Page 2 of 2
Re: Is Deontay Wilder vs Luis Ortiz further proof that height and reach is more important than weight at heavyweight?
Posted: 07 Mar 2018, 07:46
by Badhusker
Luis Fernando12 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2018, 07:36
Badhusker wrote: ↑07 Mar 2018, 07:28
What about Mike Tyson's many wins against taller guys with more reach?
How about the fact that Mansour beat Breazeale every round until their fight was stopped because Mansour almost bit his tongue in half?
This thread......
Mike Tyson couldn't dominate any longer when SKILLED + ATHLETIC + TALL heavyweights like Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis arrived in the 1990's.
Mike Tyson only managed to beat tall opponents who were relatively unskilled or nonathletic. Mike Tyson vs Lennox Lewis is an example and a sample of how hopeless, useless and ineffective Mike Tyson was against a TALL + ATHLETIC + SKILLED SUPER HEAVYWEIGHT.
No heavyweight in history, shorter than 6 foot 4 inches would be favored to beat prime Wladimir Klitschko (2006 - 2012), prime Vitali Klitschko, Anthony Joshua, Tyson Fury or Lennox Lewis barring huge upsets.
And Alexander Povetkin > Mike Tyson. And if Povetkin can't do it, then no past short heavyweight is going to.
Re: Is Deontay Wilder vs Luis Ortiz further proof that height and reach is more important than weight at heavyweight?
Posted: 07 Mar 2018, 09:52
by Luis Fernando12
Badhusker wrote: ↑07 Mar 2018, 07:46
Luis Fernando12 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2018, 07:36
Badhusker wrote: ↑07 Mar 2018, 07:28
What about Mike Tyson's many wins against taller guys with more reach?
How about the fact that Mansour beat Breazeale every round until their fight was stopped because Mansour almost bit his tongue in half?
This thread......
Mike Tyson couldn't dominate any longer when SKILLED + ATHLETIC + TALL heavyweights like Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis arrived in the 1990's.
Mike Tyson only managed to beat tall opponents who were relatively unskilled or nonathletic. Mike Tyson vs Lennox Lewis is an example and a sample of how hopeless, useless and ineffective Mike Tyson was against a TALL + ATHLETIC + SKILLED SUPER HEAVYWEIGHT.
No heavyweight in history, shorter than 6 foot 4 inches would be favored to beat prime Wladimir Klitschko (2006 - 2012), prime Vitali Klitschko, Anthony Joshua, Tyson Fury or Lennox Lewis barring huge upsets.
And Alexander Povetkin > Mike Tyson. And if Povetkin can't do it, then no past short heavyweight is going to.
It's a genuine question and a point!
Do you genuinely believe past short heavyweights, including Mike Tyson could become the number 1 heavyweight in the world whilst surrounded by top giant super heavyweights that we have today like Anthony Josua, Tyson Fury and etc?
If yes, why do you think they would have more success than the skilled small heavyweights of today?
Re: Is Deontay Wilder vs Luis Ortiz further proof that height and reach is more important than weight at heavyweight?
Posted: 07 Mar 2018, 10:01
by danconnollyeire
Luis Fernando12 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2018, 07:10
danconnollyeire wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 11:51
Luis Fernando12 wrote: ↑05 Mar 2018, 09:14
Considering how the much lighter Deontay Wilder defeated the much heavier Luis Ortiz, due to possessing more reach and height.
Other examples include:
- David Haye weighing below 215 pounds, knocking out Dereck Chisora who had around 30 pounds of weight advantage since Chisora weighed above 230 pounds. Whilst the much heavier Vitali Klitschko failed to KO the same Dereck Chisora, despite Vitali Klitschko weighing more than David Haye and Dereck Chisora.
- A 6 foot 2, 225 pound Alexander Povetkin was helpless against Wladimir Klitschko but a 6 foot 4, 225 pound Corrie Sanders demolished Wladimir Klitschko in 2 rounds.
- Deontay Wilder constantly destroying much heavier men, due to a height and reach advantage, despite weight disadvantage. Such as the likes of Eric Molina for example.
In all of those examples, it's height and reach and not weight that plays the biggest factor in determining whether a boxer wins or knocks out his opponents.
