Why is reach even measured in boxing? Arm Length is what matters.

Thank you for the replies, I like to see what others think about this. I just cant accept the fact that arm length is not important and reach is.What is stuck in my head is Floyd with his extremely long arms punching behind the gloves of a guy covered up on a right hook from a mile away. A guy with short arms can not do that and this is a huge advantage in my opinion. The Cotto fight he did this and even the Guerrero fight too. To the original replier, very well articulated and I like the history of how reach was so important to sell fights, Thank you.

Which just goes to show listed measurements are a farce That list of favorite fighters is suspect to me. Where is floyd at?

Even a guy in a semi sideways stance his face will still be in front of his torso. Not to mention the body is still there. The only time what you are saying would come in to play is if both guys are jabbing to the head while leaning back or standing upright. WTF? Reach has just as much to do with where you get your reach from. Hence why they also measure your shoulder width. The poster you replied to was correct. When you're in a sideways stance like most boxers, that's where the reach measurement comes from. You aren't square up with your opponent. If someone's shoulder protrudes out more than yours, but your arms are the same length, who had have the longer reach? This is common sense.

Floyd and Wlad have the same arm lengths Which just goes to show listed measurements are a farce

Floyd and Wlad have the same arm lengths

You're missing something......reach does count. Most fighters stance is semi-sideways which means the leangth accross the back enters into the equation, especially when they jab. Only a fighter who fights an entire fight squared up is not going to benefit. A guy with broad shoulders who turns to jab will increase his arms leangth. Even a guy in a semi sideways stance his face will still be in front of his torso. Not to mention the body is still there. The only time what you are saying would come in to play is if both guys are jabbing to the head while leaning back or standing upright.

You're missing something......reach does count. Most fighters stance is semi-sideways which means the leangth accross the back enters into the equation, especially when they jab. Only a fighter who fights an entire fight squared up is not going to benefit. A guy with broad shoulders who turns to jab will increase his arms leangth. Good post...........

You're missing something......reach does count. Most fighters stance is semi-sideways which means the leangth accross the back enters into the equation, especially when they jab. Only a fighter who fights an entire fight squared up is not going to benefit. A guy with broad shoulders who turns to jab will increase his arms leangth.

Since nobody seems to be responding, I'll oblige. What they measure and what you mean by "reach" is really "stretch" meaning from fingertip to fingertip. It is a fairly useless way. But it has come down from the old days before any scientific information about boxers was really relevant. it used to make a great photograph to see a heavyweight boxer with his arms stretched out wide, like a pterodactyl. You are correct in that it's the arm length which is important. And I'll add to that, that the chest width can be helpful in determining reach. You see, the main target is the jaw, or head/face area, and assuming the boxer has a correct stance, mainly 3/4 angled, since the beginning of his arm is at the armpit, the wider his chest is, the more length there is from his head area (above his mid-chest) to the end of his fist. , even if it's only an extra inch. All this being said, a boxer with 28 inch reach can be out manoeuvred and beaten by a boxer with a 25 inch reach, depending on his footwork, punching positions of fists and timing, it happens all the time.