Height Advantage at Heavyweight

[Ambling Alp II]

Thought this would interesting.
Some people often toss around the height advantage as if it's a given that it's a big advantage. Other people don't seem to talk about it much. Thought I would do a little test and let the chips fall where they may.
I took every lineal heavyweight title fight starting with Sullivan-Corbett and kept track of who won, the taller fighter or the shorter fighter.

-Some fights didn't count because the two fighters were listed at the same height.
-A handful of fights that boxrec counts as titles fights that other sources don't were not included.
-I went with boxrec's height listings with one exception. They have James Jeffries at only 6'0. Every other place I have checked has him at 6'2 or even taller. I counted him as 6'2.

Anyway here are the results:

Taller fighter won 90 times (54.2%)
Shorter fighter won 69 times (41.6%)
There 4 draws (2.4%)
There were 3 No-Decisions (1.8%)

When the taller fighter was at least three inches taller:
Taller fighter won 33 times (66%)
Shorter fighter won 14 times (28%)
There was 2 draws (4%)
There was 1 No-Decision (25)

When the taller fighter was less than three inches taller:
Taller fighter won 57 times (49.1%)
Shorter fighter won 55 times (47.4%)
There were 2 Draws (1.7%)
There were 2 No-Decisions (1.7%)

Thought some respected posters here could add some valuable insight.

[Cojimar 1946]

Since the mid 1990s the best heavyweights have ranged from 6'4 1/2 to around 6'7. This seems to be the optimal height from circa 1997 to present but it may shift upwards in the coming years.

And photographic evidence supports Jeffries at no more than 6'0 or so.

[HomicideHenry]

I concur with Alp, Jeffries was 6'2".



Jeffries was the referee and towers over special guest John L. Sullivan (5'11"), let alone Tommy Burns (5'7") and was clearly taller than Bill Squires.

[Onetimeonly]

Skills mean more than height. Now Billy Conn would be way up against it facing wlad, but holy field or Louis would not.

[Controversial]

I'm not sure just having a height advantage alone makes a huge difference but significant advantages in size, reach and weight does. Of course this is assuming the bigger guy can also fight and isn't just a big useless lump or past it. There are always exceptions though.

[gregor]

I'm not sure just having a height advantage alone makes a huge difference but significant advantages in size, reach and weight does.

x2
And the skills/style to use them properly. If you are just bigger, it may still help a bit, but as Alp showed it is not much difference statistically. You can compare Wlad (who used his size/reach advantage perfectly for most of his career... and failed miserably when Fury made similar trick on him) and Valuev (who was just 7'0'' and too dumb to do anything with that).

[Bodyshot3]

Definitely a tricky and interesting one Ambling

Better skills, superior conditioning, attitude, a great power-to-weight ratio and good tactics can see shorter heavyweights overcome far taller men.

Holyfield, Tyson and more latterly Haye were often facing taller men with longer reaches.

Conversely some towering heavyweights of the modern era - Akinwande, Valuev, Dimitrenko - have not been able to become dominant champs (because they lack enough of the above) and despite being well over the 6 foot 6 inch marker.

When Akinwande and the even loftier James Oyebola came through on the British-European scene they created quite a buzz......nobody had really seen anyone this tall on the UK and the Europe since maybe Primo Carnera.

But Henry....despite some success.....would never really catch light and the rugged, shorter Scott Welch dealt with Oyebola and then had a stinker with Akinwande.

Of course when you get something close to the full package in a tall man like Lewis, Vitali or Joshua....all bets are off.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- Ambles would seem to have a lot of obsessive compulsion time for this.

Few years back someone listed the height of the heavy champ(s) by decade, and there was a slow creep up as expected in Western growth charts, but by 2000 a significant increase.

What is undeniable is Lewis at 6-5 dominated the 90s, and the Ks at 6-6 to 6-7 the 2000s until 2015, and now 6-6 Joshua since then. Any of the other champs regardless of height were seen as lesser, and most of those were much shorter.

