This is basically in reference to nothing, but I wanted to reiterate an opinion I have that I've become even more convinced of - size always matters, REGARDLESS OF THE STYLES. I've heard several people say that size was an irrelevant factor in Mayweather-Marquez for instance because Floyd doesn't use allot of physicality or bullying in his style. I think this is absolute cowshit and overlooks some vital (and screamingly obvious/simple) realities inside the ring. When you're bigger you hit harder and when you're bigger you take a better shot (in straight up, non-relative terms). That's the whole basis for weight classes. I doubt anybody will contend this. And what happens when you're afraid of your opponents power & strength and your opponent isn't scared of yours? What happens to the dynamic of the fight? What happens to your willingness to let your hands go and his? What happens to your willingness to defend your turf & range in the ring versus his? What happens to your relaxation and confidence versus his? Secondly, even if physicality isn't a part of YOUR style, you become far harder to push back yourself (or even just hold your ground against), which might be a strategic cornerstone to your OPPONENTS success. Of course some styles might be better suited to moving up in weight, and some styles might be better suited to fully exploiting a weight advantage, but a weight advantage ALWAYS matters to a greater or lesser extent. And it mattered in Floyd-Marquez ALLOT. This isn't a Floyd bashing thread, it was just that fight which sparked the original discussion and triggered me thinking of the issue again. As you were....
Regardless of whatever insightful and accurate points you've made above, the fight would have looked exactly the same had they fought at 135lbs or 130lbs. Floyd's speed, movement and reflexes would have done the same thing.
You are completely correct. Also it must be noted that size shouldn't count against a fighter when judging how 'great' he is. That doesn't really relate to your post but I want to use the opportunity to say so
bottom line is that marquez landed plenty of flush, hard shots on mayweather jr that had zero effect. those same punches tend to hurt his foes at 135 and below.
Not really. Without the size factor Marquez would have tried to attack more and Floyd's shots wouldn't have hurt him as much, and Floyd couldn't have pushed him around that easily. Floyd wins anyway, but the size did help him a great deal.
Floyd would have won but it would have been far more competitive. The dynamic would have looked different and Marquez would have had more strategic options and more confidence in pursuing them. It probably would have ended about 8/4 and been a very good fight. But I just use that as a illustrative example, tbh, I don't wanna get totally drawn into that fight. If people can think of other relevant examples that'd be cool. Even just the way the Klitschko's almost always control centre ring without using any inside bullying or physicality or in Wlad's case sometimes without even throwing punches is a perfect illustration, IMO.
I completely agree with you. To say size didn't matter in Floyd vs Marquez (or any other fight) is just ignorant. Floyd is a better fighter than Marquez, and stylistically similar, so of course he would win in any weight class, but there is also no doubt it would have been a more competitive fight if they were the same natural size(and age). Floyd honestly looked bigger than I thought he would against Marquez, and again against Mosley. And with other matchups too, you don't have to be a physical bully to enforce a size difference, the most basic thing as you said is punching power and punch absorbtion, plus the mere existence of said size advantage changes the dynamic of the fight in a pretty big way.
And like I said in the OP. Lets say YOU have a bullying style with lots of physicality, or would like to employ elements of one in said fight. Make it a messier inside fight. If a guy is 2 weight classes bigger than you, you can't. You can't even hold your ground in clinches.
I understand the other side of the equation on this - those who claim it doesn't matter, are trying to say that Floyd beats Marquez at any weight. I agree with that, but yes it's missing the point. I think Hopkins-Winky would've turned out far different at 160 than when they fought at HBOPPVweight a few years ago. Not saying Wink wins outright, but he'd look much better than the Krispy Kreme version that fattened up to 170 for that fight.
I'm calling bullshit on that. Corrales (who was BIGGER than Floyd) is usually a very agressive fighter (see Castillo 1 fight, frietas, manfredy fights as examples) but he didn't try to attack Floyd more. Why? Because Floyd's movement, counterpunching and shoulder-roll mischief causes his opponents to limit their punch outputs. Size had nothing to do with Marquez' lower output. STYLE had everything to do with it.
That is not a counter-point, it is a different matter. Yes, Corrales was passive the same way Ruiz was against Jones, because those quick counters hurt him and he couldn't see them coming, thus he couldn't walk in. However, if he had not been hurt by the shots, it would have been different (naturally) and that is the point: had Floyd hit Marquez less hard (meaning, had he been smaller), Marquez could have attacked him harder
Conjecture. I say Marquez would never have attacked Floyd more because of Floyd's style. You say that Marquez would have attacked him more if Floyd was smaller. Who knows? All I'm saying is that I'm offering an alternative suggestion for Marquez' lower output and the existence of that alternative means that the first point can be called into question unless it is proven without a doubt. Which it can't be.
but getting bounced around like a basketball by a nobody bum like Corrie Sanders should... getting dropped three times by a stooge like Sam Peter should... and falling apart against shitty Lamon Brewster should
No doot aboot it. Sometimes it's not even about a direct size disadvantage as such, it's as much about the extra weight you're carrying impairing your ability, as was the case with Marquez and Winky. Even though yes, they both would have lost in their natural divisions, the fights would have been different, and they would have done better.
Hatton is the perfect example of that. Physically stronger than everyone at 140, with that strength being a huge component of his style. Only 1 division up and he can't even outmuscle a guy like Collazo, who doesn't have a physical style, and isn't known for strength or power.
Size matters for a whole variety of different reasons.......Sandy Saddler and Panama Al Brown weren't just bigger per se, they were impossibly thin, tall and angular and could hold guys off with elbows, their knee-caps, a forearm, anything. One half a step for them is a full step for the other guy. They can close the distance, keep it at range, run away etc.
