Size is the most overrated attribute

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by slantone, May 2, 2010.


  1. slantone

    slantone Ring General Full Member

    2,793
    0
    Feb 27, 2005
    time and time again- for the past 2 or 3 years especially , boxing experts have used size to determine their picks, particularly regarding floyd and pac, but also with other boxers as well. Each and every time an opponent has come up - its been "this is the truest test at welter", "This is the biggest opponent..", "How will he deal with the strength", "he s never been hit by a 147'er".

    its almost damn predictable- we ve seen it with Cotto, Ricky, Oscar, Shane, Clottey- all the same thing- and each and every time- size has **** all to do with it. Thats the thing about boxing- and the thing that has ALWAYS been about boxing- that size dosent matter- its always been about skill and style. Hopefully we can cut down on people sayin **** like- "im going with blah blah- cos blah blah has never been in with a true middleweight, and when he gets hit he s going to cry to his mom". bull****.
     
  2. Blind Sheikh

    Blind Sheikh Active Member Full Member

    935
    0
    Nov 18, 2009
    I keep telling my girlfriend that.
     
  3. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    just look at my avatar

    he messed people of all sizes up.
     
  4. VecArrow

    VecArrow Custom User Title Full Member

    6,776
    3
    Apr 23, 2010
    Sergio Martinez UD Kelly Pavlik

    Kelly won because ............ oh wait.
     
  5. slantone

    slantone Ring General Full Member

    2,793
    0
    Feb 27, 2005
    haha- i didnt think of that- but thanks- i feel better.
     
  6. qcolts

    qcolts Member Full Member

    214
    0
    Nov 10, 2007
    It works both ways. Margo-Cotto had alot to do with size because Cotto was clearly the more skilled fighter. Roy Jones-Tito Trinidad had alot to do with size because Trinidad was landing punches he just did not have the power at that weight to hurt jones. Winky-Mosley, Winky's size and strength largely caused shane to struggle.
     
  7. doomeddisciple

    doomeddisciple Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,001
    8
    Jul 19, 2004
    If Shane 2000 that fought Oscar showed up by magic - This thread would not be spoken off.

    He didn't cause he isn't.

    Not Floyd's fault - He did what he had to do.
     
  8. Fan88

    Fan88 Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,823
    1
    May 3, 2009
    So, by this logic, are fans ready to give Wlad his props? Or are they going to pull a double standard and say that, in Wlad's case, he wins only cuz he's so damn tall?
     
  9. ripcity

    ripcity Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    20,449
    51
    Dec 5, 2006
    Speed is overated if you don't use it propperly. If two boxers are an inch or two apart in height and/or reach those one or two inches are not going to make a diferance. If a boxer is a lot taller or moreimportantly has much longer arms than his oppoent than he can stay on the outside and pick his oppoent off with his jab and find openings for his straight. Sometimes throwing hooks from long range as well as well as short range if his foe gets too close. Also being taller gives you more punching power due to the tall body and long arms.
    So yes if you don't use your size propperly than yes size is overrated. There is a however though. That however is.
    If a boxer corectly uses his size advantages, size becomes one of the more underated attributes in boxing.
     
  10. DobyZhee

    DobyZhee Loyal Member

    46,252
    13,892
    Mar 5, 2006
    that's PBF's biggest advantage against Pacquiao. He's too big, That's why there are weight divisions. Pac's playing with the big boys.
     
  11. Vitor Belfort

    Vitor Belfort Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    18,334
    3
    Dec 17, 2008
    :good
     
  12. puga_ni_nana

    puga_ni_nana Dempsey Roll Full Member

    41,814
    5
    Apr 14, 2007
    size is nothing if they are not of the same skills level. but if they are of the same level, a good (great) big man would almost always beat a good (great) small man.
     
  13. TheGreat

    TheGreat Boxing Junkie banned

    13,028
    14
    Jan 12, 2005
    Size and strength is very useful BUT only if you can use it, speed is much more important IMO. Cotto beat the hell out of alot of JWWs, he was just to big and strong at the weight yet when came to WW, he had a hard time With both Margo and Clottey, Jermaine Taylor Got a draw with Winky Only because he was so much bigger and stronger. So size does matter, its just that speed and skill matter more.
     
  14. lzolnier

    lzolnier Boxing Junkie Full Member

    11,524
    34
    Jan 20, 2007
    agreed. sometimes people obsess too much about size diferences. A perfect example of this was the recent Arreola-Adamek match up, where very many people including fans, media and even experts who should know better, kept droning on thesame phrase: Too big, too strong.
     
  15. slantone

    slantone Ring General Full Member

    2,793
    0
    Feb 27, 2005
    Thats a good point- BUT Roy Jones was also a superior boxer and faster, and in Margarito's case- well- it may have been size- or it may have been something else- that won that fight- i think that fight should no longer be referenced for anything- cos we dont know what the **** was going on in that fight- , Still my point persists- Cotto WAS beating Margarito until the gloves began to take their toll. had we taken the loaded gloves out of the equation- skill would have won the day.

    And we all know Mosley always has trouble adapting when he s down early or when he s against anybody with a jab. he was more outboxed- that as much as he was outmuscled.