There will always be exceptions, but there is currently no sub 6-4 guy in training to upset that trend that I'm aware of. Now Joshua about half thru his career could be derailed, but if he makes it thru intact, we'll just have to see the prospect size to replace him, but off hand it seems the Brits currently got the most supersized prospects, though that might change if China finally catches on fire.

[Controversial]

Sheer size and weight can make an average fighter harder to beat if they know how to use it to their advantage. No way Valuev would have been world champ had it not been for him being a giant. Fury has decent boxing ability and speed but its his sheer size that makes him so awkward to fight, that certainly wouldn't be the case if he was 8 inches shorter and 4 stone lighter.

[Ambling Alp II]

One thing this shows is that height can be an advantage, but certainly not an insurmountable one.

Lennox Lewis is still the only great fighter taller than 6'3 who was great for a long period of time. (Not counting Foreman and Holmes who sometimes are listed as 6'4.)

Even Lewis lost twice to shorter fighters and got two iffy decisions against shorter fighters.

[Controversial]

So many factors in play other than height, but it's not really a disadvantage however being short can be.

[jamamb]

obviously theres way way more to it then height, but id rather be 3 inches taller then my opponent then the same height or shorter

and at hw id rather be a 7 foot freak then a 5 foot 3 hw freak

height alone rarely makes the difference , but taken along wirh other factora it can certainly contribute

[Contendeh]

Ok.
My take after thinking about size and height in boxing, particularly at heavyweight, way too much over my life is that I will still take a prime Tyson or prime Louis or prime Dempsey with some intelligent weight added over really anything else.

A good tall man beats a good short man, but a great short man beats them all.

You have to be a real athlete though. Fast. Skill to get in on the inside, etc.

I also think that taller fighters can have longer careers because the skill involved putting it all together doesn’t need to be so razor sharp and taller fighters don’t rely on speed.

If I ever see a Tyson like caliber fighter not able to rise to the top I’ll admit I’m wrong.

That person has not materialized in the past 25 years, but I think there are a bunch of different reasons for that.

[APerno]

I concur with Alp, Jeffries was 6'2".



Jeffries was the referee and towers over special guest John L. Sullivan (5'11"), let alone Tommy Burns (5'7") and was clearly taller than Bill Squires.

I like how the fighters had their poses worked out and flowed right into position for the camera. I have seen those poses a thousand times in old still pics but never before got to see a fighter strike one.

[APerno]

The OP's question might better be answered by surveying results of tall and shorter fighters of equal weight. We have to assume here, that weight is affecting the results. Maybe lineal middleweight champions would be a better source.

Too bad we couldn't induce the guy who does "Chart Party" videos, to do one on prize fights and height 'advantage.'

[Cojimar 1946]

Since the mid 1990s the heavyweight division has been largely (almost exclusively) dominated by guys over 6'4. Claiming that Lewis is the only one of these guys that was great doesn't affect the overall trend of dominance by tall guys or explain away why smaller heavies haven't been able to rise to the top.

[Ambling Alp II]

obviously theres way way more to it then height, but id rather be 3 inches taller then my opponent then the same height or shorter

and at hw id rather be a 7 foot freak then a 5 foot 3 hw freak

height alone rarely makes the difference , but taken along wirh other factora it can certainly contribute

That's kind of where I am at. Everything else being even, the taller guy will probably win. But there are so many other factors. Usually not everything else is even.

We could also say something like "if everything else being even, the guy with the fast hand speed will probably win."

[oogiebe]

Being tall isn't enough. Using it to your advantage is. Look at Wlad and Lewis pre and post Steward.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't think Steward is a good example regarding Lewis and Klitschko. However, I do agree that a fighter has to know how to use his advantages. Many do not. It's also often seems to be a disadvantage to be taller when the two fighters are in close.

