Is size an advantage?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Jack, Sep 5, 2011.


  1. Jack

    Jack Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,560
    67
    Mar 11, 2006
    Well, mentioning "attributes" kind of defeats the purpose of what I'm saying, because that then includes things like body punching, clinching and so on, until you basically have a clone of the same fighter except one is bigger. Assuming both fighters are equally talent but of different styles and attributes, then there is no reason why size has to be an advantage. In many case, a smaller fighter can use his size to his advantage.
    It can mean an advantage in power and chin, yes, and it can also make a person stronger but that isn't proof. As I said, the hardest punchers in history were all 210-230lbs, the fighters with the best chins are rarely over 250lbs, and the strongest fighters in history tend to hover around the 220lbs mark. There's certainly no indication that the bigger a fighter is, the stronger, more powerful and tougher he becomes.

    As for reach, whilst that can be used for an advantage, it can also become a weakness for a fighter. The longer the reach is, the longer it will also take for that person to bring their shots back after throwing and they will be seen easier. Aside from that, if a fighter with long reach is fighting a shorter guy and his opponent pins himself to the tall fighters chest, then you know that the taller fighter is going to get assaulted on the inside. Assuming the fight is at range, the tall fighter wins every time, but if a shorter fighter can close the gap, that reach advantage becomes a huge disadvantage.
    I don't think it's a case of a "few special fighters". I'm not talking about guys like Barbados Joe Walcott beating Fred Russell. I'm talking about guys like Henry Armstrong, Joe Frazier, Pernell Whitaker, Julio Cesar Chavez and guys like that, who were all at a size advantage in many fights, despite being the smaller man.
     
  2. Jack

    Jack Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    22,560
    67
    Mar 11, 2006
    Well, this is when skill comes into it. Assuming Wlad was 6'1 and 210lbs, he'd still be the best heavyweight in the world. Assuming Vitali was 6'2 and 215lbs, he'd be outside the top 15.
     
  3. ripcity

    ripcity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,449
    51
    Dec 5, 2006
    When used corectory it is a huge advantage. Thomas Hearns I think is a good example, not to say he was unskilled but that he used his size to his advantage. If you can keep at distance where you can hit the other guy and he can't hit you. Your going to be pretty hard to beat.
    An example on the other end is Paul Williams. A good boxer don't get me wrong but he fights like he's short or normal highth for a welterweight to middleweight. Sometimes he pays for that.
     
  4. horst

    horst Guest

    I can see you're on a bit of a high horse wanting to prove this theory that you've evidently given a lot of thought and believe in pretty strongly, and I respect that, the forum needs people proposing well thought-out ideas. Makes a change from the usual "Money Mayweather is a G" garbage. But for what it's worth Jack, I do disagree with your theory. I should say now that whenever I make comments on boxing, I am not referring to heavyweight boxing. I don't like heavyweight boxing, I'm not interested in it, and I don't discuss it often. With reference to all other weight classes, I believe size is most definitely an advantage. If it wasn't, then we'd have had 100+ years of all fighters shooting up the weight classes winning multiple world titles, and we haven't had that. Size is always an advantage, and it is a skilful and intelligent fighter who offsets that advantage.
     
  5. igor_otsky

    igor_otsky Undefeated Full Member

    14,283
    4
    Jul 26, 2008
    so donaire, with fast hands and good footwork, can beat rios who uses his size advantage?

    no.

    What Jack has been pointing out was scenarios like Pacquiao-Margarito or Mayweather-Oscar, on fight night not at weigh in. If I am Margarito/Oscar, I would sure baloon up to my desired weight as long as I can handle that much weight. Coz I would be making an advantage over my opponent. At the end of the day, STYLES MAKE FIGHTS. Even if I have a gazillion pounds of weight advantage over your opponent, a mile of arm length, as tall as the pyramid of egypt, but you're as slow as a ****ing snail, an opponent who has insane speed, reflex and footwork like Pac/PBF would surely outmanuever you and beat you into pulp.
    -Tony Margarito
     
  6. horst

    horst Guest

    Jack's p-o-v is flawed I think.

    Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather both know how to overcome size disadvantages, up to a point.

    Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather are both (imo) more skilled and all-round better fighters than Sergio Martinez.

    But a 170lbs Sergio Martinez would comprehensively defeat both Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather, purely on the basis of his size advantages.

    P4P, a 144lbs Pac and a 147lbs Floyd are better than a 160lbs Martinez. But Martinez would beat them in the ring in spite of their superiority as boxers because he would be so much heavier and stronger, and unlike guys like Clottey and Margarito he also has a bit of speed and savvy. Not as much speed and savvy as Pac and Floyd, but enough to be almost at their level - and then of course the size advantages bridge that gap, more than bridge them in fact.
     
  7. igor_otsky

    igor_otsky Undefeated Full Member

    14,283
    4
    Jul 26, 2008
    I dont want to mention Martinez on this arguement coz he doesnt belong in fighting pac/floyd. he should be fighting in the super6.
     
  8. horst

    horst Guest

    I'm not sure about that, considering he was at 154 not so long ago, but I agree he is too big to be fighting welterweights.
     
  9. thesandman

    thesandman Boxing Addict Full Member

    4,606
    5
    Jul 29, 2004
    I don't agree about the Wlad thing.

    If Wlad was 6,1 and 210, he wouldn't punch like he does now, wouldn't have the same reach, and would have had his chin tagged a lot more often.

    He couldn't fight the same way, and definitely couldn't grab and tie guys up on the inside like he does now. Wlads method of fighting is brutally efficient for a man of his size, strength and athletic ability.

    Remove just one of those, and it spells trouble IMO.
     
  10. PH|LLA

    PH|LLA VIP Member Full Member

    79,438
    2,645
    Feb 1, 2007
    weight is an advantage. height is not. A smaller fighter at a certain weight is generally stronger and more compact while the taller fighter has the reach and range.
     
  11. vnyc

    vnyc Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    7,078
    638
    Nov 8, 2009
    if you know how to use it size is an advantage.
     
  12. bachatu

    bachatu Pro Full Member

    4,779
    8
    Feb 25, 2006
    not. he would not be able to hide behind his reach and jab away all fight and fighters would be able to get to him more often, where his chin would not hold up. if anything vitali would be more successful for being the sturdier of the two.
     
  13. horst

    horst Guest

    :deal This.
     
  14. PH|LLA

    PH|LLA VIP Member Full Member

    79,438
    2,645
    Feb 1, 2007
    Wlad would get walked over if he was 6ft1 and 210. Dude is a robot and not that tough. Vitali is way more intelligent and tougher.
     
  15. RJJFan

    RJJFan Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    14,002
    6,959
    Sep 5, 2010
    The only way to know the answer to your question is to get in there with a bigger guy with the same skill level.