At least such were contemporary observations of his style.
Hamed always gave away height but he compensated for this with his unorthodox style... and a punch like a sledgehammer.
It is more being short that can be an advantage than being small. I would venture to say that for some styles the optimum height is "average or less" for the given weight class.
