Fights where if everything was equal fighter B would've beaten fighter A

[Sheldon312]

Crawford vs Gamboa at 135

Gamboa was tagging and schooling Crawford in the early rounds. Even though Gamboa was the smaller man, he was still able to hurt Crawford and nearly knocked him down. If Gamboa was a natural 135
pounder, I think he would've too or UD Crawford due to tremendous punching power and hand speed.

GGG vs Kell Brook

Another example of size being too much. Kell Brook was outboxing GGG in the early rounds and boxing tremendously. Had Kell Brook been a natural Middle Weight he would've outboxed GGG and won clear UD

Hagler vs Duran

Hagler was a more versatile fighter but Duran was better from range, in the middle, and on the inside. This would've been similar to their fight but Duran would've been way too aggressive and probably would've been the first to stop Hagler. Hagler won the fight off size. Duran being the same size would've been a different animal.

These are the only three that come to mind. Does anybody have any other examples of size being the only reason fighter A best fighter B?

[SouthEastBeast]

If everything was equal it would end in a draw.

[Sheldon312]

If everything was equal it would end in a draw.

I'm talking size.

[DuckAdonis]

Korobov VS Charlo...but not because of size. I'm talking age, activity, quality of opposition, amount of preparation, fitness etc.

[Roadblock]

Its why we have 12 rounds, fights are an ebb and flow battle, lots of top fighters dont win every round what matters is you win the most or break the guy down.

[TonyGe]

The narrative that Golovkin was out boxed in the first 4 rounds by Brook is simply not true. Its been repeated so many times that people are taking it as fact. In the first round for example Golovkin landed 30 punches vs 19 for Brook. He out landed him in every round and at a higher percentage. I don't know how this nonsense got started but it's ridiculous.

[Nash out]

The narrative that Golovkin was out boxed in the first 4 rounds by Brook is simply not true. Its been repeated so many times that people are taking it as fact. In the first round for example Golovkin landed 30 punches vs 19 for Brook. He out landed him in every round and at a higher percentage. I don't know how this nonsense got started but it's ridiculous.

Yeah, I totally agree. I watched the fight live and thought it was great. Glovkin almost knocked out Brook in the first round, but Brook did really well to rally later in the round, but Golovkin won it. I can't remember how I scored the other rounds, but I had Golovkin ahead on points at time of stoppage.

[_Rexy_]

if everything were more equal size wise, then Brook wouldn't have been quicker than G was.

[Citizen Koba]

Crawford vs Gamboa at 135

Gamboa was tagging and schooling Crawford in the early rounds. Even though Gamboa was the smaller man, he was still able to hurt Crawford and nearly knocked him down. If Gamboa was a natural 135
pounder, I think he would've too or UD Crawford due to tremendous punching power and hand speed.

GGG vs Kell Brook

Another example of size being too much. Kell Brook was outboxing GGG in the early rounds and boxing tremendously. Had Kell Brook been a natural Middle Weight he would've outboxed GGG and won clear UD

Hagler vs Duran

Hagler was a more versatile fighter but Duran was better from range, in the middle, and on the inside. This would've been similar to their fight but Duran would've been way too aggressive and probably would've been the first to stop Hagler. Hagler won the fight off size. Duran being the same size would've been a different animal.

These are the only three that come to mind. Does anybody have any other examples of size being the only reason fighter A best fighter B?

You do get that if you make a smaller guy bigger it slows him down and reduces his stamina, doncha? That the advantages which allowed them success would be reduced or neutralised? It's one of the (many) reasons why P4P is such a ridiculous concept, too. Different attributes are required in different proportions for success at different sizes.

[SouthEastBeast]

You do get that if you make a smaller guy bigger it slows him down and reduces his stamina, doncha? That the advantages which allowed them success would be reduced or neutralised? It's one of the (many) reasons why P4P is such a ridiculous concept, too. Different attributes are required in different proportions for success at different sizes.

This, plus the opponent might change his gameplan if the guy was bigger. Might box more instead of walking him down etc. Golovkin might have boxed differently if Brook was bigger and had more pop. Same concept in Mayweather - McGregor though not about size, but skill. If McGregor was a better boxer, Floyd wouldn't have walked him down like that. You would never see Floyd fight like that against anyone whose boxing he respects. If that was your only time seeing Mayweather box, you would think he's nothing special.