Height Advantage at Heavyweight

[evrenb]

i really think there have hardly been any who think that height is be all end all, maybe kalan, certain posters in this section love to rally against extreme opinions that hardly anyone hold though, as if one guy having them means all do

aj lost to one shorter fighter
aj has beaten many shorter fighters
ruiz already had a loss to a fighter taller then himself,, who in turn lost to taller aj

lewis, the klits, wilder, and fury have beenn the top hws of the past 20 years and have beaten many more shorter opponents then shorter opponents have beat them. the best non tall hw prior to these guys was holy, who twice lost to tall bowe. but omg aj lost to ruiz! its over kids!

but hey, maybe 1 guy thought height was everyhting and wilt would beat ali, so lol at him, its defo true this fight is a blow to his arguments and beliefs

Don't forget Holy beat taller Bowe too.

[jamamb]

yep, 2-1 bowe, that shows height not be all end all, but also the taller man came out ahead, if aj vs ruiz means so much what about all these otheer cases

[overhand_right]

Statements such as '[old fighter] would be too small for today's heavyweights' or '[new giant heavyweight] would be too big for [old time great]' have been a staple of boxing forums for 20 years. You can set your watch by them. We had it for 10 years straight with Wladimir as he jabbed and cuddled one no hoper after another.

To claim this is an 'extreme fringe opinion' held by only one or two people is absurd to anyone who can read things and remember them.

[oogiebe]

Statements such as '[old fighter] would be too small for today's heavyweights' or '[new giant heavyweight] would be too big for [old time great]' have been a staple of boxing forums for 20 years. You can set your watch by them. We had it for 10 years straight with Wladimir as he jabbed and cuddled one no hoper after another.

To claim this is an 'extreme fringe opinion' held by only one or two people is absurd to anyone who can read things and remember them.

You are right. There are loads of threads I'm resisting the urge to throw myself into.

[jamamb]

those statments dont really suggest height is everything, iit depends on context, being too big is a real thing depending on how abilities match up. hardly anyone ever says that height is all that matters in boxing and that shorter fighters cant beat taller ones. andy ruiz beating aj really proves little in the overall scheme of things other then stuff that was alrady widely known

lol at having to cherry pick at the most extreme opinions that hardly anyone has. duh, of course height isnt everything, duh weve already seen guys beat opponents several inches taller. if it makes you feel better that you can beat kalans nutty trolling arguments then congrats, big win. might as well celebrate beating a 2 year old at chess too

we also repeatedly saw aj for example beat shorter guys including a guy who beat shorter andy , but those meant nothing! only this means something!

[pound per pound]

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.

Thanks for taking the time to do this. A comment or two If I may. Most of the taller heavyweight champions pre 1990 in Willard and Carnera were not very good. Taller heavyweight begins to develop better skills around the 1990's.

If you were to take data from 1990 to present 2019, nearly 30 years of heavyweight boxing I think the results would tilt even more towards the taller heavyweights.

When was the last time a 6 foot 220 pound man was #1 in the division?

What more important, reach or height?

James J Jeffries had a full tale of the tape measurement for his comeback fight with Johnson, and it came out 6'1" 1/2 inches tall with a 76.5" reach at 227 pounds.

[Ambling Alp II]

Since the 2000s. I don't think the talent level in the heavyweight division has been very good either.
Everything being even, a taller mediocre fighter will be a shorter mediocre fighter more often than not. That is what we often have been seeing for the last several years.

And we just saw a 6"2 guy not known for having a lot of talent just beat down a guy that is 6'8. We had people saying this tall stiff would have beaten Ali and Louis. I would hope people realize how silly that looks now.

I think Carnera and Willard would have been top contenders/WBS title holders during this decade and the decade before it.

When was the last time a 6"0 guy who weighed 220 was number 1? I don't think it has ever happened.

What is more important height or reach? Just speculating, but I would guess reach. The problem with reach is that it wasn't always measured. We don't know what it is for many fighters from way back. The way reach is measured can also be deceiving. (A wide body is going to have a longer reach even if their arms are the same length)

They are both small advantages that can make a difference everything else being even.
However you can say with other other areas as well. Everything else being even, the faster fighter will usually win.
Everything else being even, the smarter fighter will usually win. etc.

The tape measures and the scales are not that important. We need to get back to talking about what fighters can actually do.

[APerno]

I still feel you have a caveat in this argument when you use heavyweights. You end up not just talking about a taller man, you almost always end up taking about a bigger man, and as we always say a great/good./mediocre bigger man will always beat great/good/mediocre/ smaller man.

If you are going to truly evaluate the advantages of height, you need to eliminate the other advantages and that can be done at equal weights. And even then you are going to run into some distortions because fighters cut weight and then reappear much larger than their weight-in size claims.

[overhand_right]

When was the last time a 6"0 guy who weighed 220 was number 1? I don't think it has ever happened.

If Ruiz got in shape, it would be today!

Agree with you that the standard of fighter hasn't been great since 2000. As Tim Witherspoon observed, there doesn't seem to be much science in the heavyweights anymore.

