too tall for middle?

[jaclem3]

in the 40s there was a middleweight from california named j.t.ross. he had a good record there and came to new york for fight against steve belloise. the press and the broadcasters at fight time said he was too tall and rangy to be a fighter. he was 6 feet one. they said he was much to fragile at that height. belloise , who was five eight ....a standard height for a middle.....beat ross up and knocked him out. i heard this fight on radio and the guys doing the post fight wrap up said he should quit boxing before he got hurt. six feet plus and only a middle weight.

i haven't been keeping track of boxers' height but it seems to me i hear of middies being around six feet. of course hearns started as a welterweight and was around six three, but he had an unusual build...kind of an exaggeration of bob fitzsimmons.
i saw bobby dykes around that time and he was about six feet and he fought as a welterweight....did get knocked out by ralph tiger jones, who wasn't a hard puncher, and johnny bratton who was. he had a decent record though and fought gavalan for the welter title and lost a disputed split decision.

now....does anyone here have any comments on height and weight and what examples there are recently of boxers out of th norm, or what the new norm might be?

[Kalan]

Height combined with reach gives you a tremendous advantage...but only if you can jab well and throw a straight right well.. Many can't do that.

I don't know where you get Hearns being 6'3"... He was 6'1" ... His reach was 78 inches and he had a good jab and straight right.. Therefore the 5'7" Roberto Duran was screwed against Hearns. A horrible matchup for him. Barkely had shorter arms and wasn't as skilled at range...therefore Duran could box Barkley a lot better.. Barkley matched up better with Hearns than Duran did.. Barkley decked Hearns 3 X in 2 fights because his right swings where able to reach Hearn's chin.. A couple inches makes a big difference.. Duran was giving up 12 inches of reach to Hearns and his counters were whiffing past the mark in futile fashion.

Now take Foreman-Frazier... It wasn't the height and reach advantage that gave Joe the problems---but combined with the strength and punching power disparity it was probably the worst possible matchup for Frazier of any fighter from that era... Normally if you throw a right uppercut you're wide open for left hook. But if you have 5 inches of height and 6 inches of reach on your opponent... plus a massive amount of girth and strength... and if he cranks up left hooks like nobody's business... you can find a home for your right uppercuts and right hooks on his chin... And Foreman was 217 and in the shape of his life for their 1st fight... That was about as sharp and fast as George ever punched and he had a perfect target.

Norton was almost as tall as Foreman... But his height and reach were unusable because Norton stayed low and led with his head.. He gave you his head to shoot at.. Ken used a Frazier-style cross-armed defense and Foreman stayed close to him.. He couldn't miss.. The first knockdown George hit him with 5 rights in a row.. Another disaster looking for a place to happen.

Jimmy Young wasn't nearly as tall as Foreman but he used his height and reach much better.. He didn't lean like Norton and used footwork, timing, and a pinking jab.. It worked really well because Foreman couldn't slip jabs or straight rights very well and put a lot of strength on his jab at that time in his career.. HIs weaknesses played into Young's strengths.

[Ambling Alp II]

OK, anyway, about heights for middleweights:
Historically, there have been a lot of great middleweights that were only around 5'8 -Zale, Cerdan, LaMotta, Fullmer, Tiger etc.
For the most part, these were strong guys who threw a lot of punches and liked to bang.

However, there have been taller guys as well-Robinson, Benvenuti, Monzon, Hopkins.

As a rule of thumb, the shorter guys have been very strong guys who liked to bang. That makes sense; It's hard to outbox skilled opponents who are a lot taller than you. The taller guys tend to be boxers. Of course there are exceptions to this rule and also many guys don't neatly fit into the genre of pressure fighter or boxer. They are mix of both.

I do think that a at a certain point really taller and thin fighter (for his weight class) is not going to be strong enough. (ie a guy who is 6'5 and is a middleweight.) However, generally think a fighter is best off at a weight that is comfortable to him.

A great 5'8 pressure fighter cna be successful in today's era or any era. Same for a taller fighter, if he is good enough.

[Cutman Scabbers]

Height combined with reach gives you a tremendous advantage...but only if you can jab well and throw a straight right well.. Many can't do that.

I don't know where you get Hearns being 6'3"... He was 6'1" ... His reach was 78 inches and he had a good jab and straight right.. Therefore the 5'7" Roberto Duran was screwed against Hearns. A horrible matchup for him. Barkely had shorter arms and wasn't as skilled at range...therefore Duran could box Barkley a lot better.. Barkley matched up better with Hearns than Duran did.. Barkley decked Hearns 3 X in 2 fights because his right swings where able to reach Hearn's chin.. A couple inches makes a big difference.. Duran was giving up 12 inches of reach to Hearns and his counters were whiffing past the mark in futile fashion.

