Does size REALLY matter?

[.:: JSFD26 ::.]

Originally Posted by Skittlez

Are you asking if Gamboa can beat Broner? If one weight class matters? Or what?
I mean of course size matters that's why weight classes exist. But it don't really matter imo when it's only 1-2 weight classes apart. Especially 1.

A lot of these weight classes are pointless.

Say no weight limits. I will still pick a Prime Hagler fighting at 160 over every single 168 Fighter rehydrating to 175 today.

But to think that Prime Hagler can beat David Haye is just fantasy.

I will pick Prime Sugar Ray Robinson to maybe beat a Chad Dawson. But Prime Lennox Lewis will kill Ray Robinson. Not beat, but kill. Dead Ray.Dead.


Tyson and Tua are natural heavyweights, so that comparison don't mean much. In other words, if you see 5'10 Tyson on the streets, you will think to yourself 'wow that's a big guy'. If you see 5'9 Danny Garcia, you will think to yourself 'that's a skinny-average guy'

1) Nah I wasn't asking if Gamboa can beat Broner. That isn't the point of this thread. I was just using it as an example. Cause Broner IS bigger than Gamboa but like I said, TECHNICALLY he's only 1 weight class higher.

2)You answered my question pretty much with the rest of what's bolded. Im just trying to hear people's opinions about this issue.

Originally Posted by Skittlez

The fact that Tyson was a 'tiny guy beating up giants' is a made up myth. Tyson was a true heavyweight. His strength was on par with many super heavys and he had those thick legs calfs neck. He wasn't a tiny guy beating up giants. He was just a short guy.

By no means did I say he was a tiny guy but don't you think he was the smaller guy in that ring most of the time fight GROWN ASS man?

[JDezi4]

Height matters, not so much weight... It does make a difference, but not as much

Pacquiao is only half an inch shorter than Cotto, and had a longer reach I think (or it was the same)

Pacquiao was taller than Hatton, and had a longer reach (confirmed)

I maintain that size is Bradley's only setback... If he was like, 5'10" he'd be unbeatable at welterweight

[SeivUrBref]

Seems to me that no one had that many problems with weight back in the day with lesser weight classes.

[Own3d]

Originally Posted by Skittlez

One weight class do not matter though. That's just pure bullshyt.
The truth of the matter is that most SMW'S can fight at LHW.

Most 154LBERS can fight at 160. Most 147 guys can fight at 154.

One weight class does not matter at all. The ONLY significant jump is from LHW to CW.

Of course they matter, if a small JWW that only gains one or two lbs after the weigh in moved up and fought a big WW that gains fifteen lbs+ the size difference would be considerable. 20lbs is a big advantage in size.

[.:: JSFD26 ::.]

Originally Posted by JDezi4

Height matters, not so much weight... It does make a difference, but not as much

Pacquiao is only half an inch shorter than Cotto, and had a longer reach I think (or it was the same)

Pacquiao was taller than Hatton, and had a longer reach (confirmed)

I maintain that size is Bradley's only setback... If he was like, 5'10" he'd be unbeatable at welterweight

Cotto might've had the same reach but is naturally the bigger guy. I could've done an endless list of Pacquiao's opponents who were naturally bigger but I figured I'd just list the ones with the most significant size advantage. IMO if Gamboa was a fully fledged WW he would be bigger than Pacquiao, I believe he packs more muscles. Bradley is shorter than Pacquiao and has dominated the 140 weight division fighting bigger guys and will continue to do so at 147.

[FeFist]

Originally Posted by I'm so sorry

I agree with you, Gamboa does posses the tools to derail Broner despite the size difference. A lot of people just exaggerate when it comes to size. For instance Guerrero was a featherweight and who would have thought he would be bullying around Berto like a rag doll.

It is shocking as a matter of fact is almost unbelievable which is why I believe Guerrero is roiding.

[Own3d]

Originally Posted by AyoMaDu

Seems to me that no one had that many problems with weight back in the day with lesser weight classes.

Maybe because they had weigh in on the day so they couldn't dehydrate like they do now.

[.:: JSFD26 ::.]

Originally Posted by Own3d

Of course they matter, if a small JWW that only gains one or two lbs after the weigh in moved up and fought a big WW that gains fifteen lbs+ the size difference would be considerable. 20lbs is a big advantage in size.

In this case I'd like to bring up Martinez-Chavez and Pacquiao-Margarito. How many lbs do you think Chavez had on Martinez? What about Margarito on Pacquiao (not sure if there was a dehydration clause for this one)? The smaller guy might not be able to KO or hurt (even tho Martinez did hurt Chavez) the bigger guy but as you can see when they are skilled they are able to inflict their damage and find their way to win.

And as far as height goes, Lara was able to school a MUCH taller Paul Williams. While Martinez gave him a tough fight in their first encounter then was able to KO him.

[bojangles1987]

With Gamboa, I have reservations because I just don't know how he'll be at 135. If he looks good at the weight, then those questions will disappear. Broner is not just a big 135 fighter, he'll be a big 140 pounder as well.

[Own3d]

Originally Posted by jsfd26

Cotto might've had the same reach but is naturally the bigger guy. I could've done an endless list of Pacquiao's opponents who were naturally bigger but I figured I'd just list the ones with the most significant size advantage. IMO if Gamboa was a fully fledged WW he would be bigger than Pacquiao, I believe he packs more muscles. Bradley is shorter than Pacquiao and has dominated the 140 weight division fighting bigger guys and will continue to do so at 147.

Those guys were a level above their opponents, fighters with a similar level of ability size makes a big difference.