Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
The single most obvious example in the history of boxing is Tommy Hearns. If he was not 6'2" tall, if he were a 5'8" WW, he'd have gone 16-11 in his career.
That is easy for me to say because I think Hearns is incredibly overrated. This physically hurts me. I do not think Little Red Lopez would have done so well had he not been so tall for his weight.
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
And what is to say that inside fighters with short, stocky frames wouldn't have lost several more fights than they did if you made them a bit longer and a bit ganglier? They'd be weaker and less effective on the inside.
Why pick on tall guys? lol
As I said, any human being with the talent to box will develop a style that suits their frame... Not the other way round... :rolleyes:
If their frame was different then they would likely be just as talented but with a different style...
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Spot on Adam!
If Hearns was shorter he might take a punch better, he might lose pop off his own punch....its impossible to separate natural skill vs skills learned from size.
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
BOTH Klitschkos, Lennox Lewis, ...... come on, if these guys were even 6 foot 3 like Ali or Holmes, and had say a 79 or 80 inch reach only (rather than their , what, 85 inch reaches?) they wouldn't have been around even half as long as they were.
I am really starting to think that size is all that matters (90% anyway) in the heavyweight division as their is no ceiling there, no higher division they must not weigh into.
Lennox Lewis and the K brothers could block punches from a mile away just by extending their gargantuan arms forward and back peddling at the same time.
Like wise they could land overhand rights from halfway across the ring by throwing the punch and coming forward---the opponent even taking 4 steps backwards would still be on the end of the punch. Look at the punch Lennox Lewis landed on Vitali which cut his eye. He threw it from Mid-Ring and even with Vitali pulling back 3 steps in reverse the punch arched over the ring and came down about 15 feet later like a rainbow zooming in from outer space. If Lewis or Klitschkos had a standard reach of 78 inches or so, half of their punches would not have reached their target.
And as for height---goddamit, lets see most normal-sized fighters try to reach their fucking chins at 6 feet 5 and above.
These fighters would not have been shit were it not for their unusual size. Don't give me examples now of huge fighters who sucked. That will not disprove my points.
You are just trying to make the facts fit criteria that prove your argument. Holmes had an 81 inch reach and Lewis an 84 inch reach, Not 80 and 85 respectively. So you are adding an Inch to Lewis and taking one from Holmes. Then later in your argument you state that Lewis and the Klitschkos would need a standard reach of 78 inch to not be considered shit. Meanwhile Ali at 80 inches and Homes at 81 have their reaches shrunk by two or three inches to again, fit your argument. What about Vitali he has a 79 inch reach, that is shorter than Ali or Holmes ? What about the fact that Lewis fought many guys who were around his size or bigger and managed to beat them all. They can't all have been shit. Vitali has much closer to a standard reach than your examples with 79 inches and so your assertion that half his punches would not have reached his target if he did not have such a freaky reach is incorrect.
As for normal sized fighters ? what the hell is that? Granted at 6 foot 7 Vitali is very tall but Lewis at 6ft 5 was shorter than some of the fighters he fought and only a couple inches taller than most. Nearly all heavyweights are over 6 foot tall and even a small one like Haye is 6ft 3. The same Haye who despite having the mythical average 78 inch reach managed to hit Wlad flush and go many more rounds than most of Wlads bigger opponents. Your argument does not hold up to much scrutiny.
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AdamGB
And what is to say that inside fighters with short, stocky frames wouldn't have lost several more fights than they did if you made them a bit longer and a bit ganglier? They'd be weaker and less effective on the inside.
Why pick on tall guys? lol
As I said, any human being with the talent to box will develop a style that suits their frame... Not the other way round... :rolleyes:
If their frame was different then they would likely be just as talented but with a different style...
I think that this is a fair point, and one that addresses some of the success of the giants like the K brothers. They have learned to use their height advantage quite well...but many of their opponents don't know how to use their lack of height at all. Like Tua vs Lewis, thinking that by walking forward (sort of) resolutely, that he would somehow get to where he needed to be. Learn from Joe Frazier and Marciano, get smaller to fight guys that are trying to get bigger.
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
I think that this is a fair point, and one that addresses some of the success of the giants like the K brothers. They have learned to use their height advantage quite well...but many of their opponents don't know how to use their lack of height at all. Like Tua vs Lewis, thinking that by walking forward (sort of) resolutely, that he would somehow get to where he needed to be. Learn from Joe Frazier and Marciano, get smaller to fight guys that are trying to get bigger.
Lennox & The Klitschko's are smart fighters....who is to say if they were shorter or stockier they wouldn't continue to be just as smart and fight using their smaller height & lighter weight?
Point being they are/were successful due to their brains as well as their size.
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Yeah this is a not so thinly veiled moan about big lumps because the rock was a midget.
Go make some videos about beer you bastard and stop bitching ;D
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Regardless of the spin argument - "what if they were smaller" - it's obvious size is an advantage. So it's reasonable to question whether or not big men would have been as successful without their advantage.
There are currently 1085 pro heavyweights. Weight limit - 200-300lbs.
There are currently 4138 pro fighters between 147-160 - 13lbs difference.
The competition is clearly much more fierce the closer you get to an average sized man.
