Which is More of an Advantage

Impractical Poster · Post by **Impractical Poster** » 17 Mar 2017, 19:37

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.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 17 Mar 2017, 19:42

Assuming it's natural weight - not fat or overly-bulked up muscle, the answer is weight. Being shorter and having a shorter reach can be an advantage for fighters who know how to use it.

There's a reason why we have weight divisions and not height/reach divisions.

crusader · Post by **crusader** » 17 Mar 2017, 19:44

What's your idea?

punchoutsb · Post by **punchoutsb** » 17 Mar 2017, 19:46

Actual weight. Being over bulked or fat doesn't offer an advantage and in many cases can be a hindrance. As jezzamundo said, weight divisions exist for a reason.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 17 Mar 2017, 20:12

A good example of this is Sugar Ray Robinson vs Jake Lamotta. They had highly competitive fights despite the fact that Robinson was far superior skill-wise and was 3 inches taller with 5 inches longer reach because Lamotta was naturally two weight divisions heavier (well, one division in those days) and had the style to make that extra weight an issue.

lazboy · Post by **lazboy** » 17 Mar 2017, 20:32

Whenever I was sparring or competing in my weight division I would always prefer to fight someone my height or taller, I was tall myself and found them easier to hit. I always felt the smaller ones (height wise) had more power.

Jip · Post by **Jip** » 17 Mar 2017, 21:00

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.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 17 Mar 2017, 21:21

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?

Jip · Post by **Jip** » 17 Mar 2017, 21:26

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?

hearns and tyson, what a stupid comparison. i think we are talking on this thread about a advantage of weight, but not a huge advantage of weight. maybe 1 weight class advantage, not 4.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 18 Mar 2017, 03:11

Jip wrote:
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?
hearns and tyson, what a stupid comparison. i think we are talking on this thread about a advantage of weight, but not a huge advantage of weight. maybe 1 weight class advantage, not 4.

It was a deliberately stupid comparison to show that a big gap in weight is a big advantage, even when the heavier man is shorter. As I mentioned before, Robinson-Lamotta is a good example of how big a difference weight makes.

Evander · Post by **Evander** » 18 Mar 2017, 03:17

Weight is big.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 18 Mar 2017, 03:48

I'm surprised that height/reach is leading in this poll - makes me think that most of the people voting that way haven't boxed. There are very few boxers in the world good enough to make a height/reach advantage a real issue against a world class opponent. Lennox Lewis, Wlad and Tyson Fury are the best examples I can think of. There are also plenty of tall fighters who weren't able to use their size to their advantage, including Diego Corrales, Paul Williams, David Price and countless other giant heavyweights.

lazboy · Post by **lazboy** » 18 Mar 2017, 03:54

jezzamundo wrote:I'm surprised that height/reach is leading in this poll - makes me think that most of the people voting that way haven't boxed. There are very few boxers in the world good enough to make a height/reach advantage a real issue against a world class opponent. Lennox Lewis, Wlad and Tyson Fury are the best examples I can think of. There are also plenty of tall fighters who weren't able to use their size to their advantage, including Diego Corrales, Paul Williams, David Price and countless other giant heavyweights.

Hearns, Kovalev, even Mayweather was a lean fooker that could use it to his advantage. I agree though, with what you said, those other names come to mind.

greg · Post by **greg** » 18 Mar 2017, 04:16

..are we talking about advantages within the same weight division or across the board? as mentioned above, the weight divisions are there for a reason...within the same weight division, all other things being equal? I'll go with the reach advantage..

lillywhite14 · Post by **lillywhite14** » 18 Mar 2017, 04:39

All depends on the fighters involved. No use having either if you don't know how to or have the talent to use it!

Given fighters of equal ability and fitness? Weight advantage, every time imo.

Height and reach can be a negative sometimes

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 18 Mar 2017, 05:06

greg wrote:..are we talking about advantages within the same weight division or across the board? as mentioned above, the weight divisions are there for a reason...within the same weight division, all other things being equal? I'll go with the reach advantage..

