BoxRec

I'm surprised height and reach is leading. Again, we have weight classes for a reason.

punchoutsb wrote:I'm surprised height and reach is leading. Again, we have weight classes for a reason.

This

Basically weight, otherwise why divide boxing into weight classes and not height or reach classes?

jezzamundo wrote:

Jip wrote:id say height and reach

teh most important punch in boxing is the jab and it is a big advantage when you punch your jab and your opponent punches his jab and your connects cause your reach is longer and his doesnt or just a bit.

That can be negated by superior timing, footspeed, handspeed etc. I'm not denying that being taller and longer can be an advantage, but it's not nearly the advantage that being the naturally larger man is. Who would you pick in a fight between Thomas Hearns and Mike Tyson?

Right there... That's a perfect example of why sheer size and strength mean much more than height and reach... Both Barkley and Hagler had shorter reaches than Hearns -- but bombed him out anyway... Another example is Mike Tyson vs Michael Spinks... Spinks had no shot in Hell to beat Mike.

But the combination of height, weight, and reach can be devastating when wielded by a very skilled boxer... as when Tyson faced Douglas and Lewis. This is also one of the reasons the K Bros dominated Heavyweight Boxing for over a decade... They were big, tall, long, and very skilled... I think somebody like Tyson Fury could write his own ticket if he had the discipline, mental stability, and work ethic of the K Bros... The man is daft.

Impractical Poster wrote:Is a weight advantage greater, or is being taller and having a reach advantage greater? In general...

Please entertain this poll as I am pondering an idea.

I suppose that depends on the weight class.


I think having a 4 " height and reach is worth at least 10 pounds in shape below middle weight, who happen to be well above 170 on fight night.

Assuming weight advantage means more muscle mass (and not fat), this is a question which body type is more suitable for boxing: stocky or lanky with longer limbs. If all the other qualities are fairy even, I think there's no question about the fact that longer limbs (greater reach) give you more options. If you're stocky, you can pretty much only fight inside and you need superior motor skills and ideally also power to even stand a chance against a taller/longer limbed opponent. If you've got reach advantage and your opponent doesn't move very well or have a great combination of power and chin, they'll be easy to outbox.

It's a "it depends" question which explains why the polling is so close.

Mike Tyson and Joe Frazier when they were champions were certainly shorter than some welterweights of the era, but they certainly would have beaten taller welters.

But an obese guy who can't fight certainly has no advantage against anyone.

Impractical Poster wrote:Is a weight advantage greater, or is being taller and having a reach advantage greater?

Do we have 17 "skeletal size" divisions or 17 "weight" divisions?

Are we talking a few pounds weight advantage or 10/15lbs? That makes a difference. Other factors matter as well, someone who relies on speed and movement will make less use of a weight advantage than someone who relies on pressure and physicality. Just as someone who fights on the inside will make less use of a height and reach advantage. So it depends on how big the advantage is and the type of boxer, but all things considered I'd go for a natural size and weight advantage over height/reach, especially over a 12 round fight.

TempleSlave wrote:Assuming weight advantage means more muscle mass (and not fat), this is a question which body type is more suitable for boxing: stocky or lanky with longer limbs. If all the other qualities are fairy even, I think there's no question about the fact that longer limbs (greater reach) give you more options. If you're stocky, you can pretty much only fight inside and you need superior motor skills and ideally also power to even stand a chance against a taller/longer limbed opponent. If you've got reach advantage and your opponent doesn't move very well or have a great combination of power and chin, they'll be easy to outbox.

But size is so much more than just height, weight, stocky, lean, etc. Sonny Liston and Chris Byrd are the same size in terms of height and weight, but if they ever stood next to each other it would look like a dad and his boy. Neither really fits the category of stocky or lean, but one is the much bigger man. Going back a few years someone like Paul Williams or Stipe Drvis were long lean monsters within their weight classes, but neither would have had success stepping up a couple divisions against the best guys because real body size is just too much to overcome in almost every case reiterating why we have weight classes in the first place.

punchoutsb wrote:

TempleSlave wrote:Assuming weight advantage means more muscle mass (and not fat), this is a question which body type is more suitable for boxing: stocky or lanky with longer limbs. If all the other qualities are fairy even, I think there's no question about the fact that longer limbs (greater reach) give you more options. If you're stocky, you can pretty much only fight inside and you need superior motor skills and ideally also power to even stand a chance against a taller/longer limbed opponent. If you've got reach advantage and your opponent doesn't move very well or have a great combination of power and chin, they'll be easy to outbox.

