Why does size matter?

And, more generally?

You'd also pick him if he was 200lbs, 6'0?

 

If you like.

I'm not "getting at" anything. There is no hidden meaning. The questions are the questions. They have simple, straightforwards answers for the most part.

 

This is astonishing paranoia.

OK, here's an even easier one. Lennox Lewis is a heavyweight champion at the extreme end size-wise. Do you think that his size makes him:

a) a better heavyweight generally than he would have been at 6'0?
b) a worse heavyweight generally than he would have been at 6'0?
c) there would be no meaningful difference in his quality at heavyweight if he was 6'0?

Which of these do you think most closely describes your position?

 

There was no reason for your confusion. The answer you've given is correct and probably the only answer that could be reasonably defended.

It is fair then to say that Lewis's unusual size makes him a better heavyweight, then.

 

This is a hell of a turn around. We've gone from Dempsey perhaps "not being able to land a punch" to knocking Little Lewis out in under three minutes.

But i commend you for your change of heart because, again, it's the only reasonable answer.

Lewis's diminished size would make him a less dangerous heavyweight.

 

Roger that.