Why does size matter?

With all due respect i think you may be in for a painful shock if you spar with a guy 50+ heavier.
Bob foster thought he could punch pretty hard but look what happened when he put it to the test against the big guys... it had very little effect..... and he was the biggest hitting lightheavyweight ever!
You will also learn the hard way the first time a superheavy catches you with a jab walking in.

 

he got clobbered because he was a shyte wlad nobody, not becasue ortiz had been on the pies.

 

bob foster moved up to face 2 ATGS, thats why he got wiped clean. Not becasue he was facing fatties.

 

Folley and Ellis didn't care about him either.

Doug Jones also took his punches

 

just keep talking about it then.

 

Tua and Tyson punched harder than Evander, yet it was Evander who was able to get to and hurt Lennox in their second fight. Haye punched harder than Fury but wasn't able to make it count against Wlad. Ali was a lesser puncher than Frazier but beat Foreman. Etc, etc.

There are always multiple factors to take into account. Louis was considerably quicker and sharper than Marciano and able to string together a more ferocious forward assault, plus his greater height meant that less of his power was affected by punching upwards. That's a lot harder than punching down and limits your range of weapons a lot more.

Saying that Rocky's style and superior punching power would pose a greater problem to big fighters without anything substantial to back it up is only so much guesswork. The fact is he never fought a quality big guy in his entire career so we have no idea how he'd do. Looking at comparable scenarios however it's generally the case that the shorter fighter finds himself at a disadvantage against his bigger opponent unless he's exceptionally slippery or fleet of foot, two things not really in Rocky's favour.

Rocky's power was well documented against a generally smaller and older range of opponents than is normally the case. There is no fighter in history who has not suffered a lessening of their power the higher in weight they go. Since Rocky was still a human being there's no reason to suspect he'd be any exception to the case. And Rocky was a tiny heavyweight by any standards you care to make.

Louis was caught multiple times and hurt or dropped before he was able to get his own shots off. It happened against Galento, Braddock, B Baer, Jersey Joe, Conn. He was flatlined against Schmelling. It's to his credit that he more often than not got up from the canvas to beat his opponent down, but there'd come a point when he would be sustaining to much damage to come back from defeat. That'd likely happen the larger his opponent size got.

 

Some question to ponder on does size matter to the naysayers.


How many fighters at who won titles at Welter Weights also won titles at light heavyweight? There are only 28 pounds between the weight classes.


Why hasn't there been a sub 210 pound heavy weight champion since Mike Spinks, way back in the 1980's?


Why have super heavyweights pretty much held the title from 1992-present? 24 years is hardly a fad.


The Cruiserweight division today actually has decent talent. So what hasn't any of them in their prime moved to heavyweight to chase bigger purses and more glory?


My conclusion: Obviously on the top ten to world class level, size matters quite a bit.

 

So much nonsense on this post I don't know where to start. The problem is that you seem to believe that all of us who are disagreeing with you are either dumb or dishonest, when you really need to look in the mirror. The logic of your posts has been unpersuasive and at times incoherent, as if you have trouble even understanding and comprehending what other people have been writing.

The possibility that Foreman may be stronger than Arreola doesn't mean that bigger men don't tend to have strength advantages. If you think that every advantage I mentioned is "crap," then you DKSAB and don't understand some very basic stuff about athletics in general.

I didn't propose that a 100 lb fighter fight a 200lb fighter, I stated that size matters for both 100 and 200lbs fighters.

Did you ignore my Holyfield-Bowe example on purpose?

Yes, the type of big men that Dempsey and Marciano chopped down were indeed too uncoordinated to keep distance. This includes your guy Willard. There have been plenty of bigger fighters over the past forty years who would have been far better able to do so though, including some of the guys you've ignorantly called bums in other threads.

 

This clown is going to avoid your arguments by calling you an idiot for not sticking to heavyweights. Apparently the human body works differently once you are as big as Rocky Marciano. He doesn't get that if size was as unimportant at heavyweight as he imagines, guys like David Haye and other former dominant cruisers would have been ruling the division.

 

apart from doug, these guys were champions. lots of people took punches from tyson and co too.

 

We've seen Tyson knocking out genuine heavyweights, he was feared by most of his opponents.
He dropped most of the heavyweights.

He stopped Hazelton but Foster was the only man to need that much rounds for it, and Hazelton was ****. Hazelton later stopped Foster in a rematch.

But the good heavyweights he faced absolutely didn't care for any of Foster's punches.
He just got walked through, Ali just didn't bother with defence after a few rounds.
Foster landed his best shots, nothing.

Against Frazier he was basically as helpless as the horrible Zyglwitch

The other good big men didn't care either.

We've never seen him knock out anyone decent at heavyweight.
And the fights we have on film, we see those heavyweights not bothered in the slighest.

So I think it's safe to assume that he was pretty much a feather fist at hw.

He had the skills.
But he just didn't have the strength, power and chin to compete at hw.

 

This is what i get for arguing with a moron. I'm really only replying because I'm not ready to let your dumb ass get the last word on me. Can't tell whether you're being dishonest of if you're really this dense and delusional. If you don't get that Holyfield was pound for pound a far better athlete and boxer than Riddick Bowe, you need to log off and watch some boxing. Ditto if you don't get that size was the determining factor that enabled Bowe to defeat Holyfied. As I pointed out before, you seem stuck on this stupid idea that some of us think that size alone, regardless of skills or other traits, enables untalented big men to beat talented smaller ones, in every instance. I may be a "trash poster" but you need to work on your basic reading and your reasoning skills.

PS- I don't care what you think Willard did in his day, anyone with two eyes can see that he was a stiff, unskilled schlub who failed to make the most of his size. As you know, he lost to men much smaller and far, far less dangerous than Dempsey. No comparison between him and guys like Wlad, Ortiz, Fury, etc. None.