Now take Foreman-Frazier... It wasn't the height and reach advantage that gave Joe the problems---but combined with the strength and punching power disparity it was probably the worst possible matchup for Frazier of any fighter from that era... Normally if you throw a right uppercut you're wide open for left hook. But if you have 5 inches of height and 6 inches of reach on your opponent... plus a massive amount of girth and strength... and if he cranks up left hooks like nobody's business... you can find a home for your right uppercuts and right hooks on his chin... And Foreman was 217 and in the shape of his life for their 1st fight... That was about as sharp and fast as George ever punched and he had a perfect target.

Norton was almost as tall as Foreman... But his height and reach were unusable because Norton stayed low and led with his head.. He gave you his head to shoot at.. Ken used a Frazier-style cross-armed defense and Foreman stayed close to him.. He couldn't miss.. The first knockdown George hit him with 5 rights in a row.. Another disaster looking for a place to happen.

Jimmy Young wasn't nearly as tall as Foreman but he used his height and reach much better.. He didn't lean like Norton and used footwork, timing, and a pinking jab.. It worked really well because Foreman couldn't slip jabs or straight rights very well and put a lot of strength on his jab at that time in his career.. HIs weaknesses played into Young's strengths.

Nice use of the word "pinking"

[jas80s]

That's an interesting story and quite a find, pretty cool.

Anyway, as some of the posters have already said in many ways, height itself is superfluous. Each body type brings with it certain advantages and disadvantages, it then becomes more about skill and craft. There have been scores of successful shorter fighters who used quick feet to get inside where there short arms were conducive to quick combination punching. In this scenario, the short arms were hardly a vice, but rather a tremendous virtue. Conversely, many tall fighters have excelled using a good jab and, yes, good feet to maintain distance and control fights. Anyway, you get the idea. Height itself means next to nothing.

I guess the question is this, is it easier for tall fighters to learn to fight effectively inside? Or, is it easier for shorter fighters to learn how to fight effectively from the outside? Tremendous examples of both throughout the history of boxing.

Interestingly, I think in recent years, taller fighters have acheived more success and perhaps swung the balance a bit as it has become more permissable to tie up an opponent (in both the eyes of referees AND judges). A taller fighter can effectively reset the distance that way, thus working around having to fight on the inside which might behoove a smaller opponent. But, I could be WAY off on that.

[jaclem3]

kalan- i got the 6'3" for hearns from the newspapers before both the leonard and hagler fights. i doubted them, but heights and weights are tossed around on the sports pages with much abounded so i just let it go.

ezzard charles was six feet tall. during his brief career as a middleweight he learned to fight inside because he knew that's where his opponents would try to get to him. as a result, when he fought as a light heavy and heavy he was an excellent in-fighter.

thanks to all for their interesting comments, i'm sure there will be more coming.

[Kalan]

That's an interesting story and quite a find, pretty cool.

Anyway, as some of the posters have already said in many ways, height itself is superfluous. Each body type brings with it certain advantages and disadvantages, it then becomes more about skill and craft. There have been scores of successful shorter fighters who used quick feet to get inside where there short arms were conducive to quick combination punching. In this scenario, the short arms were hardly a vice, but rather a tremendous virtue. Conversely, many tall fighters have excelled using a good jab and, yes, good feet to maintain distance and control fights. Anyway, you get the idea. Height itself means next to nothing.

I guess the question is this, is it easier for tall fighters to learn to fight effectively inside? Or, is it easier for shorter fighters to learn how to fight effectively from the outside? Tremendous examples of both throughout the history of boxing.

Interestingly, I think in recent years, taller fighters have acheived more success and perhaps swung the balance a bit as it has become more permissable to tie up an opponent (in both the eyes of referees AND judges). A taller fighter can effectively reset the distance that way, thus working around having to fight on the inside which might behoove a smaller opponent. But, I could be WAY off on that.

I think with Boxing going global, more than ever, there's less tolerance for grabbing, wrestling, and holding.. Ali grabbed Foreman 20 times in the 1st round of the Foreman fight, often wrestling like crazy.. I haven't seen that many clinches tolerated in a round in the last 20 years... I remember watching many fights in the 1950's and 60's were the clinching was ridiculous.. It seems to happen less, but there's still incessant grabbers and wrestlers like Amir Khan, Wladimir Klitschko, and Adrien Broner out there. They're getting point deducted and warned more though.

[jas80s]

That's an interesting story and quite a find, pretty cool.

