are short boxers wasting time with this sport? (long read)

part 1 i've been studying the sport for quite some time and as a shorter boxer myself, i've been in the midst of devising a proper strategy to fight and beat taller fighters. lets look at the format for most boxers. In most of the lower divisions, boxers are more or less equivalent in height and reach. sometimes a Paul Williams comes along, but for the purposes of this discussion, he is irrelevant. why? Because Paul does not fight tall. I digress. The vast majority of times in the lower weight divisions, height and reach are equal, unless a fighter decides to be ballsy and move up. (like Pacqiauo) The heavyweight division is another story, you see a disparity in height and size of the fighters. You have your Mike Tyson's, your Joe Fraziers, and Marcianos. Mike Tyson fought in an era where heavyweights were increasingly getting bigger. Joe Frazier and Marciano may have come across an exceptionally tall guy once in a while, but it was a rarity, and those usually didn't have the skills to match the height. You move on to the 90's and the Lennox Lewis' and Riddick Bowe's are around, but not yet completely dominating shorter foes. Evander Holyfield made a contest of the Bowe trilogy and the second Lewis fight. Ray Mercer gives Lewis a hell of a fight. Coming to the 2000's Lewis beat Tyson decisively, the klitschko's are in complete domination of the division, usually beating on shorter, smaller fighters and enjoying huge reach and height advantages. You have more tall boxers than ever before. There are amateur heavyweight programs that stipulate a height of at least 6'3" to join. See a trend yet? If you are around mike tyson's height and fighting at heavyweight, it is discouraging seeing how he performed against lewis as well as holyfield. Admittedly, Tyson had a lot of issues, but for short fighters, he is the ONLY fighter to look toward for guidance. (previous short heavyweight did not have to contend with tall, good fighters. So why are the short heavyweights not having much success in the heavyweight division against tall, GOOD boxers? Because their bread and butter has been eradicated. Tyson wasn't an infighter, but he usually got close enough to land his punches. The short guys have to get past the jab and fight inside. This worked because tall fighters in the past either didn't know how or didn't like to clinch. A tall fighter that knows how to jab, but more importantly clinch, is a nightmare for a short fighter. What does it matter if you can get past the jab, if as soon as you get in, you are tied up? Well, you can throw some weak punches on the inside, but chances are they won't count. Show me a tall boxer losing to a short boxer, and i'll show a tall boxer that doesn't clinch. If you are short, you HAVE to be an infighter. You can NOT fight on the outside, ala Adamek-Klitschko, Kirk Johnson-Klitschko, and Chris Byrd - Klitschko. It doesn't work. The taller boxer is going to be a much better outfighter than a short boxer all things being equal because of the height and reach advantage. A short boxer's ONLY advantage is on the inside, but clinching takes that away. It's even worse if you have a ref break it up before you attempt to punch or judges not counting those punches. So, you can't fight outside or inside. So what to do? part 2 reveals how to deal with this predicament.

Comments (20)

It is a trend for HW, a trend I don't particularly like to be honest. I don't know about the US, but in central Europe the Klitsckho trend is indeed out of hand. In most gyms they won't even consider to seriously train a relatively small guy to fight at HW. It's somewhat a similar phenomena to the post Ali era, when everybody tried to fight like Ali. Nowadays most people think that the only way to be succesful at HW is fighting like Wladimir. As for having a reach and height advantage, I don't think it's something new in the sport, maybe it's now more common to see very tall fighters in the hw division, but by far not new. The Jess Willard and Primo Carnera's always existed. If something changed is referees' attitude towards clinching, inside fighting and fouls. I am also pretty sure that fans back in the day would have thrown all sorts of rotten vegetables into the ring if somebody used clinching as often as many 'outside fighters' do nowadays .

13y ago

bdawg56kg

I boxed for about a year and a half and was shorter than most guys I sparred with. I wouldn't say it is wasting time, but at least starting out, fighting small is definitely harder to learn. It is much easier to learn how to stick and move and throw the occasional right hand left hook, rather than cut off the ring, slip, close distance, then counter. Punching is the easy part. The hard part is moving your head and closing distance with your feet before your opponent gets away.

14y ago

Steven_Adams

14y ago

chiguy91

Short fighters are not wasting their time, but they could be fighting at a disadvantage (depending on the opponent). That question can be asked about several aspects that can be disadvantages in boxing: Are slow boxers wasting time with this sport? Are feather-fisted boxers wasting time with this sport? Are weak chinned boxers wasting time with this sport? A short fighter can be at a height disadvantage, but if he has better, faster footwork than his taller opponent that disadvantage can become negligible. yeah, i pretty much agree with this. fighters come in all shapes and sizes, depending on what weight you're fighting at, you just gotta be prepared to fight any kind of opponent that can be put in front of you. I personally think smaller fighters as my self have an advantage...it's hard to hit what you can't see under you... bend knees and explode up. can't green you right now, but i like how you said it man. nice, i agree with this as well.

14y ago

Verstyle

I personally think smaller fighters as my self have an advantage...it's hard to hit what you can't see under you... bend knees and explode up.

14y ago

David

I did read most of the thread and as many I disagree ... I fight and i am short and i have done pretty well against taller opponents than me. If you really are a midget against a huge guy then well maybe yeah you are wasting your time. But if you are average kind of short u have a shot against anyone... disadvantage well maybe yeah on the outside, but on the inside the advantage goes to the short one so... as everything else in life there are pros and cons.

