The small guy has no choice but to be a swarmer, the bigger guy has options. There isn't a long history of equally skilled heavyweight of disparate sizes where the little guy consistently come out on top.Reach can mean you can hit your opponent before he is in range to hit you.
Yes basically. Other all-time greats had the Billy Conn moment where they did not turn it round at the 11th hour. We then end up assessing them based on a loss, rather than a win where they looked ordinary.
The small guy doesn't have to swarm. And the disadvantage of reach is if the other guy closes the distance, you can't maneuver your arms as well in tight spaces.
The small guy can fight at distance ,how does that work? Many long armed guys are good at infighting. Tyson was a poor infighter, Bowe an excellent one.
By getting in range, punching the guy, and then getting out of range. As opposed to a swarmer who wants to get in range, and stay there, crowding the inside.
I see what you mean, perhaps I didn't express myself well.You are describing Leonard v Hearns, that sort of attack. I should have said the smaller man has no option but to get close,how long he remains there would depend on how successful he was once there.
No. Multiple degrees in Chemistry. But what is most relevant is that I have much more knowledge concerning the sport of boxing than you. You watch plenty of WWE that's for sure.
Not WWE. WWE is entertainment not real sport. Do I need to tell you this? This is why your mind is completely polluted with the idea of size. Think skill and open up your mind.
I generally pick the modern heavyweights to defeat Marciano in fantasy h2h match ups, but I can't deny Marciano's greatness. He was an unstoppable bull in his prime, with great stamina and incredible two-fisted power. His determination is matched by very few others. He's in my top 5 of all-time great heavyweights.