Anyway, as some of the posters have already said in many ways, height itself is superfluous. Each body type brings with it certain advantages and disadvantages, it then becomes more about skill and craft. There have been scores of successful shorter fighters who used quick feet to get inside where there short arms were conducive to quick combination punching. In this scenario, the short arms were hardly a vice, but rather a tremendous virtue. Conversely, many tall fighters have excelled using a good jab and, yes, good feet to maintain distance and control fights. Anyway, you get the idea. Height itself means next to nothing.

I guess the question is this, is it easier for tall fighters to learn to fight effectively inside? Or, is it easier for shorter fighters to learn how to fight effectively from the outside? Tremendous examples of both throughout the history of boxing.

Interestingly, I think in recent years, taller fighters have acheived more success and perhaps swung the balance a bit as it has become more permissable to tie up an opponent (in both the eyes of referees AND judges). A taller fighter can effectively reset the distance that way, thus working around having to fight on the inside which might behoove a smaller opponent. But, I could be WAY off on that.

I think with Boxing going global, more than ever, there's less tolerance for grabbing, wrestling, and holding.. Ali grabbed Foreman 20 times in the 1st round of the Foreman fight, often wrestling like crazy.. I haven't seen that many clinches tolerated in a round in the last 20 years... I remember watching many fights in the 1950's and 60's were the clinching was ridiculous.. It seems to happen less, but there's still incessant grabbers and wrestlers like Amir Khan, Wladimir Klitschko, and Adrien Broner out there. They're getting point deducted and warned more though.

Ya, I didn't want to paint some rosy picture of the past by suggesting that somehow fighters of previous eras never tied up. But, obviously my allusion to Wlad was not lost, not that I was being overly cryptic. Truthfully, I don't even necessarily care what the ref does, I just wish judges would score it as a negative when scoring fights, which it should be, in my opinion.

As for Foreman and Ali, I agree with your point, but I would offer two things. First, I don't think doing some clinching against a fearsome puncher would represent a terrible problem as long as it emerges from a flow of solid action and that was the case in that round, I mean Ali was grabbing, but he landed quite a bit and took a number of shots as well. I just watched it again and that was a damn good round of boxing containing way more action than at least 95 percent of rounds that Wlad has ever fought. There was clinching (I wouldn't say wrestling like crazy) but they came to fight, so I could live with it.

One of the most egregious examples I saw in recent years of intiating clinches just too avoid fighting was Andre Dirrell against Carl Froch. That is what I am seeing more, clinching with no purpose beyond trying to prevent ANYTHING from happening. Ironically, it was a fight that Dirrell could have definitely won, if he had actually been willing to fight. Anyway, I know that clinching is nothing new, but it does seem like it's potential to control pace and distance as well as limit punches taken in particular is being tapped into more than ever.

And it should be noted that a major part of the problem is that guys grab and hold, and the other guy stops and ALLOWS himself to be held. That agreement between the fighters signals a death knell to the possibility of good action in the ring. To his enduring credit, Foreman kept working against Ali and that kept up the action. Sadly, I think it also tired him out which cost him dearly. Which, to bring it full circle, is why clinching should be noted by judges.

[lazboy]

in the 40s there was a middleweight from california named j.t.ross. he had a good record there and came to new york for fight against steve belloise. the press and the broadcasters at fight time said he was too tall and rangy to be a fighter. he was 6 feet one. they said he was much to fragile at that height. belloise , who was five eight ....a standard height for a middle.....beat ross up and knocked him out. i heard this fight on radio and the guys doing the post fight wrap up said he should quit boxing before he got hurt. six feet plus and only a middle weight.

i haven't been keeping track of boxers' height but it seems to me i hear of middies being around six feet. of course hearns started as a welterweight and was around six three, but he had an unusual build...kind of an exaggeration of bob fitzsimmons.
i saw bobby dykes around that time and he was about six feet and he fought as a welterweight....did get knocked out by ralph tiger jones, who wasn't a hard puncher, and johnny bratton who was. he had a decent record though and fought gavalan for the welter title and lost a disputed split decision.

now....does anyone here have any comments on height and weight and what examples there are recently of boxers out of th norm, or what the new norm might be?

This is an interesting topic. The first thing I always think of when I find out a middleweight or around those weights is tall for their class is whether they have a chin. I believe 6.1 is tall for middle IMO. I think its always a question logically with those tall lean frames. If your tall and in the higher weight classes thats different. I don't understand the Charlos though, they're 6ft, in light middle and look strong as fook around the neck.

[Cutman Scabbers]

The most important question here:

Could Wilt Chamberlain have gotten down to 160?

