When did people start criticizing tall fighters for not using height/reach?

Tyrell Biggs did it time and again...you won't find a better example.
Boxing at range takes superb fitness .
For some reason Ty could never keep it up.
For 3 rounds in the amateurs he was great.
Watch the first 2 minutes of his fight with Tyson, it was like watching Ali.
Or his fight with Jeff Simm where a broken collarbone forced him to fight one handed and concentrate on his great tools, height ,reach , jab...but he gave them away in most fights because he couldn't maintain that distance.
Maybe he wasn't as fit as he looked ?
He was / is a terrific guy , albeit with vulnerable sides to his character. Take away his addictive behaviour he could have been a champ.
He's doing ok, although not leading the life his exploits should've set up.
Contact with him is on / off , his brother Xavier coaches and is doing ok.His sister wrote songs for leading pop artists...Shame for Ty back home living in the family condo back with all the boys from the hood...

 

Well that’s what I’m asking. When did the idea that big men should keep their distance and exploit their length advantages to the fullest extent possible become “obvious” to the boxing commentariat?

 

I've been hearing it for as long as I can remember.

Something to think about. One of the best ways to keep a guy at distance is to make him pay when he gets close. It pays to develop a strong inside uppercut and a short hook. Then you can put the jab out and entice him into a hard shot.

 

Bowe was one of the most obvious examples of a HW that consistently gave up his height and reach in order to bang away on the inside. It worked wonders against smaller fighters, where Bowe's greater weight and ability to rip uppercuts on the inside often proved the decisive factor, but the first time he fought a similar sized opponent who knew how to box he got soundly thrashed.

Lots of Joe Louis's larger opponents constantly gave up their height. Buddy Baer was an obvious case.

 

Did anyone call them out on it at the time?

 

I think they've always realised it. The limiting factor in most cases prior to the modern age was lack of talent. Fighters were often too slow and clumsy to fight at range, or lacking the craft to fight in a safety first way that limited a shorter opponent's chances to get on the inside. There also seemed to be a certain macho streak in a lot of fighters that prevented them from exploiting what may have been seen as negative tactics at the time.

 

I really don't know. You'd have to ask someone more knowledgeable about the period than myself. I'm only commenting on what I observed.

 

Lance "Goofi" Whitaker is a prime example.

 

The answer is pretty obvious if you think about. In a fight you want every advantage possible, if fighter A is 4 inches taller and has a 5 inch reach advantage, in most cases it would be advantageous to use that height and reach. If he goes on inside, fighter B will have that advantage. Shorter reach will enable fighter B to get off his punches quicker than fighter A, fighter A probably wouldn't be able to get the leverage on his shots Fighter B would have. Plus being longer in close and infighting, fighter A would have more areas to defend esp the body . Also, fighter B. Would be able to hold fighter A more successfully and nullify his attack by tieing up one of those longer arms and control the angle fighter A could use simply by holding, side step and hit. It's not written in stone, and their has been some exceptions Bowe, Arguello and Corrales. But a prime example is what happened to Hearns vs Leonard #1 and Hagler. Both Leonard and Hagler lose to Hearns if they tried to fight outside. But they forced the fight inside. Nullifying that jab, and power of that right hand. The rest is history. So yes a fighter should use his natural advantages if he has them.

 

#Primo

 

the problem is some guys are tall but don't have long reaches. Many people compared Milton McCrory to Hearns, yet Milton had a 73 inch reach, less than Ray Leonard who was 74,,, and Hearns was 78 1/2

 

Very true. Eusebio Pedroza was a tall featherweight (5'8") with a 68" reach. Little Red Lopez was also 5'8" but had a 71" reach. Salvador Sanchez and Azumah Nelson had 68" reaches like Pedroza, but were 5'6" and 5'5". Pedroza's reach advantage was less significant than his height advantage, which is why at times he would have to fight inside against shorter fighters. He had a 3" height advantage against Juan LaPorte but they had the same reach, which is undoubtedly one of the reasons why their fight turned into a dirty close range brawl.

 

nice post, and Hagler had a 75 inch reach. He knew he could not compete with Hearns who had 78 1/2, so he brawled, but against most guys he could compete well. That is why I think he might have done ok at light heavyweight. He was short in stature but his reach was very good..

 

Sandy Saddler, Antonio Margarito, Alexis Arguello,

 

He was just scratching the surface of his God Given ability. Eddie Futch wasn't still training because he needed $ or had to be in boxing. He was with Riddick Bowe because he saw something there that was uncommon. The opportunity to sculped a masterpiece. Who knows how good he may have ended up has he stayed off the donuts?
Eddie Futch was painting the Mona Lisa and Riddick checked out before he could put the titties on.