[Cojimar 1946]

Since the 2000s. I don't think the talent level in the heavyweight division has been very good either.
Everything being even, a taller mediocre fighter will be a shorter mediocre fighter more often than not. That is what we often have been seeing for the last several years.

And we just saw a 6"2 guy not known for having a lot of talent just beat down a guy that is 6'8. We had people saying this tall stiff would have beaten Ali and Louis. I would hope people realize how silly that looks now.

I think Carnera and Willard would have been top contenders/WBS title holders during this decade and the decade before it.

When was the last time a 6"0 guy who weighed 220 was number 1? I don't think it has ever happened.

What is more important height or reach? Just speculating, but I would guess reach. The problem with reach is that it wasn't always measured. We don't know what it is for many fighters from way back. The way reach is measured can also be deceiving. (A wide body is going to have a longer reach even if their arms are the same length)

They are both small advantages that can make a difference everything else being even.
However you can say with other other areas as well. Everything else being even, the faster fighter will usually win.
Everything else being even, the smarter fighter will usually win. etc.

The tape measures and the scales are not that important. We need to get back to talking about what fighters can actually do.

Anthony Joshua is not 6'8. He seems to be 6'5 1/2-6'6. CelebrityHeights has him at 6'5 3/4.

[Ambling Alp II]

Thanks for the clarification.

[Cojimar 1946]

I think a bigger problem than lack of talent in todays division is bad matchmaking. Fans are understandably put off when the best fighters don't face each other.

Ruiz was not considered a big threat to Joshua but that may have been partially due to simply not facing better opponents. His only loss is a controversial decision loss to Joseph Parker that many feel he won. Had he been matched against better opposition he might have been far more heavily regarded going into the Joshua fight. People simply seemed to dismiss him based on his record rather than taking into account his skills.

[Ambling Alp II]

Wilder and Fury fought. That's all there is.

You can't make good match matching when you have so little talent. I guess you can have the mediocre heavyweights fight other mediocre heavyweights instead of bad heavyweights.

Nice spin with Ruiz. Interesting to see you talk about skills though. It's a start.

[jamamb]

ruiz -aj also shows the limits of resume based predictions and ruling a guy out or acting like its absurd to pick him over a more proven fighter

omg who had ruiz beaten to say he beats aj?? joe hanks??

[HomicideHenry]

Some men just have other men's number. They're tailor made for certain guys. It's not so much that someone like AJ is this mediocre heavyweight, as it is his flaws could be capitalized upon IF only someone actually dug deep and did it.

Louis-Schmeling is a prime example of a fight where one man (Louis) was perceived as invincible, and the other man (Schmeling) was perceived as having absolutely no chance.

Louis, in reality, was an incomplete pro whereas Schmeling may have been 'passed it' or was 'second string' but had enough sense about him that IF he could get close enough, he could dismantle Louis.

Ruiz, just days before the fight, said something to the extent that he felt AJ couldn't fight well going backwards, that if pressured he'd have nowhere to go & nothing to do but cover up. He remarked how everyone else basically backed away from Joshua, therefore giving the Englishman all the breaks.

The hunch was correct. The gamble paid off. It also helped tremendously that Joshua, over-confident, started fighting "small", getting up close and personal with Ruiz instead of using his height and weight to best advantage. This only made AJ an easier target to hit.

Does it mean our era is weak? Does it mean our top men are weak? Does it mean all this is proof height and weight are relative in the fight game? No. No. Both.

We have good heavyweights today. Big men with athleticism and skills. Most are still young men still learning. Most are men who haven't been given the chance to really show what they can do. When you have powerful promoters making it difficult to get fights to happen organically, and using excuses that fights need to "marinate" to generate bigger money--- you're bound to have oddball results.

After all, AJ hadn't fought in 8 months, and prior to that another near-year of inactivity between fights & most telling is that these fights were against moderately "safe" competition. A champion isn't going to remain champion for long when you are fighting infrequently. Iron sharpens iron.

Ruiz, on the other hand, fought three times (so far) in the passed year and a half. Twice in 2018, four months apart. And once before the Joshua fight two months prior. The more active man, generally, will defeat the inactive man.

Also, Ruiz (arguably) was robbed in 2016 against WBO champion Joseph Parker. Joshua went all twelve with Parker, winning unaminously with a little assistance from the referee. That ought to show everyone that both Ruiz & Joshua basically were equal in capability.

Lastly, Ruiz was no stranger to fighting taller and heavier men. Sure, Dimintrenko (6'7" w/ 82" reach) wasn't in the same class as Joshua, but Ruiz stopped him in five rounds. He also derailed 6'4" undefeated Joe Hanks in four rounds. And he also defeated former champion Liakhovich (6'4").

I'm reminded somewhat (don't flip out on me Alp) of how Jack Dempsey basically fought a string of giants like Fred Fulton, Carl Morris, Arthur Pelkey, Gunboat Smith, etc--- in preparation for 6'6" 240 pound Jess Willard. A man accustomed to fighting giants and ogres, doesn't get intimidated or lose focus of the goal under pressure.

