It took Lewis 24 total rds and 2 fights to finally defeat a old, very ring worn ,well past prime Holyfield. later the very next fight after the Holyfield fights he destroyed the "Super Heavyweight " all 6'7" 250 lbs Micheal Grant in 2 rds. It's easy to omit the details when one is trying to prove your perspective. No one whom has any common sense is suggesting a decent Heavyweight won't defeat a great lightweight . But the argument in general is usually about fighters between 200-220 lbs vs fighters over 235lbs. And Any great heavyweight fighter over 200lbs has a very good chance against a merely good or average 235lbs and above heavyweight fighter (Like most have been the last 20yrs) And its been proven multiple times in a boxing ring over the last one hundred years.
To me it’s all about styles. Styles are more important then size once you get past a certain weight. I don’t think you can be a regular old stand up straight kind of HW at 6 foot anymore. Better develop a crouching swarming style or slick defensive style then you can hang w the big boys.
My point is Lewis beat Holyfield because of his size advantage more than his boxing ability. Lewis would not beat Holyfield if they were the same height and weight IMO.
It matters in HW division if one guy is much bigger than his opponent. Not so much in other divisions except height and reach advantages still matter in those classes.
Exactly as I thought. But like I said there is a cut off point where excess size becomes a disadvantage. I think it's safe to say 240lb is not that cut off.
Ok so opinion is that size does matter up to a certain point, what point is that then in your opinion?