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Yea the reason it changes so much with the bigger guys is that even if you are not as good you are so big you have the power to knock better guys out. Reason i don't know why Lewis and Wald get so much flack for getting knocked out when how big the guys are that made it happen.
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Quote:
Originally Posted by
El Kabong
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
I think that this is a fair point, and one that addresses some of the success of the giants like the K brothers. They have learned to use their height advantage quite well...but many of their opponents don't know how to use their lack of height at all. Like Tua vs Lewis, thinking that by walking forward (sort of) resolutely, that he would somehow get to where he needed to be. Learn from Joe Frazier and Marciano, get smaller to fight guys that are trying to get bigger.
Lennox & The Klitschko's are smart fighters....who is to say if they were shorter or stockier they wouldn't continue to be just as smart and fight using their smaller height & lighter weight?
Point being they are/were successful due to their brains as well as their size.
Learning to use a height advantage is a skill in and of itself. Mike White was 6'10", played in the NBA; real tall, obviously 'athletic'. Not even a ranked pro during his career.
When you look to the lighter weight classes...Many old time fight guys considered Benny Leonard greater than Ray Robinson because benny was average height for his weight, while Robinson was very tall for his weight.
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Tyson Fury is massive but for his size he would be destroyed by now.
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
The single most obvious example in the history of boxing is Tommy Hearns. If he was not 6'2" tall, if he were a 5'8" WW, he'd have gone 16-11 in his career.
That is easy for me to say because I think Hearns is incredibly overrated. This physically hurts me. I do not think Little Red Lopez would have done so well had he not been so tall for his weight.
And yet look at Paul Williams. Pretty much the exact same specimen and yet one used his advantages and one did not. Even the one that didn't had reasonable success by skirting around them.
Would Ray have been Ray or Ezzard Ezzard? Would Saddler have beaten Pep 3 times? Imo you cant discount size (meaning more then weight) and you cant over count it either. Jimmy Wilde looked like a scurvy ridden anemic bean sprout and look what he did. Something else makes or contributes to these guys. Something not physical.
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Quote:
Originally Posted by
IamInuit
Quote:
Originally Posted by
greynotsoold
The single most obvious example in the history of boxing is Tommy Hearns. If he was not 6'2" tall, if he were a 5'8" WW, he'd have gone 16-11 in his career.
That is easy for me to say because I think Hearns is incredibly overrated. This physically hurts me. I do not think Little Red Lopez would have done so well had he not been so tall for his weight.
And yet look at Paul Williams. Pretty much the exact same specimen and yet one used his advantages and one did not. Even the one that didn't had reasonable success by skirting around them.
Would Ray have been Ray or Ezzard Ezzard? Would Saddler have beaten Pep 3 times? Imo you cant discount size (meaning more then weight) and you cant over count it either. Jimmy Wilde looked like a scurvy ridden anemic bean sprout and look what he did. Something else makes or contributes to these guys. Something not physical.
Yes. The notion of making Hearns a 5'8 WW... He'd be a completely different human being, what on earth is that supposed to mean? You can't seperate a fighter from their build and play what ifs like that, it's completely assinine. These men spend their lives learning to fight with what natural tools they have. If Hearns had been 5'8 he probably would've been a lot like a Saddler and fought around 130 pounds. No reason whatsoever to think he would've been any less good.
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr140
I think brockton is just pissed because Rocky would get his ass kicked into days heavyweight division. I mean ever sense he admitted it he has had some kind of agenda against the big guys in the division. Did Tyson or Holyfeild do so poorly against big guys not really. I mean Holyfeild beat Bowie in the rematch and Took Lewis in rematch to a draw at the very least and he was like fucking 37 years of age. If being big was such a advantage then how come Vitali, Wlad and Lewis are the only champs you can think of who were huge and good at boxing. There are plenty of big guys now yet not one is even close to those guys you know why there not because they are not as skilled in boxing being big can work against you to. I mean you lose speed and in the inside it can be rough for you with long arms but the guys i mention have worked on it because there great heavys.
point 1---Rocky would not fight somebody 6 foot 7 and 250 pounds. Thats ridiculous. He was 3 weight divisions under that stature. Why would I even consider Rocky fighting Lennox Lewis or Wladimir Klitschko or Tyson Fury? Neither I nor Rocky would even consider it.
point 2---I love Foreman he is probably my number 2 alltime favorite. Nothing against big guys.
point 3---they are not the only 3. currently no one seems to be able to beat either Klitschko, nobody soundly ever beat Valuev, nobody can seem to touch Tyson Fury, nobody could get past Lennox's reach except for those 2 freak times lets call them, and how many other boxers actually were there over the past 10 years who were above 6 foot 5 and 250 pounds anyway? Its becasue there weren't very many human beings in boxing who were that size. Its rare for a boxer to be 6 foot 5 and 250 pounds-plus. The ones who are that size seemed to be champions in my opinion.
Could Rocky Marciano ro Joe Frazier or Mike Tyson or Jerry Quarry or Evander Holyfield even REACH THE FUCKING CHIN OF TYSON FURY????
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Valuev never fought a good heavyweight but when he fought a decent one he got beat FACT! Taras Bidenko stunned him....Taras fucking Bidenko!
Vitali & Wlad offered Valuev shots at their belts and nothing doing, Valuev didn't want anything to do with them because he'd get his super huge yeti skull beaten in!
