"A good Big Man beats a good Little Man" Why?

[The Old LefHook]

But that even further accentuates the point. You don't consider him special, and yet look at what he is capable of doing. Thanks in no small part (pun intended) to his size.

The fact that a heavyweight can be his size, and still move around the ring with such footwork nowadays helps show how size can be a benefit.

It is true that it does not take AS MUCH footwork when you are the size of Fury. Moving at all is a big plus. Could Marciano or Frazier cave in those buffalo ribs?

[Marchegiano]

It is true that it does not take AS MUCH footwork when you are the size of Fury. Moving at all is a big plus. Could Marciano or Frazier cave in those buffalo ribs?

Your skeleton doesn't get more dense just because you put on muscle.

If Marciano can KO Fury he can KO Fury at 270 just as easily as he could 170. Can Marciano actually deliver a KO blow to a giant mug like Tyson is a better question, imo.

Skeletal size, strength, durometer, etc, is totally indifferent to weight. Length does not speak to durometer.

Tyson's either tough or not, size has nothing to do with it. You can be a tiny man and be big boned you can also be massive and have bird bones.

That said, 925FT-LBS says protect them ribs bud 'cause Marciano bring firearm level power and that ain't no hyperbole.

I think he could hurt Fury if he can land meaningful shots.

[Dr. Z]

What DeeMoney said in post #18 is accurate.

Height, Reach and Weight are advantages in boxing.

There are still some who dig in their heel and say 6 feet 200 pounds is ideal. Maybe 120-60 years ago, you could make that argument, however there has not been a highly ranked contender of champion with those dimensions since Mike Spinks beat an aging Larry Holmes. That was 1985. 35 years have passed. Maybe you can say Chris Byrd. That's only two. Anyone else?

The new breed of super sized heavyweight with skills had taken over. Don't get me wrong any man who can hit and take punch could beat them, but they are going to need both if their size is lacking.

[The Old LefHook]

But that even further accentuates the point. You don't consider him special, and yet look at what he is capable of doing. Thanks in no small part (pun intended) to his size.

The fact that a heavyweight can be his size, and still move around the ring with such footwork nowadays helps show how size can be a benefit.

What he is capable of doing is beating a bunch of know-nothings like Wilder. Klit was a pure scrub, and all knowledgeable people on this forum once knew it. There has been a big run on halfwits lately. The man on the street now knows more about boxing than our own moderators, though our mods steal more efficiently.

[REDEEMER]

This addage gets kicked around quite a bit. We discussed the addage about styles and fights, why not discuss this addage? What does it imply? Why does it seem to hold true?

On a general level there is not much to discuss: If two armies meet at a crossroads, and virtually ALL factors about them are hypothetically equal, except one army has an additional advantage, logic tells us that there is a greater chance for the army with the advantage to win...

The problem is, this situation never truly exists, and intangibles can offer more of a factor than an advantage: For example, the Mongol Japanese battles are fascinating. Interestingly enough we had two forces that both had a somewhat equal chance of persevering. But it became irrelevant when the "Kamakazie" divine wind, affected the Mongol ships.

On a specific level why does a good big man win?

1) Reach. Overlooked and very telling advantage. Anyone who has ever fought knows that reach can be a real biatch. I can well remember using reach when I fought, and having to overcome it as well... Usually bigger means more reach.

2) Strength. Usually bigger means stronger. But strengh is interesting because it does not always depend on size, rather size gives an initial advantage... lets look at the fight between Foster and Joe Frazier as an example. Both guys look to be around the same basic size. Foster even had reach over Joe, and some would argue, a punch every bit the match of Frazier's.

Yet when we get down to it, despite the weight... Frazier is just a bigger sized individual. Bigger bones, muscles... wrists, neck, etc. This fight could be an example of how strength became a material advantage for Frazier.

Discuss. What is it about size that determines a material advantage in the ring? would you rather have size, or reach?

Who is bigger and stronger Frazier or Golota ? I always wondered why reach was important to , do you think Golota slacked off and that’s why he was just average size ?

https://youtu.be/WUTxgTEdZTA

https://youtu.be/hcfmMAcdyho

[billeau2]

Who is bigger and stronger Frazier or Golota ? I always wondered why reach was important to , do you think Golota slacked off and that’s why he was just average size ?

https://youtu.be/WUTxgTEdZTA

https://youtu.be/hcfmMAcdyho

The whole idea of the thread is to qualify, to show how, strength is an advantage. If you ask a legit question i will give you a legit answer.

first off: I don't think golota is a bad fighter. Let me make that clear.

When we try to qualify "strength" looking at golota and frazier it actually gets difficult. Golota is not by nature, a particularly physical fighter. He is an orthodox Euro trained fighter. He does fight inside when necessary, and has skills.

Frazier is relentless. He will fight in and maintain a constant attack. He was a very physical fighter.

So how would we call one guy a physically stronger fighter here? What do we have to go by? And its strength is not always about weight... Foreman was very very strong and had reach. While it is hard to separate these two with foreman, we definitely know his strength and use of reach overcame frazier. But both of these men were physical fighters. Golota just never really used his strength in a manner where we can compare it to a fighter like Foreman, or Frazier. Its not always about size.

Watch how golota fights. Then watch a fighter like Razor Ruddock for example... Ruddock is some what under rated these days... He was very good, and... he became a very physical fighter. Best fight to watch is the Tyson fights.

So Redeemer: We could actually compare the useful strength of Ruddock and Frazier, at least I think we could, and say Frazier would in all likely hood lose that fight.

Regarding your second question. Golota was an excellent fighter, skilled, good foot & hand speed, etc. His biggest problem was always himself. Thats just the way it was. You have to have extreme mental toughness to box. So strength was never going to help, or hinder golota against a fighter like Frazier, it would be a non factor.