How much of the failure of Grant, Long, Brown, Fields, & Orlov is due to their size?

[The Hammer]

I don't know where you're getting that from. Grant only had 12 amateur fights and they didn't happen when he was a small child.

But he was hanging out and sparring in the boxing gyms as a boy. His family was involved in boxing, if I remember correctly.

[Clegg]

I think that at a young age, being taller/bigger can give you the sort of advantage that allows you to win fights. This can make you lazy and less dedicated because you take things for granted.

Bigger guys also tend to be less slower and possibly have worse co-ordination, not moving their hands and feet as fast or as well as a smaller boxer would.

I don't think the big guys you mention are bad because of their size per se, more like a big unskilled fighter can beat a small unskilled fighter, but then when the big unskilled guy meets a legit, skilled opponent he gets destroyed because the skilled guy can negate size and the big guy then has nothing to fall back on.

[The Hammer]

In the original post tunney says nothing about the klits,the case with most of those guys was a late start into the game.for you klit huggers they grew up in the game.

Vitali started boxing at about age 25. He's still done very well.

[Cardinal Buck]

Height works on a bell curve. The percentage of people over 6'2 or 6'3 in the US or basically anywhere else is very low (<1%). So only a small percentage of persons who have tried boxing will actually be that tall (unlike basketball, where every tall person basically tries it out). The success rate of tall boxers is pretty good. In the last 20 years, you've got champions/beltholders in Tucker, Bowe, K bros, Lennox, Valuev, and Aikenwande. Then you've got contenders in Grant, Fury, Helenius, Dimitrenko, and whoever I left out. So I think the tall are more successful than others in boxing considering how few of them exist in the total population.

[RichCCFC]

I see what you're doing but most of them are just completely untalented.