Height, Reach, Weight: How big of a factor are they?

[Strategic1]

Ok PAC is clearly smaller than Algieri...about 4 inches shorter, 6 inches less in reach.

The thing is, we are use to seeing PAC being the small guy. Every single fight, he's usually giving up height, reach, and weight advantage to his opponent. Regarding weight, sometimes he gives up 10-15 lbs on fight night. That's huge. That's what partly makes PAC remarkable.

Only guy that he has faced recently that has similar physical traits is JMM.

I personally think height and reach are huge advantages in boxing. Take the NBA for example, a few inches is huge. Arm wingspan, big hands, height, length ...ex. Kawhi Leonard was able to disrupt Lebron James in last year's finals. ..A 6-11 Power Forward with length is routinely labelled as a mismatch for a 6-9 tweener forward.

In boxing, similarly, height, reach, weight is huge. What's your opinion?

[Larry the boss]

Height is not really a factor at all to be honest....Reach when used correctly is a great advantage as you can control the distance..USUALLY!!! but with reach you need other factors like timing, speed,and intelligence to make it really matter or the smaller man will just slip your shots and beat your ass

[Gucci]

all that not nearly a factor as having all the advantages over your opponent. Being taller and longer reach and weight advantage is no match is the person you fighting will handicap you in every aspect. So its all relative and on a fight by fight basis.

[-Kev-]

They are all a factor depending on the fighter.

Imagine a 6' Rigondeaux.

Look at Wladimir Klitschko.

Then look at Corrales, P Williams, Margarito, tall, long reach, heavy on fight night but they gave up their height and reach. Williams didn't even use his weight, pretty much gave up all his advantages. He was an inside fighter who didn't use his height(to fight outside), his weight(to bully, push around fighters), or reach(again, inside fighter, so he didn't really use his reach that much).

Depends on the fighter. You could make them a factor if you actually utilize them. Or you could just completely disregard all of those advantages and brawl your way through fights without using any of them except weight.

[Strategic1]

So you both are saying that boxing is a unique sport where intelligence, timing, speed can overcome any big physical disadvantage?

Yes perhaps.

But let's say there were 2 fairly even skilled boxers. I think these physical traits would definitely impact the outcome.

[IboxSouthpaw]

So you both are saying that boxing is a unique sport where intelligence, timing, speed can overcome any big physical disadvantage?

Yes perhaps.

But let's say there were 2 fairly even skilled boxers. I think these physical traits would definitely impact the outcome.

Reach would play a factor if that's the case .. You don't have to hit the chin to really hurt someone .. So if he can utilize the reach then the short fighter could find himself in some trouble .. But if the fighter can't use his reach it's pretty much a handicap at that point

[pacmanis1]

They are all a factor depending on the fighter.

Imagine a 6' Rigondeaux.

Look at Wladimir Klitschko.

Then look at Corrales, P Williams, Margarito, tall, long reach, heavy on fight night but they gave up their height and reach. Williams didn't even use his weight, pretty much gave up all his advantages. He was an inside fighter who didn't use his height(to fight outside), his weight(to bully, push around fighters), or reach(again, inside fighter, so he didn't really use his reach that much).

Depends on the fighter. You could make them a factor if you actually utilize them. Or you could just completely disregard all of those advantages and brawl your way through fights without using any of them except weight.

^^^^^This. They can be HUGE advantages if used correctly, but you have to have the smarts to use them.

[mathed]

You have to play to your strengths. Even a taller guy with a longer reach will not be able to take advantage of a smaller, faster, stronger opponent who has agility and good footwork (as is the case in the Pac-Algieri fight). You can use your height and reach but if the smaller guy can sidestep and slip your jab (for instance), and counter you with a straight left to the chin, what advantages do you really have?

[mathed]

So you both are saying that boxing is a unique sport where intelligence, timing, speed can overcome any big physical disadvantage?

Yes perhaps.

But let's say there were 2 fairly even skilled boxers. I think these physical traits would definitely impact the outcome.

It's a unique sport where the constraints of the rules of play allow for certain non-physical attributes to play a large role to the degree that they may actually overcome some of the opponent's physical attributes. This is further compounded when the opponent fails to effectively capitalize on those said physical attributes.

[Joe Beamish]

You have to play to your strengths. Even a taller guy with a longer reach will not be able to take advantage of a smaller, faster, stronger opponent who has agility and good footwork (as is the case in the Pac-Algieri fight). You can use your height and reach but if the smaller guy can sidestep and slip your jab (for instance), and counter you with a straight left to the chin, what advantages do you really have?

Agreed. So many other factors could change the game in a fight. Think Leonard Duran I. Sugar had a great reach advantage, speed advantage, super elite skills and couldn't beat a brilliantly feignting, fierce (and in many ways very fast) Duran.

Look at prime Tyson, too. Or Marciano. Or Chavez.