Counter-puncher wrote:A big fighter who fights tall will always beat a smaller dancer,
leonard hearns 1.
hearns spent almost the entirety of the fight jabbing from the outside. 'fighting tall', the experts might call that.
and yet the smaller dancer won.
almost inexplicable, if you believe the Jon Saxon Bumper Book of Boxing Cliches.
You dont get it do you? Tommy wasnt a big strong man ala Lennox etc, to fight tall you have to have to A: Go back or walk someone down, Tommy didnt box well on the back foot, B: Have the strenth to keep your opponent honest when he trys to close the gap, (Tommy wasnt a strong fighter as he was weight drained at WW and was always foghting naturally bigger men)
AND again you are wrong, Hearns was getting close and banging to the body watch at 2.50 onwards.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eO2NXzQ ... relatedwas
You will see Leonard closing the gap and Hearns standing and figting rather than taking the Wlad two stepp back routine.
Tommys downfall was exactly the fact that he DIDN'T fight tall all the time where as Wlad DOES.
For example let me explain to you this,
Lennox Lewis fought tall MOST of the time in the latter part of his career but didnt in the 2nd Holyfield match and this is why it was MUCH closer.
Plus (and this is the most important part) Lennox & Wlad had the strenght to keep the fight tall where was Tommy was always moving up and wasnt strong enough to pull it off.
These are all basic boxing facts but If you want to argue against these feel free to do so you are only digging your hole deeper.