Forget the SIZE issue in boxing!!! BETTER fight ALWAYS WINS!!!!

[BattlingNelson]

What's quite funny is that everyone always talks about size being a massive factor with Pac moving up but the only guy that he has fought that has really been bigger is Oscar, who was just dead anyway. He's never really been smaller than anyone he's faced. He won't be much smaller than Cotto either. Less solid, but not smaller as they are actually the same size and reach which is most definitely one of the bigger factors about size and a much more important one in boxing. If you are taller and have a longer reach, you have a huge advantage in boxing, whereas if you are just more solid, that really doesn't mean much unless you know how to use it. Pac also doesn't fight using his bulk so it rarely factors into a fight anyway. In boxing, if you have a height and reach advantage, you have the upper hand immediately, whereas if you are the same height and reach, you don't have any advantage and it all comes down to styles and nothing more. Being more solid isn't going to help if the guy is quicker and can punch as hard and has much better stamina.

It's funny, but it's never been a factor in any of his fights and yet people keep bringing it up as the biggest factor. It's not like he is Ivan Calderon facing Cazares (5'0", 63" to 5'5", 66") or Roberto Duran facing Iran Barkley (5'6", 66" to 6'1", 74") or Sam Langford facing Harry Wills (5'6" to 6'2") or some ****e like that.

Hatton wanked on about bigger and stronger and yet he didn't look bigger or stronger (nor was he since he was actually the same height with a shorter reach), and while Cotto I think will look bigger and be a bit stronger it's not going to be some fight changing scenario. Pac now doesn't fight the type of fight in which size becomes the defining factor of the fight, so the constant talk about size is absurd.

Unless there are noticeable differences in height and reach, which play a much bigger and much more important role in boxing than being more muscly, then it's not of the massive importance that everyone is making it out to be.
****e, the size difference between Mayweather and Hatton was more defining than the one between Cotto and Pac will be. Mayweather having a six inch reach advantage on a guy that is constantly coming in with no defense is always going to be a hell of a lot more important than no size difference apart from bulk, which is neither guys fight style anyway. Ridiculous.

Like Leonard and Hearns?

[BennyST]

Like Leonard and Hearns?

Well, yes, exactly like Leonard and Hearns. Hearns owned Leonard every round they they boxed and used his much larger reach to stunning advantage. If it was a twelve round fight or if Hearns had the stamina for a full fifteen he would have won that fight easily by his height and reach alone nearly.

The jab which nullified Leonard's and was able to get through all night and kept Leonard at the end of Tommy's reach was brilliant and is a classic example of what height and reach do for you. Luckily Leonard had that special something, or maybe he was just lucky that Hearns wasn't a fifteen round fighter as the same thing happened in their rematch in which Leonard was simply kept at the end of Hearns reach all night, out-boxed and basically beaten up because of that superior reach, though in turn it was Hearns that ended up being lucky that it was only a twelve round fight.

Leonard should have stipulated it as fifteen again. Hearns could have been the greatest with good stamina.

I mean, I dig what you're getting at, because it was Hearns that ran out of gas and Leonard that won the fight being the smaller guy, but Hearns was never able to go fifteen and struggled with twelve, he just wasn't a stamina/distance fighter and yet those fights still show just how much height and reach get you in a boxing fight.

Two guys of similar skills and it was the guy with the longer reach and height that controlled the action and just about made it his fight until he gassed. Anyway, we'll always find examples to refute each argument, but the point I'm simply making is that in boxing the most important factor between two guys in the same division and of similar skills is the height and reach and not the solidity.

[BattlingNelson]

Well, yes, exactly like Leonard and Hearns. Hearns owned Leonard every round they they boxed and used his much larger reach to stunning advantage. If it was a twelve round fight or if Hearns had the stamina for a full fifteen he would have won that fight easily by his height and reach alone nearly.

The jab which nullified Leonard's and was able to get through all night and kept Leonard at the end of Tommy's reach was brilliant and is a classic example of what height and reach do for you. Luckily Leonard had that special something, or maybe he was just lucky that Hearns wasn't a fifteen round fighter as the same thing happened in their rematch in which Leonard was simply kept at the end of Hearns reach all night, out-boxed and basically beaten up because of that superior reach, though in turn it was Hearns that ended up being lucky that it was only a twelve round fight.

Leonard should have stipulated it as fifteen again. Hearns could have been the greatest with good stamina.

I mean, I dig what you're getting at, because it was Hearns that ran out of gas and Leonard that won the fight being the smaller guy, but Hearns was never able to go fifteen and struggled with twelve, he just wasn't a stamina/distance fighter and yet those fights still show just how much height and reach get you in a boxing fight.

Two guys of similar skills and it was the guy with the longer reach and height that controlled the action and just about made it his fight until he gassed. Anyway, we'll always find examples to refute each argument, but the point I'm simply making is that in boxing the most important factor between two guys in the same division and of similar skills is the height and reach and not the solidity.