Your logic is nonsense
Sanders didn't beat Wlad cos he was 6ft 4... he did because his hands were down and Sanders hit him with a stunning southpaw backhand
Height certainly played a part. Don't you think a 6 foot 7, 215 pound Deontay Wilder with an 83 inch reach would pose a greater threat to Wladimir Klitschko than a 215 pound Alexander Povetkin or David Haye who are both 6 foot 3 and 6 foot 2 respectively with less than 80 inch reach?
You're logic is utter nonsense. It's not top trumps, it's boxing. Obviously physicalities are advantages/disadvantages but you're saying Povetkin lost cos of his size and Sanders won because of his, but they're are similar size. What you on about? Wach was bigger than Wlad... Haye was shorter. Fury was bigger... Brewster was not. You can't just discount skill and tactics
Re: Is Deontay Wilder vs Luis Ortiz further proof that height and reach is more important than weight at heavyweight?
Posted: 08 Mar 2018, 05:58
by Luis Fernando12
danconnollyeire wrote: ↑07 Mar 2018, 10:01
Luis Fernando12 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2018, 07:10
danconnollyeire wrote: ↑06 Mar 2018, 11:51
Your logic is nonsense
Sanders didn't beat Wlad cos he was 6ft 4... he did because his hands were down and Sanders hit him with a stunning southpaw backhand
Height certainly played a part. Don't you think a 6 foot 7, 215 pound Deontay Wilder with an 83 inch reach would pose a greater threat to Wladimir Klitschko than a 215 pound Alexander Povetkin or David Haye who are both 6 foot 3 and 6 foot 2 respectively with less than 80 inch reach?
You're logic is utter nonsense. It's not top trumps, it's boxing. Obviously physicalities are advantages/disadvantages but you're saying Povetkin lost cos of his size and Sanders won because of his, but they're are similar size. What you on about? Wach was bigger than Wlad... Haye was shorter. Fury was bigger... Brewster was not. You can't just discount skill and tactics
Fair point my friend!
Just a genuine question: Do you think there will ever exist a heavyweight boxer in the future shorter than 6 foot 4 that would come and dominate the heavyweight division like how Lennox Lewis and the Klitschkos did by becoming the number 1 world heavyweight champion of the world and remaining on top for roughly as long?
Re: Is Deontay Wilder vs Luis Ortiz further proof that height and reach is more important than weight at heavyweight?
Posted: 08 Mar 2018, 06:32
by Stuarty
Wilder isn't the most technically gifted but the big fella can fight! He's a scrapper, a street fighter. I think AJ beats him but I wouldn't put it past Wilder knocking AJ out! It wouldn't surprise me! You expect the unexpected with a guy like Wilder...... Good luck to him......
Re: Is Deontay Wilder vs Luis Ortiz further proof that height and reach is more important than weight at heavyweight?
Posted: 08 Mar 2018, 10:04
by Datsue
And Alexander Povetkin > Mike Tyson. And if Povetkin can't do it, then no past short heavyweight is going to.
I was about to reply to this topic in good faith, but luckily I saw this sentence & realised you're either a troll or a legally blind person who gets his amanuensis to type for him, like the bards & poets of old.
My money's on the former. Good day.
Re: Is Deontay Wilder vs Luis Ortiz further proof that height and reach is more important than weight at heavyweight?
Posted: 08 Mar 2018, 10:05
by jamamb
its obvously a troll
Re: Is Deontay Wilder vs Luis Ortiz further proof that height and reach is more important than weight at heavyweight?
Posted: 08 Mar 2018, 21:28
by Luis Fernando12
Datsue wrote: ↑08 Mar 2018, 10:04
And Alexander Povetkin > Mike Tyson. And if Povetkin can't do it, then no past short heavyweight is going to.
I was about to reply to this topic in good faith, but luckily I saw this sentence & realised you're either a troll or a legally blind person who gets his amanuensis to type for him, like the bards & poets of old.
My money's on the former. Good day.
So you think I'm a troll because I believe a guy (Alexander Povetkin) who:
- Has won an Olympic gold medal.
- Has won an amateur world championship gold medal.
- Has never been KO'ed in his amateur + professional boxing career spanning around 200 bouts.
- Has only lost one bout to the greatest heavyweight of all time.