Good point, I agree. Though we know there can be weight gaps within the same division - look at the recent fight between Canelo and Khan, who both weighed in at the 155lb 'Canelo weight' but we all knew who the bigger man was on fight night.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 18 Mar 2017, 05:08

lazboy wrote:
jezzamundo wrote:I'm surprised that height/reach is leading in this poll - makes me think that most of the people voting that way haven't boxed. There are very few boxers in the world good enough to make a height/reach advantage a real issue against a world class opponent. Lennox Lewis, Wlad and Tyson Fury are the best examples I can think of. There are also plenty of tall fighters who weren't able to use their size to their advantage, including Diego Corrales, Paul Williams, David Price and countless other giant heavyweights.
Hearns, Kovalev, even Mayweather was a lean fooker that could use it to his advantage. I agree though, with what you said, those other names come to mind.

Hearns was someone I had in mind too and probably the best example I can think of in the middle weight classes. Mayweather is another good call, I hadn't thought of Kovalev because his reach isn't particularly long for his division, but he does have a very good, stiff jab.

candyslim · Post by **candyslim** » 18 Mar 2017, 05:19

You have to know how to use height and reach effectively or it can be a disavantage. Would you say being 6' 8" has worked for David Price? On the other hand you have Wlad - another fighter susceptible to a big punch - who really knows how to use height and reach effectively.

Being short can be a disadvantage but you wouldn't guess that from watching Mike Tyson in his prime. No one thought to tell him

Shirow · Post by **Shirow** » 18 Mar 2017, 05:32

I spar twice a week and I chose height as it's so much more work to get inside a long jab of a boxer who knows how to use it than to try and jab and step back to avoid being rushed.

Obviously a heavier boxer should have more KO power but if the skill and speed levels are equal a taller and longer boxer should always be able to outbox shorter and heavier one.

BitPlayer · Post by **BitPlayer** » 18 Mar 2017, 06:03

It depends how much.

davie · Post by **davie** » 18 Mar 2017, 06:07

I've gone for heaight and reach because other than Heavyweights there shouldn't really be a significant weight advantage.

But comparing the 2 I'd say the benefits are similar, as long as they are utilised properly.

Of course we do get draining and re-hydrating but even then I'd say the taller fighter has the edge on being able to become a naturally bigger fight.

Och, I don't know

caldo2025 · Post by **caldo2025** » 18 Mar 2017, 07:27

The question isn't very good because some people utilize weight gain effectively and strategically while others do not and weight gain negatively affects their performance on fight night. While height and reach is ALWAYS an advantage unless you have a horrible chief second.

Canelo utilizes weight gain the best out of anyone. Canelo doesn't weight in publicly on the day of the fight for good reason. Lemieux is one that doesn't utilize weight gain to his advantage and I think it hurts his ability on fight night and might be the reason for him fading in fights.

Height and length never had a bad night if you use it correctly.

jezzamundo · Post by **jezzamundo** » 18 Mar 2017, 10:36

davie wrote:I've gone for heaight and reach because other than Heavyweights there shouldn't really be a significant weight advantage.

But comparing the 2 I'd say the benefits are similar, as long as they are utilised properly.

Of course we do get draining and re-hydrating but even then I'd say the taller fighter has the edge on being able to become a naturally bigger fight.

Och, I don't know

I guess there are different ways of looking at the question. Within the context of one (non-heavyweight) weight division, height/reach is more of an advantage because there's more potential for a fighter having a big advantage (like 6'2" Holyfield vs 5'5" Qawi), while having a big weight advantage when competing in the same weight class means you drained heavily to make weight, which comes with its own problems.

Speaking from experience, I used to regularly spar at a boxing gym in my early 20s and I was a 6'1" welterweight with 77" reach. The only taller/longer guys I sparred with were several weight divisions heavier. I was able to utilise my longer reach against shorter welterweights and some middleweights who were around my own level or below, but whenever I sparred with a shorter, higher level boxer, they would completely negate my natural advantages with their footwork and timing.

TempleSlave · Post by **TempleSlave** » 18 Mar 2017, 11:50

That question needs a bit more context. How much weight/reach advantage? Are all other aspects (skills, speed, stamina, chin etc.) fairly even? I'm assuming yes. That debate might have some meaning if we were talking about heavyweights where these margins can be greatest but still, the heavier guy doesn't need to have more power. Assuming everything else is even, including power and motor skills I'd go for reach.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 18 Mar 2017, 13:18

Natural size always means more. Ask any professional boxer.