Nope. Ruiz just happened to have Joshua figured out. How often purists forget that under the right circumstances, anyone can be defeated. Joshua will probably regain the title at some point down the road, just like Wladimir Klitschko. But it's premature to write off an entire division and era on the basis of one fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

Joshua lost simply because he isn't that good. He got dominated by mediocre fighter. This isn't about styles or having his number.

Outside of it being an upset, there isn't much comparison between the Schemling-Louis fight and the Joshua-Ruiz fight.
As for Dempsey, he did beat some other big fighters before fighting Willard. They weren't in preparation for Willard. He fought contenders of all different sizes and styles before fighting for the title. btw- Gunboat Smith and Arthur Pelkey were not in anyway "giants".

And yes this era sucks. We thought maybe Joshua be for real; we now know he isn't. That is one less heavyweight that might be good.
The heavyweight division has been weak for a long time.

[HomicideHenry]

I absolutely hate Joshua, but I'm not writing him off just yet. If he's garbage on the basis of such a loss, then so is Lennox Lewis and Wladimir Klitschko. That's never been a strong argument, and Joshua's only 29 years old. Before writing people off forever as garbage I'd wait a few more years.

After all.... I'm sure people said the same thing when Louis lost to Schmeling and Dempsey lost to Flynn.... "See! He was nothing! Just nothing!"

I'm more interested in whether a man can come back from such humiliation and be bigger and better than before.

[Tony1244]

I absolutely hate Joshua, but I'm not writing him off just yet. If he's garbage on the basis of such a loss, then so is Lennox Lewis and Wladimir Klitschko. That's never been a strong argument, and Joshua's only 29 years old. Before writing people off forever as garbage I'd wait a few more years.

After all.... I'm sure people said the same thing when Louis lost to Schmeling and Dempsey lost to Flynn.... "See! He was nothing! Just nothing!"

I'm more interested in whether a man can come back from such humiliation and be bigger and better than before.

I get all this except why you do hate Joshua? Seems pretty mild mannered.

[HomicideHenry]

I get all this except why you do hate Joshua? Seems pretty mild mannered.

Because he was basically pushed as being this Superman-SuperChampion, even when Fury beat Wladimir Klitschko. It was like, "Forget about Fury this is our appointed King," total disrespect.

And the way he was gifted the IBF title. That pissed me off to no end. And how people reacted to him beating Klitschko, "Oh this is even better than anything Fury did," when Joshua almost lost to an older, inactive version.

It's not the man himself that I hate. It's the hype and his fanbase as well as Eddie Hearn. I do think the Mr Roger's act Joshua puts on is fake, but I dislike him because of the mass hysteria he generated for no real reason at all.

[Counter-puncher]

I'm reminded somewhat (don't flip out on me Alp)

[Tony1244]

Because he was basically pushed as being this Superman-SuperChampion, even when Fury beat Wladimir Klitschko. It was like, "Forget about Fury this is our appointed King," total disrespect.

And the way he was gifted the IBF title. That pissed me off to no end. And how people reacted to him beating Klitschko, "Oh this is even better than anything Fury did," when Joshua almost lost to an older, inactive version.

It's not the man himself that I hate. It's the hype and his fanbase as well as Eddie Hearn. I do think the Mr Roger's act Joshua puts on is fake, but I dislike him because of the mass hysteria he generated for no real reason at all.

"No reason at all."

Olympic Gold Medal And 22(21)-0-0 as a Pro is "No reason at all?" Someone else said Ruiz's record was garbage up until the Joshua fight. Tough crowd.

[HomicideHenry]

"No reason at all."

Olympic Gold Medal And 22(21)-0-0 as a Pro is "No reason at all?" Someone else said Ruiz's record was garbage up until the Joshua fight. Tough crowd.

When I say no reason at all, I mean he didn't exactly earn it. He was positioned into that top spot more than anything else. Two fights before Klitschko he was just the British Heavyweight Champion. He was moved up way too fast.

Before Klitschko what was his biggest win? Charles Martin? Kevin Johnson? It's like he skipped an entire level or two. That may have been his downfall.

[Tony1244]

When I say no reason at all, I mean he didn't exactly earn it. He was positioned into that top spot more than anything else. Two fights before Klitschko he was just the British Heavyweight Champion. He was moved up way too fast.

Before Klitschko what was his biggest win? Charles Martin? Kevin Johnson? It's like he skipped an entire level or two. That may have been his downfall.

A fan can root against anyone he pleases for any reason at all. But it seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. He was brought along too fast but he was also coddled? Which is it? AJ is an excellent, but not (yet anyway) great fighter. He is certainly flawed, but he is entertaining in the ring.

How can you look at his record and say he didn't earn it?

[oogiebe]

A fan can root against anyone he pleases for any reason at all. But it seems like you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. He was brought along too fast but he was also coddled? Which is it? AJ is an excellent, but not (yet anyway) great fighter. He is certainly flawed, but he is entertaining in the ring.

How can you look at his record and say he didn't earn it?

You go boyo!!!!

[Tony1244]

You go boyo!!!!

Thank You, but perhaps I'm coddling myself with these debates. Elmer is acting as though OJ worst act was lighting up in a No Smoking area and our buddy Henry is acting as though AJ never fought anyone in the division.