[Bodyshot3]

Michael Olajide always springs to mind as a 6'1 middleweight...got a great deal of coverage because he was decent, a good-talker and also had British-American connections.

But Michael always looked a bit like a stringbean especially as he was long-legged and although fast, slick and rangy he also looked like a guy who could be bullied and ultimately he came up short in his key fights.

Richie Woodhall was another...close to 6'2 and extremely decent as an amateur light-middle and then pro middleweight, but ultimately when he filled-out and campaigned at super-middle he looked better and got a global title.

Listening to Woodhall at the Olympics has been good....he was a top pro and boxed Roy Jones Jr in Seoul and got himself a bronze.

[Kalan]

That's an interesting story and quite a find, pretty cool.

Anyway, as some of the posters have already said in many ways, height itself is superfluous. Each body type brings with it certain advantages and disadvantages, it then becomes more about skill and craft. There have been scores of successful shorter fighters who used quick feet to get inside where there short arms were conducive to quick combination punching. In this scenario, the short arms were hardly a vice, but rather a tremendous virtue. Conversely, many tall fighters have excelled using a good jab and, yes, good feet to maintain distance and control fights. Anyway, you get the idea. Height itself means next to nothing.

I guess the question is this, is it easier for tall fighters to learn to fight effectively inside? Or, is it easier for shorter fighters to learn how to fight effectively from the outside? Tremendous examples of both throughout the history of boxing.

Interestingly, I think in recent years, taller fighters have acheived more success and perhaps swung the balance a bit as it has become more permissable to tie up an opponent (in both the eyes of referees AND judges). A taller fighter can effectively reset the distance that way, thus working around having to fight on the inside which might behoove a smaller opponent. But, I could be WAY off on that.

I think with Boxing going global, more than ever, there's less tolerance for grabbing, wrestling, and holding.. Ali grabbed Foreman 20 times in the 1st round of the Foreman fight, often wrestling like crazy.. I haven't seen that many clinches tolerated in a round in the last 20 years... I remember watching many fights in the 1950's and 60's were the clinching was ridiculous.. It seems to happen less, but there's still incessant grabbers and wrestlers like Amir Khan, Wladimir Klitschko, and Adrien Broner out there. They're getting point deducted and warned more though.

Ya, I didn't want to paint some rosy picture of the past by suggesting that somehow fighters of previous eras never tied up. But, obviously my allusion to Wlad was not lost, not that I was being overly cryptic. Truthfully, I don't even necessarily care what the ref does, I just wish judges would score it as a negative when scoring fights, which it should be, in my opinion.

As for Foreman and Ali, I agree with your point, but I would offer two things. First, I don't think doing some clinching against a fearsome puncher would represent a terrible problem as long as it emerges from a flow of solid action and that was the case in that round, I mean Ali was grabbing, but he landed quite a bit and took a number of shots as well. I just watched it again and that was a damn good round of boxing containing way more action than at least 95 percent of rounds that Wlad has ever fought. There was clinching (I wouldn't say wrestling like crazy) but they came to fight, so I could live with it.

One of the most egregious examples I saw in recent years of intiating clinches just too avoid fighting was Andre Dirrell against Carl Froch. That is what I am seeing more, clinching with no purpose beyond trying to prevent ANYTHING from happening. Ironically, it was a fight that Dirrell could have definitely won, if he had actually been willing to fight. Anyway, I know that clinching is nothing new, but it does seem like it's potential to control pace and distance as well as limit punches taken in particular is being tapped into more than ever.

And it should be noted that a major part of the problem is that guys grab and hold, and the other guy stops and ALLOWS himself to be held. That agreement between the fighters signals a death knell to the possibility of good action in the ring. To his enduring credit, Foreman kept working against Ali and that kept up the action. Sadly, I think it also tired him out which cost him dearly. Which, to bring it full circle, is why clinching should be noted by judges.

Clinching is not the judges' job my friend... Their job is to count punches landed and judge their effectiveness... They need to judge who is carrying the fight if the fight would otherwise be an even round... They need to judge who the best defender is, if the round if the boxers landed the same number of equally hard punches and were both evenly aggressive... and Judge need to decide who controlled the ring space, pace, and style of fighting if the round was evenly fought punch wise, aggressively fought evenly by both combatants, and if both defended equally well in the round... so I think that's enough to keep their attention in a close fight.

