BoxRec

we havnt discussed much about reach it seems. but do u really think reach is a huge advantage??? or is it only an advantage if the fighter uses it as part of his style. guys like primo carnera were able to keep some opponents off him by pawing with his 86 inch reach. holmes used it to jab apart his opponents. ali did also. BUT WHAT ABOUT HEAVYWEIGHTS WITH A SHORT REEACH GUYS LIKE TYSON AND MARCIANO??? MARCIANO 67''?????? IS HE AT A HUGE DISATVANTAGE OR DOES IT DEPEND ON IF A GUY LIKE LENNOX LEWIS IS ABLE TO KEEP HIM AT DISTANCE. CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE IF MARCIANO IS TO GET INSIDE THEN HE HAS THE ADVATANGE. A REACH IS A TOOL, AND IT DEPENDS ON HOW A MAN USES IT TO MAKE IT WORK. TYSON AND MARCIANO MADE IT WORK BY GETTING INSIDE USING THEIR SHORT BULKY FOREMARS TO LAND HARD BODY PUNCHES. . ITS SHOCKING THEY CAN HAVE THAT SHORT OF A REACH AND DO SO WELL.

ONE THING I SEE IS IF U LOKED AT MARCIANO AND TYSONS FOREMANS AND WRSIT, THEY ARE HUGEEEEE. THEY HAVE A LOT OF MEAT ON THE FOREMARM AND IT LOOKS LIKE IF U WERE TO GET HIT BY THAT U WOULD BE OUT.


WHATS UR OPINIONS ON REACH???

Reach is an advantage but everyone has their own advangtages Tyson,Frazier and Marciano all had a short reach, but their advantages were fighting low, when you are jabbing/reaching all the way down to hit a low target it brings you off balance and say Marciano slips a long jab by a guy reaching down, he could easily knock the other guy down, whether it hurts the other guy or not he's off balance.

reach is always an advantage unless you have such a reach that it hurts your face to face punching ability..if you know how to use the reach to your advantage then it deffinatly helps..just ask the fridge haha manute bol destroyed him in celebrity boxing

I think reach is an advantage, but it's not the "end all" of advantages. You see in a lot of fights one guy having a decided reach advantage over another and not using it, opting instead to stand toe-to-toe with shorter, stronger foes.

Brockton ... I will ask this one question, though, since you've brought up a subject that kind of makes this worth revisiting. As you say, Holmes did indeed jab people to death, having the long reach that he had and using it very effectively. You were upset, however, at my previous suggestion that Marciano would stand little chance against him. Given that he had about an 80" reach to Marciano's 67" and he did indeed use this natural asset well, do you not see how much bigger a hurdle Marciano would be facing against Larry Holmes than against anyone he ever fought during his own time?

Honestly, I'd drive 100 miles to see a Marciano fight before I'd walk across the street to watch Holmes, not because I don't like Holmes, but because with Marciano you always knew you were going to see a fight. I mean, who doesn't like watching a guy who's giving up most, if not all, of the physical advantages, but who will still beat you by literally imposing his will.

However, a guy with a 67" reach, even someone as great as Marciano, would end up taking too much punishment if he had to fight someone of at least similar greatness, if that someone was a prime Larry Holmes sporting a 13" reach advantage and knowing how to use it, while also outweighing Marciano by about 30 pounds.

As I said before (and again this is just my own opinion), Marciano's greatness is not diminished by whether I, or anyone else, does not think he could beat Holmes or even a few others who were around just prior to when Holmes became champ. Different eras, different fighters. You're judged by who you beat and how you beat them at the time the fights took place. Anything else -- like all the arguing over the placement of fighters on all-time great lists -- is really just an exercise in rhetorical theory. There's nothing to prove anything ...

Except who articulates the best and can sound like they know more.

I AGREE WITH U ABOUT HOLMES HAVING AN ADVANTAGE OVER MARCIANO THAN ALL OF MARCIANS OPPONENTS. AND I HAVE NO DOUBT HOLM,ES WOULD HAVE LANDED THE JAB, JUST NOT AS CLEANLY OR OFTEN AS EVERYONE THINKS. I THINK SOMEONE LIKE JOE LOUIS JAB WOULD LAND A LOT MORE THAN LARRY HOLMES.

