Size means nothing. We need to abolish all weight divisions, correct the records of all past fighters via the Peoples Revolutionary Record Referendum, and move forward with a single Boxing Champion.
Don't look at me. I want to go back to fights to the finish, battle royale and a firm holding of the colour line.
I guess I can look for different articles on Walcott's behave pertaining to that with HolyField he did push Bowe a few times but in doing so tired himself, Lewis and Foreman were physically strong so of course that wasn't going to be successful and he didn't really try it much with Valuev either he was more trying to outbox him and was robbed but that's another discussion, but the point I was making is that not all big men are strong men those fighters happen to be stronger. (In that case I should make a who was big but not too strong thread but later for that) on Dempsey yes it's more of a stylistic approach but it still showed that Dempsey though he demolished big men both in sparring and in the ring he had struggled with a smaller Gerb regardless. So would you say that technique could overcome a usual size advantage or disadvantage
but anyway everybody is making good points its agreed that size is a factor but how much of factor is depending upon the fighters and their gameplan. Could we all agree on that?
Arguing that size doesn't matter flies in the face of the entire history of the sport. That's why they are weight classes. Within weight classes, except for heavyweights in some cases, it's not as much of a factor.
So after all d mentioning of names and summoning some feeble demons from d past u didn't give 1 example of a smaller man managing 2 push a bigger man , which was d subject of this argument . thistle1 already answered your 1st post of d thread quite perfectly , but I keep wondering if there is even 1 example of a smaller man who managed 2 push a bigger man .
Size is a toll like anything else in boxing. You don't win simpily because your bigger or have a reach advantage. However if you take advantage of your advantages. You increase your chances of winning.
It does make a difference no matter how you slice it: When it comes to the smaller divisions the the good bigger fighter will generally beat the good smaller fighter as on the whole they are bigger(obv.), stronger, punches will be more punishign, chin would be able to withstand more, can get the better of them in clinches, longer reach etc. etc. When it comes to the heavyweight division it really depends on the fighter, sometimes being the bigger fighter against certain other fighters can be disasterous. Best example would be Joe Louis who beat EVERY big heavyweight he came across usually by KO because he could use his short, fast punching to get inside the bigger mens slower, wider punches. Then again when it comes to punchers it can make a HUGE difference like i said in another thread about wlad vs dempsey. Wlad has about 60 pounds on dempsey ,all muscle, and he'd be punching down against him. Anybody who has ever sparred with a puncher who weighed considerably more than you can attest to it making a big difference.