-
Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
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.
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
What's to say that these guys would fight the same way if they were smaller?
Big guys develop and adapt to suit their build, just like any other boxer.
-
I can already imagine some will argue against this thread from the start but I for one agree with the principle here.
In other weight divisions there is a tighter leash kept on the size differences between the fighters but with the heavy weights its different.
These days the small heavyweights are at a big disadvantage. Too big for cruiser weight but too small to hang with the big guys.
Mike Tyson was an exceptional small heavy weight but despite that even he had trouble when some if the bigger guys would tie him up or lean on him.
Its a tough situation.
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Great now Titogirl and the other baboon will come in here and discredit every mexican fighter who ever went up 2 pounds or above their weight on fight night
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Valuev
Say what you will but the Klitschkos and Lewis were athletic and powerful
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Lennox Lewis was 'only' 6' 4 3/4" tall and is thought of as being a giant heavy. Yet David Haye, a 'small' heavy, is 6'3". Not much different. In fact, Lennox Lewis is closer in height to Haye then he is to either Klitschko. Lewis' height didn't make him what he was. His reach is more valid, but still, he had a dominant and at times destructive jab that plenty of people with that reach don't have.
Also, you say that half the punches he threw would have missed if he had an average reach, but as Adam alluded to above he wouldn't have been throwing shots like he had an 85 inch reach if it was only 79inch. He would have adapted.
-
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.
Ill try to disprove you.
They were all stopped multiple times during their careers.
Mike Tyson was small.
Joe Fraizer
Wlad has destroyed massive fighters, yet couldn't stop Haye.
Haye owned Valuev.
Vitali has owned massive guys, couldn't stop Chisora.
Theres a mix of things.
Oliver McCall practiced like hell in training to land the right hand that KOd Lewis.
It's all about tactics.
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Vendettos
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.
Ill try to disprove you.
They were all stopped multiple times during their careers.
Mike Tyson was small.
Joe Fraizer
Wlad has destroyed massive fighters, yet couldn't stop Haye.
Haye owned Valuev.
Vitali has owned massive guys, couldn't stop Chisora.
Theres a mix of things.
Oliver McCall practiced like hell in training to land the right hand that KOd Lewis.
It's all about tactics.
:shakehead: He barely edged him on points
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
1. Tony Margarito as a welterweight
2. Brandon Rios as a lightweight and junior welterweight
3. Adrian Broner as a superfeather and lightweight
4. Saul Alvarez as a junior middleweight
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Forget the differences in weight divisions too...
Doesn't mean much come fight night, when one fighter has rehydrated 4lb and the other fighter has rehydrated 14lb or more...
You've got middles fighting down at Welter and light Heavyweights fighting at middleweight, at least the heavyweight division is honest about it.
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Adam is dead on in both of his posts. Saying Lewis wouldn't have been dominant without his size is just as stupid as saying the same of Ivan Calderon for the most part.
The point about divisions is a crucial one to. Guys who are huge for a weight or have a size advantage on fight night anywhere below HW, do so because they are able to shed water and rehydrate more than their opponent. Everyone is different in that sense, and obviously many guys put themselves in terrible shape doing the same thing that works tremendously for others.
To me there isn't a lot which can be done about this as far as changing the weigh in times etc. Being able to cut weight while retaining power and the ilk is down to a science just like any other aspect of elite training. If some guys are better at it then that is a natural advantage just as being faster or stronger than someone is, at least the way I see it.
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
I say go to my proposal: you create a SuperHeavy Composite INdex based on 3 factors:
whoops I .........wait OK
1. Reach
2. Height
3. Weight
for example, if a guy is above 6'4", has more than 80 inches in reach and weighs over 225 pounds, he would be scoring into the SuperHeavy division on all 3 criteria.
if another guy is 6'7", 85 inch reach but only weighs 210, he would still---by taking the composite of the 3 criteria, qualify into the SuperHeavy division.
but if a guy is 6'2" tall, 78 inch reach and weighs 217 pounds----how the fuck is that a fiar fight against a Lewis or a Klitschko? Thats my point.
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
@brocktonblockbust
I understand the point fundamentally Brockton. Given two men of equal skill and intangibles the bigger man wins. When this is not the case you get the Valuev’s and Carnera’s of the world and once in awhile a guy like Foreman who imo was short on skill but found a way because of his mutant power and sheer will.
It took awhile for Wlad to get on track even with his size and skill set. One little thing like not knowing how to clinch or tie up allowed smaller less skilled guys to get to him. After years of honing his craft he now seems unbeatable albeit against a less then stellar crew of contenders. That’s where your theory may have some traction. How would these talented bigger guys do against a much better crop of smaller guys both skill wise with loads of drive and desire? We don’t have the division to test that hypothesis. Instead Mitchell will become the next challenger. And Lewis had the skill set along with above average power and he got ko’d by two people that couldn’t carry his jock strap. His size and pedigree as a fighter was trumped by his tendency to get lazy with an approach almost like a Rastafarian.