HOLMES WAS 6'4 AND MARCIANO IN HIS CROUCH, HOLMES WOULD HAVE TO REACH FAR DOWN TO LAND THAT AND I JUST THINK MARCIANO WAS REALLY TOUGH TO HIT WITH A JAB CLEANly, and also due to the fact that shavers and snipes nearly kayoing holmes with big right hands. holmes sometimes got lazy and i feel hard body punching by marciano will take its toll on holmes and he would wear down and catch holmes and stop holmes on his feet. no doubt holmes would give him problems but i think holmes would have a lot of problems of his own agianst marciano. I JUST THINK HOLMES WOULDNT HAVE TOO MUCH ADVANTAGE OVER MARCIANO WITH HIS JAB SINCE I THINK TRYING TO LAND IT CLEANLY AGAINST MARCIANMO WOULD THROW HOLMES OFF BALANCE AND GIVE MARCIANO A CHANCE TO COUNTER WITH A RIGHT OR HARD BODY PUNCHING.



though holmes was obivsely past his prime, u saw what a short reach guy like mike tyson did to him.


BUT U MAKE SOME GOOD POINTS AND I THINK HOLMES REACH ADVANTAGE AND JAB IS A BIG ADVANTAGE, I JUST DONT THINK HOLMES WOULD BE ABLE TO CAPITALIZE ON IT AS MUCH AS PEOPLE THINK. i think a other guys would give marciano a tougher time.

You could be right. I mean, I have no basis to reject your opinion other than that it doesn't concur with my own. But I'm trying to keep an open mind here.

I just think the only way Marciano could beat Holmes would be if he did manage to land one big, fight turning shot. Because, as I talked about in our previous exchange on this matter, size is not the "end all" in determining who wins fights, but you give the bigger man all the skills to go with his significant height, size and reach advantage, then throw in Holmes heart in on top of that ...

Damn! That's a lot to overcome even for a warrior like Marciano.

But, to your point, history is indeed full of great short fighters -- guys whose "shortness" actually did work to their advantage. I was always a great fan of Dwight Muhammad Qawi. He was another fighter who, in his prime, you always knew you were going to see in a real fight, not one of these lazy, energy conserving hug fests like a lot of fights are today.

Look forward to your reply.

i AGREE with u that larry holmes would have the advantage over marciano in a lot of areas. i am not so sure on if he wouldbe able to capitalize on all of them as much as we thought. i thought rocky had a decent style for holmes

lets go over the areas of fighting and see who would have the advantage:

Power- MARCIANO. holmes never showed much pwoer or one shot power, andthe fact that marciano had one of the highest knockout percentages, a devastating right, and a decent left gives him the edge.

size- HOLMES. at 6'4 215 lb he also held a 13 inch reach on marciano

speed- HOLMES. marciano never known for his speed, though i thought he had more handspeed than given credit for. holmes threw a fast jab and fast combos. and had a lot more leg speed than marciano

Jab- HOLMES. while holmes had one of the best jabs ever, marciano hardly ever threw one except against kid mathews.

Chin- HOLMES. as great as chin marciano had, i give it to holmes for he was hit by some harder punchers than marciano was hit by and always managed to get up. he was hit flush by an earnie shavers right yet managed to get up. holmes was only knocked down 3 times in his prime. marciano twice. marciano was hit by all time knockout artist and best finisher ever archie moore but moore was unable to finish him.

defense - HOLMES. marciano wasnt much of a defensive fighter, but his defense was underated. he blockedthe body punches with his elbows and got in a tough crouch and was HARD TO HIT CLEANLY. but holmes, was a master boxer and could counter ur big blows and sting the jab in ur face. the only time he got caught was when he got lazy. holmes could spot ur flaw and attack.

strentgh- MARCIANO. though holmes is bigger, i think a no brainer. one of the reasons a small ehavyweight like marciano beat the big guys was he had immense strentgh for his size. one of the strongest men pound for pound ever. marciano had huge tree trunk legs which gave him power along with bulky fore arms and strong upper body. marciano was always able to outphysical someone.

stamina- MARCIANO. tough one, cause holmes was tough in championship rounds, BUT marcianos best rounds was the championships rounds. one ofth reasons he won the first fight with ezzard is he won all the championship rounds. whilke other guys get tired, he gets stronger and stronger. never stopped throwing punches either.