I pretty much agree here Benny. Except for the bolded part. If the first fight was a 12 rounder then Leonard would likely have spent his energy earlier.

[El Jesus]

this thread is much more informative than the TS ever intended.

[emokillss]

What's quite funny is that everyone always talks about size being a massive factor with Pac moving up but the only guy that he has fought that has really been bigger is Oscar, who was just dead anyway. He's never really been smaller than anyone he's faced. He won't be much smaller than Cotto either. Less solid, but not smaller as they are actually the same size and reach which is most definitely one of the bigger factors about size and a much more important one in boxing. If you are taller and have a longer reach, you have a huge advantage in boxing, whereas if you are just more solid, that really doesn't mean much unless you know how to use it. Pac also doesn't fight using his bulk so it rarely factors into a fight anyway. In boxing, if you have a height and reach advantage, you have the upper hand immediately, whereas if you are the same height and reach, you don't have any advantage and it all comes down to styles and nothing more. Being more solid isn't going to help if the guy is quicker and can punch as hard and has much better stamina.

It's funny, but it's never been a factor in any of his fights and yet people keep bringing it up as the biggest factor. It's not like he is Ivan Calderon facing Cazares (5'0", 63" to 5'5", 66") or Roberto Duran facing Iran Barkley (5'6", 66" to 6'1", 74") or Sam Langford facing Harry Wills (5'6" to 6'2") or some ****e like that.

Hatton wanked on about bigger and stronger and yet he didn't look bigger or stronger (nor was he since he was actually the same height with a shorter reach), and while Cotto I think will look bigger and be a bit stronger it's not going to be some fight changing scenario. Pac now doesn't fight the type of fight in which size becomes the defining factor of the fight, so the constant talk about size is absurd.

Unless there are noticeable differences in height and reach, which play a much bigger and much more important role in boxing than being more muscly, then it's not of the massive importance that everyone is making it out to be.

****e, the size difference between Mayweather and Hatton was more defining than the one between Cotto and Pac will be. Mayweather having a six inch reach advantage on a guy that is constantly coming in with no defense is always going to be a hell of a lot more important than no size difference apart from bulk, which is neither guys fight style anyway. Ridiculous.

i agree with u,if pacman and his team thinks he's great then y not fight him in 147,he already did that against hoya,im pinoy i want pacman to achieve greatness in the fair game....

[dans]

Wouldn't you say that Cotto was a better fighter than Margarito, but Marg's size was one of the reasons Cotto lost?

[RightCross94]

weight is a big factor in boxing between two reasonably evenly skilled, well conditioned fighters, however if the lighter guy has superior skills or attributes the weight disadvantage can be overcome

[The_Demon]

What's quite funny is that everyone always talks about size being a massive factor with Pac moving up but the only guy that he has fought that has really been bigger is Oscar, who was just dead anyway. He's never really been smaller than anyone he's faced. He won't be much smaller than Cotto either. Less solid, but not smaller as they are actually the same size and reach which is most definitely one of the bigger factors about size and a much more important one in boxing. If you are taller and have a longer reach, you have a huge advantage in boxing, whereas if you are just more solid, that really doesn't mean much unless you know how to use it. Pac also doesn't fight using his bulk so it rarely factors into a fight anyway. In boxing, if you have a height and reach advantage, you have the upper hand immediately, whereas if you are the same height and reach, you don't have any advantage and it all comes down to styles and nothing more. Being more solid isn't going to help if the guy is quicker and can punch as hard and has much better stamina.

It's funny, but it's never been a factor in any of his fights and yet people keep bringing it up as the biggest factor. It's not like he is Ivan Calderon facing Cazares (5'0", 63" to 5'5", 66") or Roberto Duran facing Iran Barkley (5'6", 66" to 6'1", 74") or Sam Langford facing Harry Wills (5'6" to 6'2") or some ****e like that.

Hatton wanked on about bigger and stronger and yet he didn't look bigger or stronger (nor was he since he was actually the same height with a shorter reach), and while Cotto I think will look bigger and be a bit stronger it's not going to be some fight changing scenario. Pac now doesn't fight the type of fight in which size becomes the defining factor of the fight, so the constant talk about size is absurd.

Unless there are noticeable differences in height and reach, which play a much bigger and much more important role in boxing than being more muscly, then it's not of the massive importance that everyone is making it out to be.

****e, the size difference between Mayweather and Hatton was more defining than the one between Cotto and Pac will be. Mayweather having a six inch reach advantage on a guy that is constantly coming in with no defense is always going to be a hell of a lot more important than no size difference apart from bulk, which is neither guys fight style anyway. Ridiculous.

size doesnt mean height or reach to me,it means natural size,fight night weight-cotto is a beast at ww

[BEEHOP]

lets put pacman in with vitali and see what happens, clearly pacman is more skilled so he should win

Pac will KO im in the second @ 2:59 after knocking him down twice in the first.

[Run]

lets put pacman in with vitali and see what happens, clearly pacman is more skilled so he should win

lmfao ! !



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!