Why does size matter?

Point is that Dempsey like Tyson had one of the atg chins irregardless of his technique.

 

It's regardless.

 

No, I'm just trying to figure out the logic of your "direct" response. Keep in mind that this thread is titled "Why does size matter?"

I posed the question "how would a larger version of Rocky Marciano do against the classical version?"

Your response was classical Marciano easily! You reasoned that the smaller classical version of Marciano would have the advantage of being able to come in lower and would have more endurance than the larger version indicated that I must not know very much about Marciano by virtue of the fact that I asked the question. I think I do know a little bit about Marciano and consider myself an, however, this is beside the point.



Using your logic, I followed by asking if a smaller version of Rocky, who would be able to come in lower and would be quicker, with more endurance be able to defeat the larger classical Marciano. Again, you become defensive saying that I was attempting to put words in your mouth. This is not the case. I posed the question generally. You're the one that responded that the answers were obvious. Now you seem to be saying that the answer is not so obvious what would happen if Marciano was larger.

 

Except that you can't quite grasp apparently that I was merely asking the question. You are impressively thick.

It would appear that the point of the thread is why is size important?

To illustrate why size is important would be to remove the other variables. Do you follow? In other words, if all other things being equal.

 

I understand that this answer doesn't get to the "spirit" of your question, but classic Marciano should win.

I say he should win, because Marcianos style fits his size. Now, if the bigger Marciano had time to refine his style, that's a different story.

 

So then it sounds like agree that size matters. Maybe you can answer your own question then...

 

Bigger guys inherently are stronger.

I got some super heavies at my gym, and I personally think I can punch harder than most of them. I could be wrong, but I've yet to hear them produce the sounds and impacts on the bags that I've been able to with my power shots. However, it's still too early to say.

But they can do things to the bags with little effort, that require more effort from me. For instance, they can throw a jab with out leaning in, and to match the power, I would have to lean in with the jab.

I'm a hard puncher, but I have to work harder on my punching technique than the supers, to match their power. These guys can slap around the bag with lazy technique, and move them around easier than the smaller guys, relative to the kinds of punches they throw.

I have this feeling that I'm gonna spar these guys eventually, so I've kinda been preparing for that mentally. It's forced me to get really honest with myself about the dangers and opportunities in fighting these guys. The first thing it made me notice, is that all the supers have really big heads! Which at first looks really intimidating. But then you realize that heads (hopefully) can't attack you, and that they are just big targets!

I know if I land my hard shots, anyone will go down, superHW or not. So I'm hopeful that I can get under a jab and land an overhand, or an uppercut to the body. But if I tried to just move around and box these guys, I feel like I'd be ****ed. At the same time, these guys are way ahead of me in their boxing careers and experience.

One downside I see first hand, is that it seems like their weight makes them have to use more energy than other weights to do the same thing. It's as if their bodies require additional "gears" to get things in motion. You can notice the strain. These guys can be slick, but they don't glide around the ring. They don't look smooth.

I feel like with more experience, I can learn more about the pros and cons of the supers. I'm also kind of writing this as a stream of consciousness kind of post, just replying my thoughts.

 

Rez I just appreciate the fact that you understand that it was a question! Not everyone can grasp that subtly!

I would throw in that being the optimal size could also hinge on the relative size of one's opponent. Perhaps Marciano was the right size for that time.

 

No-- the problem is that the question you led with "why does size matter" isn't really the one you meant to ask. You admit that size matters. Your real question is why some people here think that size advantages can help "lesser" fighters beat "greater" but significantly smaller fighters.

As I've always complained, some guys here put "ATGs" on a pedestal to the point that they sound like they're discussing a race of immortals/comic book superheroes who can't ever be beaten by "regular" heavyweight champions and contenders, even if they have significant size advantages.