Not a hev but still applicable is Paul Williams. Here is a guy that had every physical advantage you could ask for including the same wing span as both K brothers and yet he fought as if he was 5 foot 5 with a Ricky Hatton reach.
Cool topic
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
We're not quite at the point where it's needed yet.
Most Smaller heavies could get down to cruiser - if you're under 225 and you can't drop a few pounds and sweat the rest out then you must be extremely lean (how many heavies look in shape now days?). There's more money and prestige at heavyweight and seeing as how most cruiser walk around well over 200lb, it's easier for them to just not bother cutting weight... It's their choice, so if their effective fighting weight is 200lb but they chose to fight guys 225+ then they can't complain.
The other point is that weight and height don't give you a godlike advantage, look at Valuev, look at Carnera, look at how Tyson made it a disadvantage to be taller than him.
You're telling me that the likes of 219lb Sultan couldn't do 200lb? http://www.eastsideboxing.com/fotos/1F2C1555.jpg
I don't think the problem is that heavies are too big, too many guys shouldn't even be in the division, which is why we get all of these mismatches.
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
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.
-
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!
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Quote:
Originally Posted by
brocktonblockbust
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????
Uh, yes? They would all clobber him in a few rounds tops. I think it's kind of funny that you include Valuev and Fury in your arguement here. The way they fight is actually quite typical for men of that size, they are slow and clumsy as hell. Lewis and the Klits are dominant because they have the speed and dexterity of smaller men, they don't by any means represent men of their size by and large. It's no different than a lightweight who punches like a welter, that's a natural advantage that is very difficult to overcome if said fighter develops his craft well.
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Tyson Fury would get killed by a prime Tyson what are you talking about Brock?
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Mike Tyson.
If he were a 6ft 4 hulking mass of muscle, he'd be Frank Bruno.
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Without reading anything other then the opener to this thread, its seems pretty pointless to me. You cant say a fighter is only good because of there size because thats part of them. You could then say what fighter would not have been so great without their speed, their power etc.
You could take one think from any fighter and they would not have been so great.
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Havyweights Primo Canerra was 6'6" 250 and although most of his bouts were controlled by the mob he did know how to use his height advantage especially because he punched with very little power!
Ali might have had a tuffer time if he was 6' tall. His reactions and eye hand coordination was above everyone elses but his unconventional habit of "leaning back" from punches wouldn't be as effective without his 6'3" advantage!
Wlad Klitz has used his height advantage as well as anyone through boxing history! His height gives him a reach advantage also and without his 6'6"/7" height I don't believe he has the success he's had! His skills are ordinary and his power is above average but his height is the deciding factor against inupt challengers who don't have the skills or willingness to get under him!
Tommy Hearns obviously used his 6'1" at 147 to a huge advantage to go along with dropping a huge right hand! Tommy used his height well but was at a disadvantage once his opponent broke inside him! Also those long skinny legs weren't the best "shock absorbers" when punches bounced off his chin! Hearns had more heart than most, thats for sure!
Jess Willard 6'7" thats about it for Big Jess he was a tuff SOB but if he was 6' he'd never have the success he had!
Sndy Sadler at 5'9" 126lb featherking had a huge advantage in size but he didn't need it hahaha!!
After being stopped in his second pro fought he fought 161 more fights and was NEVER stopped again! He was a big feather that could punch holes in walls!
Theres plenty more but heres a few I think are pretty meaningfull. Ray
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pavlik
1. Tony Margarito as a welterweight
2. Brandon Rios as a lightweight and junior welterweight
3. Adrian Broner as a superfeather and lightweight
4. Saul Alvarez as a junior middleweight
I agree.
You can add on the list :
5. Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. as a Middleweight
6. Nonito Donaire as a flyweight and bantamweight
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Greenbeanz
Granted at 6 foot 7 is very tall . Your argument does not hold up to much scrutiny.
bullshit. Michael Granted was 6 foot 8. Now you are subtracting an inch.
p.s. Beanz. Those Fury clips prove shite mate, in the 2nd clip yes Fury goes down at 545 but he almost knocks out his opponent at 6:07. He reovered fast and held on due to his gargantuan size. Then lands a wicked overhand right. He only survived for his size, hanging on and clutching and smothering. Thats another thing a huge guy can do when hurt---clutch and smother and grab, the oppoent cannot even bee seen he is totally covered up as if by a giant squid.
Joe Frazier had nowhere to clutch and hold when Foreman batted him about the ring in '73. He was too small. Lewis could clutch and hold with his huge arms until he recovered, like Fury did in both of your clips.
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jimanuel Boogustus
Mike Tyson.
If he were a 6ft 4 hulking mass of muscle, he'd be Frank Bruno.
bruno is thelb4lb best heavyweight of all time
-
Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size
its a bit of a daft question in someways because a boxxers physical advantages are his weopons
mayweather wouldnt be as good if he wasnt so quick
lewis wouldnt have been so good if he wasnt so big
but lewis would have fought a different style if he was a few inches shorter and more than likely would still have been a success
wlad klit tho relies so heavily on his size, he protects his chin with his size
I would say take away klits size he wouldnt be anywhere near world champ