14y ago

shadeyfizzle

you're talking as though training will solve everything and make all men equal sorta thing. yeah, of course you can improve most attributes but some people are just better at some things than others, and worse at some too. a jab isn't the only thing that a taller fighter uses to his advantage so just jab parrying is not the key to beating a taller fighter. technique and tactics are key- that is why the klitschko's are so good, not just because they're big. i bet if they were both 5 inches shorter each of them, they would still be damn good boxers but that they would box in a different way. but i still think that what you are good at and what you aren't plays an important role in deciding what weight you should box at. But all men are equal though. Im well aware that jabbing isnt the only thing the klits do well but here's the thing everyone that boxes or ever plans to box should have scorched into their brain: ANYTHING A FIGHTERS WORKS TO DO WELL MAKES THEM VULNERABLE IN ANOTHER AREA!!! the klitchkos for example since thats the example we've already been working with....do alot of things well. They have excellent jabs, they use their height, good power, wlad has an underrated left hook. Buuuuttttt..... They're very methodical and not very good at mixing it up. They dont have particularly quick feet because of their wide stance They're very stationary targets with very little head movement Once you get past the reach they're vulnerable to the body. This one is more personal speculation but I dont think their cardio is great and someone could push the pace on them. So they're not invincible or have any unfair genetic size advantages. Their flaws are very plain to see. Noone has been able to take advantage of their flaws in a long time though. But that has more to do with what their opponents do well just isnt made to take advantage of the klits flaws than any size advantage.

14y ago

Heru

14y ago

kiDynamite92

No offense dude but you're wrong, believe me when you've sparred and boxed your self you'll learn at the end of the day that skills pays the bills, especially things like timing. It's a funny era we live in nowadays where skills, footwork and experience is so heavily ignored and people focuss in on size, speed and power. Try sparring and then you'll know just how important things like timing are.

14y ago

LarryX

when i think about Margarito, Paul Williams or Kelly Pavlik i think the opposite man. what you mean 3 former champs??

14y ago

STREET_CLEANER

Look at Qawi and Steve Johnston careers. Short fighters and made it work for them

14y ago

LarryX

you have to take advantage of the qualities you have??some tall fighters cant fight tall to save their life and their advantage becomes their disadvantage........

14y ago

The_Gambler1981

They just have to work hard on fighting the way that benefits them, it really helps to be able to make the taller guy miss though and use that time to get to a good spot to do some work before they can start trying to clinch. Also the smaller guy needs to not let themself get clinched up, which is easier said than done but not impossible. Also aside from just closing the distance, a smaller guy can also move away trying to force the taller guy to give up their height and catch them making mistakes. It is tough though when a tall guy is real commited to keeping their range and knows how to use their advantages to the fullest while avoiding risks, it is why they call it a reach advantage but it is not a guerenteed win because not all tall guys are all that good at fighting tall.

14y ago

RichardPerez

Hey **** off, dont matter about hieght.

14y ago

F_l_i_c_k_e_r

No. Just join the weight class that averages your height. Win.

14y ago

frostyg

I disagree. Size and length isnt the problem here. Its speed and technique. So what if taller fighter has reach?? A simple parry oughtta fix his jab happiness. The lankier a fighter is the more dangerous it becomes for them to throw looping hooks and uppercuts and overhands. So if a shorter fighter doesnt have the speed to take advantage of openings angles and parries provide then its a training issue as opposed to some inherent genetic issue. you're talking as though training will solve everything and make all men equal sorta thing. yeah, of course you can improve most attributes but some people are just better at some things than others, and worse at some too. a jab isn't the only thing that a taller fighter uses to his advantage so just jab parrying is not the key to beating a taller fighter. technique and tactics are key- that is why the klitschko's are so good, not just because they're big. i bet if they were both 5 inches shorter each of them, they would still be damn good boxers but that they would box in a different way. but i still think that what you are good at and what you aren't plays an important role in deciding what weight you should box at.

14y ago

juggernautburn

i read a little more on the subject. and apparently, mike tyson just flat out refused to fight in the clinch. clinching happens, but if you just wait for the ref to break it up, you're not taking advantage of opportunity. clinching neutralizes fighters that hate the clinch, but if you are good at that range, like joe frazier was, you too can be a competent fighter as a shorty. there is a lot i must learn about the game, but tyson and his errors as well as the domination of the klitschko bros has lead many to believe that taller fighters have an insurmountable advantage. maybe even i started to believe it. anyway, maybe we'll see another great short fighter in the heavyweight division some day.

14y ago

Someone88

there have been lots of successful short fighter.there is no certain build that makes you successful.skill knows no size,color or nationality... Great post

14y ago

frostyg

hey guys, i know i made generalizations, but to sum up the essay i wrote, i didn't intend to come off as making facts, just observations and to get a discussion. cool mate, like i said, no offence intended and it's something definitely worth talking about and there is usually a degree of truth in many generalisations in any case. i agree with Rockin to a large extent- "Every fighter must find what works for them and then perfect it" BUT i would add that every fighter needs to learn how to box EVERY type of opponent. unless you want to have an achilles' heel of course.

14y ago

juggernautburn

hey guys, i know i made generalizations, but to sum up the essay i wrote, i didn't intend to come off as making facts, just observations and to get a discussion.

14y ago