[oogiebe]

I don't think Steward is a good example regarding Lewis and Klitschko. However, I do agree that a fighter has to know how to use his advantages. Many do not. It's also often seems to be a disadvantage to be taller when the two fighters are in close.

Why not?

[Ambling Alp II]

After Steward became the Trainer of Lewis: He didn't use his height advantage well against Mercer, and was very lucky the judges gave him the decision. He too much trouble with Mavrovic. Got ko'd by Rahman. Looked unimpressive against Holyfield.

After Steward became the trainer of Klitschko: He got embarrassed against Brewster. In fact Steward even got some of the blame for that one. He barely survived the legendary Samuel Peter, getting decked three times. Got decked and looked bad against Williamson.

These are all fights against shorter opponents.

Lewis and Klitschko had their ups and downs. Some of the ups were pre-Steward, some were with Steward. So were some of the downs. Same with Klitschko.

Obviously Steward was a great trainer. His record with others fights is excellent. I just don't agree that Steward got those two to get more use of their height.

[littlepug]

Heights only an advantage if you know how to use it and have the right natural style to match it, I was a tall fighter in the lower weight classes and bloody hated it, I had a cracking left hook but rarely used it as I couldn’t land it against the shorter lads.

[Winter king]

As a 6foot heavyweight my sparring partners are usually a lot taller. In my exp mu advantages are

they have to punch down mostly.
its hard for them to work to the body without exposong themselves.
They usually suck at defending their body from your angle.
infighting cuz my shorter arms fit in easier.

disadvantages
a tall guy with a steelrod jab is nasty to fight aginst.
you have to work to get in range.
you are in his range for cointer when you fornicate up but thats not the case a lot of times the pther way arpund.
they love choking you and leaning on you to exhasute you.

[APerno]

Big guys like to lean on shorter fighters; was not aware of the dirty trick of choking

Willard was a master leaner (at least with Johnson). He tried it with Dempsey but Dempsey wouldn't bite and kept jumping in and out until he caught Willard with that left hook.

[HomicideHenry]

For shits and giggles, I looked at the first two pages of the BoxRec heavyweight rankings (I'm guessing that's top 50?) and compiled all the men under 6'4" and above.


The 6'3" Group:

-Adam Kownacki (19-0-0, 15)
-Oleksandr Usyk (16-0-0, 12)
-Agit Kabayel (19-0-0, 13)
-Ali Eren Demirezen (11-0-0, 10)
-David Allen (17-4-2, 14)
-Artur Szpilka (22-3-0, 15)
-Edmund Gerber (28-2-0, 18)
-Carlos Takam (36-5-1, 28)
-Chris Arreola (38-5-1, 33)
-Bryant Jennings (24-3-0, 14)

The 6'2" Group:

-Michael Hunter Jr (16-1-0, 11)
-Andy Ruiz Jr (32-1-0, 21)
-BJ Flores (34-4-1, 21)
-Marco Huck (41-5-1, 28)
-Samuel Peter (38-7-0, 31)
-Bermane Stiverne (25-4-1, 21)

The 6'1" Group:

-Andrey Fedosov (31-3-0, 25)
-Amir Mansour (23-4-1, 16)
-Tomasz Adamek (53-6-0, 31)
-Dereck Chisora (30-9-0, 21)

The 6'0" Group:

-Evgeny Romanov (12-0-0, 9)
-Oscar Rivas (26-0-0, 18)
-Andriy Rudenko (32-4-0, 20)

The 5'11" & Under Group:

-Mario Heredia (16-6-1, 13)
-Michael Frank (16-0-1, 13)
-Victor Emilio Ramirez (24-4-1, 19)
-Joey Dawejko (19-7-4, 11)


It seems the shorter you go, the less you've heard of these guys or their opponents, or the losses pile up the shorter you are. 6'3" seems to be the optimum height, if you're to have a chance in the division for any real length of time.