Yeah and height and reach can't be any kind of advantage
How did that work out for Michael Spinks against Tyson? Or Bob Foster against Joe Frazier? Because of course by your stupid logic Spinks and Foster were bigger than Tyson and Frazier.
Just fine, I'm sure he made millions. Unfortunately he **** his pants on the way to the ring in fear. When guys weigh close to the same height and reach certainly can play a factor in a fight. Some guys in here making Paul Williams to mike Tyson references, yeah 50 lbs would do the trick along with face crushing power for Tyson. Apples and oranges.
yeah but mike tyson wouldn't be able to make WW or light weight whatever Diego Corrales made. Floyd generally fought in a division where he could make the weight and not more than 1 division above that, that's why your comparison is irrelevant, when both fighters make the weight then reach and height come into effect, some can argue that being shorter and stockier is an advantage and that maybe true but every boxer I've ever talked to said otherwise.
That's exactly the point. Height and reach alone doesn't make a fighter "bigger." I'm glad you finally get it.
There are no height and reach divisions, dumbass.With your asinine logic Diego Corrales would have had a size advantage over Mike Tyson.
Yeah, but it all coalesces. Overall a guy with a longer reach/height will more often than not be at an advantage. I'm not saying weight doesn't matter, just that height and reach also factor in as a size advantage imo.
I don't consider someone who has a few pounds on someone else the bigger man. The OP also claims Hatton was naturally bigger than Floyd which is just silly.
Kovalev and Ward were probably nearly the same weight on fight night but I still consider Kovalev the bigger man, just like Floyd was bigger than Pacquiao.
Just fine, I'm sure he made millions. Unfortunately he **** his pants on the way to the ring in fear. When guys weigh close to the same height and reach certainly can play a factor in a fight. Some guys in here making Paul Williams to mike Tyson references, yeah 50 lbs would do the trick along with face crushing power for Tyson. Apples and oranges.
Comparing height and reach differences to weight is Apples and Oranges. Who would have the bigger advantage? Thomas Hearns height and reach or Tyson's weight? Using reach and height as an example of being "bigger" is just stupid. Especially when the opponent outweighs the taller fighter with more reach.
Comparing height and reach differences to weighti s Apples and Oranges. Who would have the bigger advantage? Thomas Hearns height and reach or Tyson's weight? Using reach and height as an example of being "bigger" is just stupid. Especially when the opponent outweighs the taller fighter with more reach.
Tyson was an anomaly though, a genetic freak in terms of physique. Overall, a 5-7 pound weight advantage would be offset by a 3 inch height/reach advantage.
Comparing height and reach differences to weight is Apples and Oranges. Who would have the bigger advantage? Thomas Hearns height and reach or Tyson's weight? Using reach and height as an example of being "bigger" is just stupid. Especially when the opponent outweighs the taller fighter with more reach.
Height and reach can certainly be more of an advantage than weight though. They both can be just as much as an advantage in certain circumstances
Comment