The referee should warn the boxer who is illegally grabbing and holding... If he doesn't heed the warnings he should take points... THAT will give the fans a lot more action... Holding should get more point deductions.. And there shouldn't be a lot more tolerance for holding than other fouls... It's a boxing contest not a wrestling contest... It's one thing to grab and hold if you're badly hurt...a referee has to be reasonable -- but It's another matter to grab and hold constantly as a substitute for having a good inside defense.

[jas80s]

I think with Boxing going global, more than ever, there's less tolerance for grabbing, wrestling, and holding.. Ali grabbed Foreman 20 times in the 1st round of the Foreman fight, often wrestling like crazy.. I haven't seen that many clinches tolerated in a round in the last 20 years... I remember watching many fights in the 1950's and 60's were the clinching was ridiculous.. It seems to happen less, but there's still incessant grabbers and wrestlers like Amir Khan, Wladimir Klitschko, and Adrien Broner out there. They're getting point deducted and warned more though.

Ya, I didn't want to paint some rosy picture of the past by suggesting that somehow fighters of previous eras never tied up. But, obviously my allusion to Wlad was not lost, not that I was being overly cryptic. Truthfully, I don't even necessarily care what the ref does, I just wish judges would score it as a negative when scoring fights, which it should be, in my opinion.

As for Foreman and Ali, I agree with your point, but I would offer two things. First, I don't think doing some clinching against a fearsome puncher would represent a terrible problem as long as it emerges from a flow of solid action and that was the case in that round, I mean Ali was grabbing, but he landed quite a bit and took a number of shots as well. I just watched it again and that was a damn good round of boxing containing way more action than at least 95 percent of rounds that Wlad has ever fought. There was clinching (I wouldn't say wrestling like crazy) but they came to fight, so I could live with it.

One of the most egregious examples I saw in recent years of intiating clinches just too avoid fighting was Andre Dirrell against Carl Froch. That is what I am seeing more, clinching with no purpose beyond trying to prevent ANYTHING from happening. Ironically, it was a fight that Dirrell could have definitely won, if he had actually been willing to fight. Anyway, I know that clinching is nothing new, but it does seem like it's potential to control pace and distance as well as limit punches taken in particular is being tapped into more than ever.

And it should be noted that a major part of the problem is that guys grab and hold, and the other guy stops and ALLOWS himself to be held. That agreement between the fighters signals a death knell to the possibility of good action in the ring. To his enduring credit, Foreman kept working against Ali and that kept up the action. Sadly, I think it also tired him out which cost him dearly. Which, to bring it full circle, is why clinching should be noted by judges.

Clinching is not the judges' job my friend... Their job is to count punches landed and judge their effectiveness... They need to judge who is carrying the fight if the fight would otherwise be an even round... They need to judge who the best defender is, if the round if the boxers landed the same number of equally hard punches and were both evenly aggressive... and Judge need to decide who controlled the ring space, pace, and style of fighting if the round was evenly fought punch wise, aggressively fought evenly by both combatants, and if both defended equally well in the round... so I think that's enough to keep their attention in a close fight.

The referee should warn the boxer who is illegally grabbing and holding... If he doesn't heed the warnings he should take points... THAT will give the fans a lot more action... Holding should get more point deductions.. And there shouldn't be a lot more tolerance for holding than other fouls... It's a boxing contest not a wrestling contest... It's one thing to grab and hold if you're badly hurt...a referee has to be reasonable -- but It's another matter to grab and hold constantly as a substitute for having a good inside defense.

And you don't think that a guy constantly clinching impacts ANY of the criteria you mentioned? I would think that the guy who is clinching all the time is not exactly "carrying the fight" even if he out lands his opponent 4-3 because he clinches every 20 seconds. I would also say that it represents an end around as regards anything that can be considered good "defense or ring generalship". Finally, I think it should be viewed negatively as a means of "controlling the pace". All I am saying is, judges shouldn't be so reticent to consider it, in a close round or, in particular, when NOTHING happens because one guy wants to tie up whenever they get in punching range.

But, I agree 100 percent with you when you say that refs could simply be more stringent about warnings and taking points, that would also go a long way toward fixing the problem and would likely produce a more tangible impact on the problem.

Nonetheless, I am going to say we are in pretty much total agreement on this subject. The referee has a job to do, I am only saying, that judges should be free to consider the impact of holding as well, especially in a close round, or in a round where not a lot happened because, maybe, one fighter was slowing the action by routinely holding the other fighter. And, especially, when the ref won't do anything. It shouldn't be like a knockdown where the ref makes the call, the judges can score the fight they see.

Incidentally, apologies for hijacking the thread.

[APerno]

Duran was giving up 12 inches of reach to Hearns and his counters were whiffing past the mark in futile fashion.

Never understood why Duran took that fight, for just that reason.