Is size an advantage?

Ah, then that's fair enough, mate. I think the heavier the fighter, the less the weight makes a difference and by the time you get to heavyweight, I could see a 3" shorter and 20lbs lighter fighter having the advantage on his bigger opponent. If that was a lightweight, it'd obviously be a different scenario but if the size percentage matches the weight, then I think that size really doesn't always have to be a disadvantage.

 

Haye and Adamek have made it to be the 3rd and 4th best heavyweights in the world and neither has a great chin at heavyweight. Adamek's is better but Haye's is pretty much glass. I can't imagine Wlad being easier to knockout than either of these.

Speaking of Adamek, a smaller Wlad would beat Adamek all day long, purely because he's the better boxer and, like I said, Adamek is the 4th best heavyweight around right now. A 210lb Wlad should still have the power to stop Adamek, mainly because of his technique.

 

I think a good example would be Ali vs. Frazier I. Ali was more skilled and the bigger man, so he should have been able to win and yet Frazier negated that because he turned Ali's size into a disadvantage by closing the ring down at every occasion. Frazier outfought Ali as he was able to close the gap, get on the inside and make Ali's longer reach a negative attribute. Frazier's short arms were perfect for inside fighting and because he had great foot movement, he didn't really give Ali a chance to keep the fight at range.

This is a good example of a smaller fighter using his size to his own advantage.

 

My argument is coming from a heavyweight perspective, yes, because it's an easier argument to make because size differences are more common the higher you go. However, I do think that it's the same throughout all divisions but instead of it being a 6" height difference and 30lbs, it then becomes 2" in height and 10lbs.

The principle is the same though. If you have two equally skilled opponents with different styles and one has a size advantage, there's no reason why one has to have the edge. Think about Duran/Leonard, Hagler/Hearns, Ali/Fraizer, Chavez/Mayweather or many more examples. I know these are specific but they really do prove the point I'm getting across. The winner of these fights was not simply the bigger man or the more skilled man, aside from Chavez/Mayweather, but rather the fighter who was able to use his size disadvantage to suit him.

Ricky Hatton is a good example of this at a lower weight division. He was only 5'6" or something like that and yet that suited him. Had he been a bigger fighter, he wouldn't have been as successful as he was because that allowed him to fight much better on the inside. He had tiny arms, much like Rocky Marciano, and because, like Marciano, he was able to close the gap well with body movement, his lack of height became an advantage for him.

Size on it's own is not an advantage. The ability to use size for maximum effect is the important thing.

 

Well, boxing has pretty much always had weight classes and more have been added because it makes financial sense to do so, much like the issue with belts. I think boxing could quite easily go back to 8 divisions and there'd be little difference in the sport. The best fighters would still be the best in their divisions and they'd beat bigger fighters to get there.

 

It's not. Ali's reach was a hindrance when he fought Frazier.

 

I just think you need skills. Look at the guy in your name. If size was as important as people make out, Ruiz would have beaten Jones. One of Jones' former opponents, Toney, didn't have the physical tools of Jones and despite that and also being very overweight, he was still able to be a relevant heavyweight in an era of superheavyweights.

A younger version of Jones and a more in shape, younger Toney, would be in the top 5 right now quite easily.