- Has never been out-boxed by anybody in his pro career legitimately and soundly. In his sole loss against Wladimir
Klitschko, he was fouled and the referee didn't enforce the rules properly.
- Has never lost to bums & journeymen.
is better than a guy (Mike Tyson) who:
- Wasn't good enough to box in the Olympics.
- Has lost to two bums / journeymen (Kevin Mcbride and Danny Williams).
- Has been KO'ed by a feather fisted boxer in Buster Douglas possessing a 40% KO record.
If that's the case, then I'm happy to be a 'troll' since your definition seems appropriate.
Re: Is Deontay Wilder vs Luis Ortiz further proof that height and reach is more important than weight at heavyweight?
Posted: 08 Mar 2018, 22:05
by Lackeos
Luis Fernando12 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2018, 07:07
Is there any human being in history shorter than 6 foot 4 inches that could've got past Wladimir Klitschko's jab during Wlad's prime (2006 - 2012)? Is it even humanly possible? Is it even within the laws of physics / science?
How skilled does someone shorter than 6 foot 4 inches have to be in order to overcome the height and reach disadvantages against someone like Deontay Wilder, Anthony Joshua or Tyson Fury?
Do you get the point I'm making?
Joe Frazier would. Some of the best ways to counter Wlad are with Corrie Sanders (i.e. a tallish, longish, power-punching southpaw who throws lead left crosses non-stop) or a good swarmer. There has been a dearth of great swarmers lately. Bryant Jennings swarmed Wlad, which made the fight frustrating at hell, and the rounds were much closer than boxing fans would like to admit. Joe Frazier's skill is light years beyond Bryant Jennings, and his swarming skills would've been a disaster for Wlad. A fighter like Ricky Hatton (a 6' 2" heavyweight version) would also fare decently against Wlad, given that he has t rex arms and still attained great success, but also because his skillful inside fighting would be a brutal counter to Wlad's clinches.
Re: Is Deontay Wilder vs Luis Ortiz further proof that height and reach is more important than weight at heavyweight?
Posted: 12 Mar 2018, 14:39
by Luis Fernando12
Lackeos wrote: ↑08 Mar 2018, 22:05
Luis Fernando12 wrote: ↑07 Mar 2018, 07:07
Is there any human being in history shorter than 6 foot 4 inches that could've got past Wladimir Klitschko's jab during Wlad's prime (2006 - 2012)? Is it even humanly possible? Is it even within the laws of physics / science?
How skilled does someone shorter than 6 foot 4 inches have to be in order to overcome the height and reach disadvantages against someone like Deontay Wilder, Anthony Joshua or Tyson Fury?
Do you get the point I'm making?
Joe Frazier would. Some of the best ways to counter Wlad are with Corrie Sanders (i.e. a tallish, longish, power-punching southpaw who throws lead left crosses non-stop) or a good swarmer. There has been a dearth of great swarmers lately. Bryant Jennings swarmed Wlad, which made the fight frustrating at hell, and the rounds were much closer than boxing fans would like to admit. Joe Frazier's skill is light years beyond Bryant Jennings, and his swarming skills would've been a disaster for Wlad. A fighter like Ricky Hatton (a 6' 2" heavyweight version) would also fare decently against Wlad, given that he has t rex arms and still attained great success, but also because his skillful inside fighting would be a brutal counter to Wlad's clinches.
By modern heavyweight standard, Joe Frazier wouldn't even be considered a heavyweight, but rather a cruiser weight. He is actually smaller in size compared to a lot of cruiser weights during fight night.
Even if we discount size, Joe Frazier is one of the worst examples one can give. Simply because, he is SIGNIFICANTLY inferior to Alexander Povetkin. He is a smaller version of someone like Dereck Chisora. So even if Joe Frazier was bigger in size, he still wouldn't pose much of a threat to Wladimir Klitschko because of such a limited and low level skill set he possesses.
Corrie Sanders is 6 foot 4 so he is irrelevant.
And Bryant Jennings has a longer reach than Wladimir Klitschko, unlike Joe Frazier or other shorter boxers. Plus, Wladimir Klitschko was WAY WAY WAY past his prime when he fought Bryant Jennings so that fight doesn't even count.