Is a small heavyweight a better heavyweight?

Collapse
Collapse
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Duncan
    The Law Dawg
    Silver Champion - 100-500 posts
    • Oct 2003
    • 219
    • 13
    • 44
    • 6,313

    #1

    Is a small heavyweight a better heavyweight?

    A couple of years ago, there was a movement for a superheavyweight division based on the argument that the new modern heavyweights who towered around 6 and a half feet tall and weighed 250 pounds or more would take over the division and the more traditional "Joe Frazier" heavyweight would be a thing of the past.

    However, that talk has cooled substantially. Why? Why haven't the huge men taken over? Chris Byrd, Roy Jones, James Toney, Vassili Jirov, and even more traditional fighters like Holyfield, Tyson, etc. are big names in the sport now and are small heavyweights in the ring.

    True the Klitchko brothers, McCline, and (before retirement) Lennox Lewis are all huge men, but on any given night any of those men can be cold ****ed by an opponent.

    So why doesn't size matter?

    Just looking for thoughts and opinions.
  • LuKahnLi
    The Warrior Sage
    Platinum Champion - 1,000-5,000 posts
    • Jun 2004
    • 3770
    • 173
    • 115
    • 10,655

    #2
    As long as he knows how to fight.

    Damn dude. How did you get so much bad karma?

    Comment

    • Duncan
      The Law Dawg
      Silver Champion - 100-500 posts
      • Oct 2003
      • 219
      • 13
      • 44
      • 6,313

      #3
      Originally posted by LuKahnLi
      As long as he knows how to fight.

      Damn dude. How did you get so much bad karma?
      LuKahnli:

      What do you mean "bad karma"?

      Comment

      Working...
      TOP