body punching-MARCIANO. rockys one of the best body punchers of all time and would wear u down by beating on ur body.

heart- EVEN. this may be a suprise for either side but i always though one of holmes best traits was his heat. marciano showed his true heart countles s times on the verge of defeat against walcott and 2nd fight against charles. holmes got up from near knockouts of snipes and shavers and came back to stop them. he also showed lots of heart against norton especially in the final 30 sec of the final round which won him the fight.

inside fighting- MARCIANO. due to his short reach marciano was at his best inside being able to dig hard body shots and nail his big right hand.


if u go by those traits its even at 5-5-1.


marciano would defintely have to land that big right, but marciano unlike some of holmes opponents always stalked u and wore u down with punches at the body and arms and i dont know how holmes would react to that. by doing that, marciano will open up holmes for a big shot later on. it could very well happen. it could defintely wear down holmes, and marciano was even tougher in the late rounds. IN HOLMES DEFENSE, marciano fighting a biugger man could take something out of rocky who might get worn down a little. but marciano could match holmes strength and had incredible stamina. it would have been an interesting fight.

I'll go along with all that. Pretty nice analysis. Perhaps there's a senior thesis in waiting in all this, whatever college it is you're off to.

At the end of the day, I'm just bothered by Marciano's chances against Holmes on the basis of size and given the large advantage Holmes had in reach (which is what this thread is all about). I don't disagree Marciano was physically stronger pound-for-pound, but I think those hard body shots that broke down lighter, skinnier guys like Walcott, LaStarza, Charles, etc. would have been absorbed a bit better by the larger man, Holmes. I know size is not the most popular topic with some folks here as a means of supposing who wins fights. But the pork that produces power has a way of absorbing it, too. And once you throw skills into the equation, then size takes on more meaning yet.

For instance, I admit I didn't expect McBride to make it out of the second or third round against Tyson. The fact that he won the fight surprises me even more. But one thing that sticks in my mind is that he took some pretty hard shots early on, much the same as Danny Williams did the year before, yet he was able to weather the storm ...

And that without having a lick of defensive skill. Did size have anything to do with it? Or is Tyson just not that strong anymore?

The latter I doubt, because even with Tyson's diminished skills, power (as they say) is the last thing to go. So I think there's something right there to ponder in supposing how a fight between Marciano and Holmes might have turned out. Marciano would take more punishment, the punishment he would dish out would be absorbed better by Holmes, and Marciano is the one who would eventually wear down and be defeated.

I just think Marciano's only real chance would be to land that one big shot.

I would certainly think reach is significant but it might only be a really important advantage if there is a big difference in reach. Marciano apparently had a reach of 68 inches while Walcott and Charles had a reach of 74 inches but in my opinion that might not have been a great enough difference to give them a huge advantage.

In cases like Tyson vs Lewis where Lewis had a reach advantage of 13 inches it certainly seems like the reach advantage could be significant.

I believe reach is an advantage that is given too much weight. When someone is said to have a "10 inch reach advantage," that sounds imposing and like a serious obstacle. But the truth is that reach is wingspan, hand-to-hand with your arms outstretched. This isn't always accurate as to how long your actual arms are, nor is the difference in the actual lengths of your arms as big as it sounds.
A 10" reach advantage means each of your arms should be about 5" longer than the other guy's, except that the chances are the guy with the smaller reach is also smaller in general, meaning part of the reach difference is in the shoulder width. The actual length of the arms is not as big a difference as it might sound on paper when referring to conventionally-measured "reach."
Furthermore, I don't believe a few inches in the length of a fighter's arms actually makes quite as much a difference as many people think. Still, a longer reach is an advantage, no doubt.

Reach is an advantage if you have a good jab. That's the punch that can utilize reach. If you're a 'hooker' like Joe Frazier, you don't need long arms...you need to slip under your opponent and paste him with short punches...shorter punches are more accurate and do more damage...if Frazier's arms were 5" longer, would it have made a difference in his style? He wasn't a jabber, so I don't think so...A good boxer with a good stiff fast jab can utilize a 'reach advantage'...so it depends a lot on style whether your reach gives you an advantage...

I believe Holmes actually stood 6ft 3 1/2 inches.