Would you rather be long armed or fast and why? Which is the bigger advantage?

[AlexKid]

Speed doesn't always =power btw so in both instances you'd have equal power.

[DreamerUSA]

Speed doesn't always =power btw so in both instances you'd have equal power.

I'd go with reach.


Reach when used properly is very very difficult to overcome. Speed can be timed.

[BigAlexSand]

Speed can dictat a fight more than reach. An individual with reach may not be at to reach his opponent if that opponent has a significant speed advantage. Reach primarily helps if the opponent doesn't have a speed advantage.

When I was young and started boxing in the amateurs. My trainer constantly put me in against smaller opposition with big advantages in speed. He did so, for when I competed against an individual in my own weight class, I would better understand my reach and my speed.

[Scipio2009]

Speed doesn't always =power btw so in both instances you'd have equal power.

All depends on what's in your mind and what's in your heart, tbh.

Look at Chavez Jr; he's 6'1, has a 73' reach, and he'd swap length for speed in an instant, if given the option (even with his size, the shorter arms and the speed would better allow him to fight the way he envisions himself fighting anyway)

[Luilun]

I'd go with reach.


Reach when used properly is very very difficult to overcome. Speed can be timed.

To make reach effective you have to have good footwork you can have long arms but if your just standing there a short arm fighter can slip,bob and weave, or jab his way in and than work the inside game on you. May weather has those long Monkey arms but he uses his foot work to make his long arms more effective

[CANELOLUJAH]

Wlad>Haye

enough said.