When you think about it, with just a couple noteworthy exceptions, all hw atgs have fit into one of two molds. They are either substantially larger than their peers( top ten contenders in the era), or substantially harder hitting. Here's a list of probably the most concencus atgs at HW, starting with Jeffries. All but three fit into at least one of the two categories: Jeffries: arguably both Johnson: arguably both (harder to judge in this era) Dempsey: power Tunney: Neither? Louis: Definitely power, slightly bigger than average Marciano: power Liston: power Ali: size Frazier: power Foreman: both Holmes: ? Slightly larger and harder hitting than average, but wouldn't really fit in either Tyson: power Holyfield: neither Lewis: both Vitali: both Wlad both Holmes was really the only true dominant hw of that group who was neither substantially larger or harder hitting than his peers. And he was above average. Only Holyfield was actually smaller than average without great power. Never really liked him or Holmes, but if there was a pp for pp( pound and power for pound and power) ranking among hw's, one of them is probably number 1. Just something to keep in mind when evaluating hw prospects etc for their likelihood to become dominant champs or atgs. It's hard to do it if you don't have great size or power for your era.
Agreed. Then people talk so much about "chin" How much do tall and skilled fighters actually take on their chins compared to the likes of Chisora Stiverne Povetkin and so on. One big punch here and there is not enough to take out most guys. The effect of the combined attributs of the tall and skilled often gets overlooked. Instead people think highly on their chins aswell. In a vacum I wouldnt bet against a proven but shorter boxer against a taller and more skilled in terms of pure chin value. How many power punches did Vitali Klitschko take on his chin during his whole career? Compare that to David Tua... Chins are vastly overrated. David Price is not skilled enough.
These discussions are always far too subjective, opinion based. I prefer objective facts like number of years as HW champion and number of successful defences. These statistics are all widely available. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_reigning_heavyweight_champions I also prefer not to cross compare different fighters from different eras- especially because the 60s and 70s is horrendously over rated by a lot of people. In 20 years time the 90s will be the new 60s and 70s. Its the sweet spot of when most boxing writers are in their 50s and respected that gets the most respect.
Take a look at reach... not only for HW's but ATG's in general. Many had a very large reach for their weighclass/size. Being able to hit your opponent from a point where they can't hit you and have to close the gap is a very big advantage to have. Size advantage doesn't mean much if you don't have the reach to come with it.
Idk, some of the big ones don't have a huge reach for their size, Vitali's is fairly small proportionately. Part of that is descrepancies in formula for measuring reach from what I've heard. But also, if you're taller, you can use your body to effectuate greater reach, like in Vitali ( and Ali's) lean back method. Especially, as for those two, when you have great reflexes to boot. In general it seems alot less important than height (which to be fair, is equally less important than weight in boxing)
I agree with alot of your comment. Only thing I'd say is that height of champs relative to the top ten list on Ring for their era is an objective and measurable fact
Julius Long had the height and the reach advantages like a gift from God, but he was still awful. But not as awful as he would have been had he been 6 foot 4 with a 75cm reach.
