Are long arms an advantage in boxing?

[New England]

of course they are.....

[Barn]

It's not the length that matters, it's the skill that counts!

At least that's what I tell myself.

[SBleeder]

It's not the length that matters, it's the skill that counts!

At least that's what I tell myself.

That's not what your wife says...

[B-Bomber]

It depends on one's style.

Lamont Peterson is a good example of a tall fighter who doesn't fight tall and doesn't really gain any advantage from his reach.

W. Klitschko, on the contrary, succesfully adapted his style to use his reach and avoid being hurt/ knocked down.

In general, it surely doesn't hurt, but it's not necessarily a relevant factor, imo.

[AlexKid]

It depends on one's style.

Lamont Peterson is a good example of a tall fighter who doesn't fight tall and doesn't really gain any advantage from his reach.

W. Klitschko, on the contrary, succesfully adapted his style to use his reach and avoid being hurt/ knocked down.

In general, it surely doesn't hurt, but it's not necessarily a relevant factor, imo.

Tyson and Lennox Lewis are pretty evenly matched imo despite having very different body types, Tyson dosnt seem to be at a massive disadvantage, nor was fraizier and Ali, or Rocky and Louis.

It seems easier to learn how to fight when you are tall and long, but easier to learn dosnt mean more effective, I think people think its safer/would feel safer to try and stay at long range.

I honestly dont know if its one of those fad myths that ignorent people believe (like bodybuilders with big arms and chest being hard and having a big punch on them) or if long reach is genuinely an advantage, I dont care whether it is or not, all I look for is the objective truth.

[TBear]

Bonecrusher had an 82" reach but it didn't do him much good against Mike Tyson who only had an 15 inch reach.

[B-Bomber]

Tyson and Lennox Lewis are pretty evenly matched imo despite having very different body types, Tyson dosnt seem to be at a massive disadvantage, nor was fraizier and Ali, or Rocky and Louis.

It seems easier to learn how to fight when you are tall and long, but easier to learn dosnt mean more effective, I think people think its safer/would feel safer to try and stay at long range.

I honestly dont know if its one of those fad myths that ignorent people believe (like bodybuilders with big arms and chest being hard and having a big punch on them) or if long reach is genuinely an advantage, I dont care whether it is or not, all I look for is the objective truth.

Absolutely, it might appear easier, but it is by no means more effective by default. As I said, in my opinion it depends on one's style.

To be frank though, Ali used his reach very effectively, also Foreman, to a lesser extent, relied on it. Louis himself wasn't short , especially for his times, but he did not rely so much on his reach.

Back to topic, I believe that the truth is in the middle. A long reach -can- be an advantage if a fighter knows how to effectively use it, but it can as well be a disadvantage if a fighter is unable to keep the distance and forced to fight at mid range or on the inside.

Sometimes people seem to think that tall fighters are something entirely new to the sport. Since you mentioned Louis I'll take him as an example.
Louis had a reach of 76" and was around 6.2.

Buddy Baer was 6.6 with a reach of 84".
Primo Carnera had a reach of 85"and weighted as much as 275 pounds. And he never showed up fat.
Abe Simon was 6.4 and had a 82 inches reach.

Curiously, Louis' only defeat before his comeback was to Schmelling, who had a similar reach. Then 14 years later he lost to Ezzard Charles, a shorter guy with a shorter reach. I don't count Marciano, Louis was completely shot by then.

[mickey malone]

Bonecrusher had an 82" reach but it didn't do him much good against Mike Tyson who only had an 15 inch reach.

I thought Smith showed the way on how to beat Tyson..

[Humean]

Ceteris paribus it would be an advantage to have longer arms but of course a big part of boxing is maximizing one's strengths and minimizing one's weaknesses. I think the majority of the greats had a longer reach than average, the average person's reach(wingspan) is equal to their height. There are of course very prominant counter-examples though, such as Duran.

[epu]

If arm length mattered most, then Tyson wouldn't have won 99% of his fights in his prime. Rule #1, taller fighters have reach advantage. Shorter fighters have to work the core and use a boxer's reach to their advantage. So in a sense, there are advantages and disadvantages to having reach. This is like any other fight, not just boxing.

Tyson talked about this frequently being only 5'9 and going up against guys 6' and up all of the time. Work the core, get the center, go for the chest, work the middle.