The "good big man beats a good little man"....is used when discussing fighters' weight, not height.
Being shorter or taller....one is not better than the other.
Sounds like a cliche, but it all truly depends on the fighter.
"A good little guy can't beat a good big guy" is, always has, and always will be 100% true in boxing. There are sports where size isn't important, or in fact where smaller guys have an advantage...boxing isn't among them.
I agree a good big fighter always beats a good little fighter.
Size is always an advantage in boxing. Whether the fighter uses it properly (or at all) is the only thing in question during a boxing match.
To paraphrase:
"A good little guy can't beat a good big guy" is, always has, and always will be 100% true in boxing. There are sports where size isn't important, or in fact where smaller guys have an advantage...boxing isn't among them.
At heavyweight, while there are lots of examples of “short” champions, I get the feeling the bar is being raised. I don’t think we’ll see a 5’10” heavyweight champion ever again. There are just too many skilled guys at 6’2” and over, and since there are no weight restrictions, the 5’10” 220 guy is going to be giving up 10 – 40 pounds in every fight. Not impossible, just really unlikely he could overcome that.
You say that we may never see another 5'10 heavyweight champion again, but there are plenty of people here that think that we may see a 5'10, 220 (or more) champion in three days.
While Jack Dempsey was a great fighter, I don't think he would've found Lennox Lewis easy to hit.
In any weight class but heavy, I think it's a toss up - pros and cons for tall vs short and lots of examples of both kinds of champions.
At heavyweight, while there are lots of examples of “short” champions, I get the feeling the bar is being raised. I don’t think we’ll see a 5’10” heavyweight champion ever again. There are just too many skilled guys at 6’2” and over, and since there are no weight restrictions, the 5’10” 220 guy is going to be giving up 10 – 40 pounds in every fight. Not impossible, just really unlikely he could overcome that.
Agree being shorter is good in all the weightclasses below hw, where the shorter is the stronger.
there is possible with another 5.10 heavy, we must just wait for another tyson.
jack dempsey loved fighting taller guys, he always said they were easier to hit
While Jack Dempsey was a great fighter, I don't think he would've found Lennox Lewis easy to hit.
In any weight class but heavy, I think it's a toss up - pros and cons for tall vs short and lots of examples of both kinds of champions.
At heavyweight, while there are lots of examples of “short” champions, I get the feeling the bar is being raised. I don’t think we’ll see a 5’10” heavyweight champion ever again. There are just too many skilled guys at 6’2” and over, and since there are no weight restrictions, the 5’10” 220 guy is going to be giving up 10 – 40 pounds in every fight. Not impossible, just really unlikely he could overcome that.
I would rather have a short quick, slick, elusive boxer over a tall rangy fighter any day.
jack dempsey loved fighting taller guys, he always said they were easier to hit
short guys hit harder, can work the body easier, and can slip punches easier. if the short guy can't get inside tho he's screwed, the tall guy can just jab him all day.
Tall of course. Like Emanuel Steward says...he is always trying to get his fighters to "fight tall", meaning using your reach. Its simple logic, tall fighters have the advantage......If they fight tall. They can keep other fighters at distance with their jab. I could not see any advantage to being short in a fight. I could....if the taller fighter was fighting like a short guy by coming inside however.
Two fighters of the same skill level and attributes.....Taller one has the advantage. That is why their openly say on televised fights.----fighter X has the Height and Reach advantage over fighter Y.
Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!