Boxing Forums



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 60

Thread: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size

Share/Bookmark
  1. #16
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    McAllen, Texas?
    Posts
    5,504
    Mentioned
    177 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1215
    Cool Clicks

    Default 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.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    11,430
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2082
    Cool Clicks

    Default 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...

    If their frame was different then they would likely be just as talented but with a different style...

  3. #18
    El Kabong Guest

    Default 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.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Edge Of Nowhere
    Posts
    25,138
    Mentioned
    951 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1387
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size

    Quote Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust View Post
    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.
    Hidden Content

    "I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it."

  5. #20
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    McAllen, Texas?
    Posts
    5,504
    Mentioned
    177 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1215
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamGB View Post
    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...

    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.

  6. #21
    El Kabong Guest

    Default Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size

    Quote Originally Posted by greynotsoold View Post
    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.
    Last edited by El Kabong; 06-24-2013 at 03:33 PM.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    20,067
    Mentioned
    186 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1814
    Cool Clicks

    Default 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
    When God said to the both of us "Which one of you wants to be Sugar Ray?" I guess I didnt raise my hand fast enough

    Charley Burley

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    This Lunatic Asylum
    Posts
    23,278
    Mentioned
    428 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3124
    Cool Clicks

    Default 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.
    3-Time SADDO PREDICTION COMP CHAMPION.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,645
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1112
    Cool Clicks

    Default 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.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    McAllen, Texas?
    Posts
    5,504
    Mentioned
    177 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1215
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size

    Quote Originally Posted by El Kabong View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by greynotsoold View Post
    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.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    66,308
    Mentioned
    1697 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    3106
    Cool Clicks

    Default 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.
    Do not let success go to your head and do not let failure get to your heart.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Northern Canada
    Posts
    9,793
    Mentioned
    86 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    997
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size

    Quote Originally Posted by greynotsoold View Post
    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.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    12,748
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1335
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size

    Quote Originally Posted by IamInuit View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by greynotsoold View Post
    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.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Ex'way to your Skull
    Posts
    25,024
    Mentioned
    232 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Boxers who you think would NOT have been so great if not for their size

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr140 View Post
    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?

  15. #30
    El Kabong Guest

    Default 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!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. TOP 3 COUNTRIES WITH GREAT BOXERS
    By brucelee in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-11-2007, 05:32 AM
  2. Unlikely Great Pro Boxers?
    By Beanflicker in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 03-09-2007, 12:58 AM
  3. End of the Road for Four Great Boxers...
    By ArawakWarria in forum Boxing Talk
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-28-2007, 04:35 AM
  4. Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-11-2006, 04:48 AM
  5. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-04-2006, 07:02 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Forum | Boxing Rankings

Copyright © 2000 - 2025 Saddo Boxing - Boxing