But size is so much more than just height, weight, stocky, lean, etc. Sonny Liston and Chris Byrd are the same size in terms of height and weight, but if they ever stood next to each other it would look like a dad and his boy. Neither really fits the category of stocky or lean, but one is the much bigger man. Going back a few years someone like Paul Williams or Stipe Drvis were long lean monsters within their weight classes, but neither would have had success stepping up a couple divisions against the best guys because real body size is just too much to overcome in almost every case reiterating why we have weight classes in the first place.

Much more then what exactly?
If Liston and Byrd stood next to each other, they would look similar in size. You can argue that the broader shouldered Liston might appear bigger but that would be small margin, not 'father and son'. Then also the leaner man would look bigger vs fatter. Also it's possible that one has skinny lowere body whilst the other one is more balanced. In such case the first guy would carry more muscle in the upper body and thus seem bigger.
As for Williams, yes, due to his long limbs and slight build he would definitely not suit higher weight class.

TempleSlave wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:

TempleSlave wrote:Assuming weight advantage means more muscle mass (and not fat), this is a question which body type is more suitable for boxing: stocky or lanky with longer limbs. If all the other qualities are fairy even, I think there's no question about the fact that longer limbs (greater reach) give you more options. If you're stocky, you can pretty much only fight inside and you need superior motor skills and ideally also power to even stand a chance against a taller/longer limbed opponent. If you've got reach advantage and your opponent doesn't move very well or have a great combination of power and chin, they'll be easy to outbox.

But size is so much more than just height, weight, stocky, lean, etc. Sonny Liston and Chris Byrd are the same size in terms of height and weight, but if they ever stood next to each other it would look like a dad and his boy. Neither really fits the category of stocky or lean, but one is the much bigger man. Going back a few years someone like Paul Williams or Stipe Drvis were long lean monsters within their weight classes, but neither would have had success stepping up a couple divisions against the best guys because real body size is just too much to overcome in almost every case reiterating why we have weight classes in the first place.

Much more then what exactly?
If Liston and Byrd stood next to each other, they would look similar in size. You can argue that the broader shouldered Liston might appear bigger but that would be small margin, not 'father and son'. Then also the leaner man would look bigger vs fatter. Also it's possible that one has skinny lowere body whilst the other one is more balanced. In such case the first guy would carry more muscle in the upper body and thus seem bigger.
As for Williams, yes, due to his long limbs and slight build he would definitely not suit higher weight class.

Bone structure; how big is the wrist? elbow? knee? ankle? How big is the fist? The human body is very intricate and unique. Two men can weigh the same and even be at similar percentages of adiposity and still look completely different. I have smaller joints for a lifter my size; my wrist is 7.5 inches and I weigh 245 pounds. I'm tiny compared to many 220 lifters who have 8+ inch wrists. Sturdiness, for lack of a better word, is a real indicator of body size. Muscling up is doable for many athletes, but depending on the frame, it still doesn't change relative size. Sonny Liston was a natural 215+ pound man, Chris Byrd was a 190+ pound man who worked his way up. They were never the same size despite similar measurements. You see this all the time in combat sports; two fighters with similar measurements who rehydrate to similar levels and yet one ends up looking a weight class or two higher.

Oiky wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:I'm surprised height and reach is leading. Again, we have weight classes for a reason.

This

Maybe i misunderstood the point of this question. Is it 'should height divisions replace weight divisions'? I think that is an obvious no.

Or is the question of 2 fighters in the same weight class where one might rehydrate to 10% heavier and the other is 10% taller. If skill, punch resistance, power and speed are all equal it's clear to me that height is more of an advantage.

Which is it?

Shirow wrote:

Oiky wrote:

punchoutsb wrote:I'm surprised height and reach is leading. Again, we have weight classes for a reason.

This

Maybe i misunderstood the point of this question. Is it 'should height divisions replace weight divisions'? I think that is an obvious no.

Or is the question of 2 fighters in the same weight class where one might rehydrate to 10% heavier and the other is 10% taller. If skill, punch resistance, power and speed are all equal it's clear to me that height is more of an advantage.

Which is it?

Neither. He said in general. Obviously there will be times when either would be the main advantage but significant weight differences are obviously more important hence the example of weight classes.