****in reach man. i dont know who the ones that voted height are- but theyre ****ing stupid. height is useless without reach. the tall fighters are good only because they have reach to supplement the height. in any case- both are overrated- people always point to height "advantage" but how many great champs were tall for their division, other than perhaps klits, hearns, tarver, etc. far more were compact and well proportioned. a solid base, strong legs, solid torso , core, compact neck- are all more important in my opinion. they should talk about neck thickness advantage as much as height- cos theyre about as relevant as each other tbh.
I tend think both fighters would lose power somewhat on their straight punches, as whether your punching up at a target, or down at a target, you dont have your core behind it, where as you do if your target is directly in-front of you, in line with your eye line say. If the target is directly in-front of you, you will get full range of motion and leverage into the punch, and not compromise anything by having to ark your punch. As soon as you dip that right shoulder down to ark that punch down, I think you're losing something right there. I do think bigger taller might be better for straight punches, even though I believe both lose a degree of power throwing up or down at a target, but as far as uppercuts, hooks go, its a no brainer imo.
:thumbsup I do actually think that tall punchers are the most dangerous though, not cause they necessarily have more power, but because if you cant get them to give up their height, and have to go inside to get something done, it means you gotta take chances to get closer, now if that tall fighter knows how to make you pay a price (counter), and he has power, it can be very dangerous to close him down imo. I also think punching down, the punches sometimes drop at the point of the chin, but by the same token, I guess you could say the shorter fighters left hook is potentially gonna land around the kisser area to, so..