Short Power Punchers Against Taller Fighters...

Depends on a lot of things, speed and how they can cut off the ring, will has a lot to do with it also. If a tall fighter fights tall it can help but if a short fighter fights shorter it sometimes causes problems for the tall guy. Like I said depends on who is the better man

 

The problem with guys like Peter and Tua is their weight. They are hardly in Joe Frazier type condition and if they were, they'd weigh 216 or so and their footwork and mobility would be superior. Then, they could get inside the tall guys. When they come in heavy, they need a bad defense guy or a flat footed opponent and usually that's the matchups whenever you do see them get the A+ results.

 

Yes but they were hanging on for dear life and not winning rounds. Tyson fought a load of 6-4+ guys and stopped them

Fighting a much taller opponent is hard, you have to continually slip their jab, so lots of head movement, and fight at mid range or close to get your shots off. At mid-close range you have the advantage, they have to make space, uppercut or hold.

Its easier to fight at range as a taller rangier opponent, if your both tired, he can still throw 1-2s from range, it takes far more energy to fight as a small fighter because you have to do far more than throw a 1-2 and hold.

Thats partly why Tyson was great in the 80s and not so great after, his stamina wasn't as good, if he was 6'5 this would have been fine but Tyson's style wouldn't allow it

 

Therehave been a number of short power punchers who really exceled against taller rangier fighters like Tommy Burns, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Mickey Walker and others.

The common factor?

Defence and conditioning are obviously critical but the thing that unites the real maestros of this style is the ability to throw combinations in a verry short distance.

Once you can do that your taller oponents size becomes a hinderance in close and he starts to "get in his own way" as Jack Dillon put it.

 

He could chop of his head.

 

Your examples were all from the HW division, if you move down in weight you have a good example in Cuevas vs. Hearns.
As i see it the problem for the shorter fighter is twofold:
If he's in with a tall puncher he'll risk being bombed out at long range before he can come in deliver his own bombs(eg Cuevas vs Hearns)
or
the taller fighter can keep him off-balance with the jab and tie him up in close(Tyson vs everyone you mentioned+Douglas)
Still as mentioned Tyson won against all those fighters except Buster, and there are certainly a number of exceptions to the rule. I don't even know if I would say that there exists such a rule in the first place.

 

You have only dwelled on the negatives.

What about the achievments of fighters like, Langford, Marciano, Frazier and Tyson. Maybe you can throw in Burns and Qawi in there too.

I think the defining word is "quality". You really can't compare guys like Bert Cooper, Sam Peter or even David Tua with the aforementioned in terms of overall fighting ability.

 

Dempsey destroyed Fulton,Willard and Firpo fighting as the little guy,so its not impossible if they're good enough.

 

Why not?
He was still a ****load taller than Dempsey and still got destroyed which shows the short fighters can still do the business despite what you think.And don't use the ring rust excuse for Willard as Klitschko had an equally as long layoff and still whipped Peter.Dempsey was simply better.

It's no sillier than your statement about taller fighters beating great smaller fighters and then using Tua vs Lewis and Cooper vs Williams as examples.Tua was decent but flawed and Cooper was little more than a journey man,they weren't anywhere near being great fighters.They both lost to small heavyweights as well so it's not as if they were beaten simply because they were meeting someone taller.

 

...What about Dempsey vs. Willard and Fulton, Greb vs. all the bigger guys he clobbered, Louis vs. Carnera, Simon, and Baer, etc.?