question for the experts: can a big guy be dangerous on the inside (up close)?

**DCReprezenta** · 03-07-2005, 02:00 AM

I believe dimensions play a big part in what style would be the most efficient for a heavyweight, and for any weight for that matter....Example, David Tua and Mike Tyson both are short and compact, both have excelled in turning short punches with amazing force due to their compact low to the ground solid frames and bases. Michael Grant was known for fighting inside and got knocked out a few times, he was 6'7 wit the longest reach in boxing. Bottom line, if u can drive then dont walk.

**Rockin'** · 03-07-2005, 02:24 AM

Generally the big guys never fought very well on the inside. But there are always exceptions. It seemed that the smaller men were always able to work well on the inside, with their shorter arms and compact punches. There are bigger men that can throw on the inside but Im unable to think of any right now, maybe a coincidence. The problem that big guys face on the inside is that they first need to get low or atleast as low as their opponents to be effective. Then they must try to shorten their punches on the inside with their longer arms which can be difficult. Like I said I can no think of any bigger guys that work well on the inside, but they are out there I'm sure......Rockin'

**Riddick** · 03-07-2005, 07:52 AM

Bowe was excellent inside fighter but usually good inside fighters are types like Marciano, Tyson and Tua. That's how its always been.

**DrDac** · 03-07-2005, 08:59 AM

I agree with DC, I also feel that physical dimensions of the fighter have a lot of carry-over into in-fighting.

**czars_salad** · 03-07-2005, 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Riddick

Bowe was excellent inside fighter but usually good inside fighters are types like Marciano, Tyson and Tua. That's how its always been.

and they were small, a great addition are henry armstrong and frazier

**jack_the_rippuh** · 03-07-2005, 09:27 AM

Hopkins - a tall middleweight is good on the inside..

**boxernyc** · 03-07-2005, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by justin04

What is the relationship, if any, between the size of the fighter, in terms of height and/or arm length, and how effective they will probably be on the inside?

are there any heavyweights over 6'4" who are exceptional inside fighters?

and if anyone has time, what is the ideal size for a heavyweight? i happen to think that right now rid**** bowe size is the best - 6'4" with long arms, good versatile medium size.

Like most people are saying the smaller guys do better on the inside. It is really out of necesity and the larger guys will have trouble working on the inside because of the dimensions of their arms and the height of a shorter opponent. And because it just makes sense to train on keeping the shorter guys away with longer punches. If the opponent is relatively the same size (ala Lewis - Klitschko) then uppercuts are going to be effective but hooks will still have trouble landing.

Sorry don't know.

The ideal size for a heavyweight seems to be somewhere around 7'4" and 280 lbs. At least that's the way the weight class is going. If you look back at old school heavyweights they were around 6' and around 190 and up. Now it seems like the lightest you can be is 220. I think the ideal is to be fast and tall and not necesarily as heavy. 6'4 does sound good and lean and strong at around 220.

Well that is my 'expert'

opinion.

**DCReprezenta** · 03-07-2005, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by jack_the_rippuh

Hopkins - a tall middleweight is good on the inside..

but much better commanding the fight from a distance.

**jack_the_rippuh** · 03-07-2005, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by DCReprezenta

but much better commanding the fight from a distance.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that. I mean he's broke down fighters on the inside even more effective than he boxed on the outside. How many Hopkins fights have you seen?

question for the experts: can a big guy be dangerous on the inside (up close)?