Is it true that the smaller guy always win ?

Question

is it true that when a big guy faces a smaller guy the smaller guy always win ? why is that ? look at the fight of Dempsey and Willard ? why did Dempsey win and Willard had the Height and the body ?is there a secret that smaller guys are somehow stronger ?

Answer 1

it all depends on the fight plan.

Answer 2

False.

Answer 3

Very false. When a fighter is smaller he is forced to go on the inside in order to land punches and that could work against sloppy big guys that are slow but would be useless against any big guy that actually knew what he was doing, Jess Willard was not a boxer, he was just a big guy that tried to box (his only notable win is against a washed up jack johnson) Dempsey beat him because Dempsey actually knew how to box,but trust me if Dempsey had fought a prime jack Johnson or a prime George Foreman I can guarantee that the results would be very different, just watch george foreman versus Frazier or Liston vs Floyd Patterson most of the time the bigger boxer has the advantage.

Answer 4

no it is not true. it is very dificult for a smaller man to beat someone taller than they are

Answer 5

no

Answer 6

its in the opponents mentality often underestimating the little fellow,thinking he will be easy to beat and therefore has a more relaxed attitude towards the fight.The smaller guy on the other hand feels he has a lot more to prove,hence putting more effort into the fight.

Answer 7

That's false. I think Chris Byrd can vouche for that, after the beating he got from Ike Ibeabuchi and Wladimir Klitschko.

It's just a matter of which fighter execution his fight plan better and knowing his own strength and weakness as well as his opponent's.

Answer 8

If that were true, there would be no need to hold the fight. The better fighter on THAT particular day wins the fight. Period!

Answer 9

No, a skilled big guy will always beat a skilled small guy.  Size matters in boxing, and the big guys who have skill will usually beat the smaller guys that have skill.  Jack Dempsey beat Jess Willard because Dempsey was simply the better fighter, and he went out relentlessy against Willard.  He bet a substantial amount of money on himself that he would win that fight by a first round knockout, and he did everything in his power to do that- he didn't get the first round KO, but he sure as h**l gave Willard a terrible beating.  It is even rumored that he used plaster of paris to beat Willard, but this has never been proven.  Willard had the size advantage, but that was IT, Dempsey had EVERYTHING else.  There are numerous examples of where the small guy got beat soundly by the big guy.  The best example is probably when heavyweight Jack Johnson beat middleweight champ Stanley Ketchell.  It was supposed to be like a glorified sparring session, and Johnson was supposed to take it easy on Ketchell since he was so much smaller.  Everything was going to plan until Ketchell tried to knock out Johnson- BIG MISTAKE.  Johnson was knocked down, but when he got up he punched Ketchell's teeth out (literally).  After he knocks him out, if you watch the tape, you can see Johnson wiping Ketchell's teeth off of his glove.  There are numerous other examples of the big guy beating the small guy, but we tend to always remember when the small guy wins because we like to see a "David vs. Goliath" situation, and when the little guy does triumph, it sticks in our memory because it was so much of a shock at the time.

Answer 10

I think Dempsey was just a more ferocious boxer. The whole concept of weight divisions, is to give the smaller guys a fair chance, as fighting bigger guys is unfair. If two guys have the same skill but one is bigger, he will have the advantage. Then again, there was Royce Gracie who cained many larger opponents in his day.

http://markschat.blogspot.com Fighting and Training Methods for Unarmed Martial Artists

Answer 11

I could give you a TON of examples where that makes no sense.  Instead, just get a hold of a tape of the Tyson-Lewis fight.  The right hand Lennox KO'd Tyson with is certainly one of the hardest punches he's ever thrown.  

As for Willard, he's one of the worse champions in any weight class in history.  You must consider the fact that Dempsey's quality of opposition was luke warm at best.  Imagine, he would import Luis Firpo to the US to fight but won't fight Langford or Wills because they're Black.

Forget that FOLKTALE about Dempsey wanting to fight Wills.  He signed the contract KNOWING FULL WELL that Tex Rickard would never allow the fight to happen.  Dempsey himself even admitted to not wanting to fight Sam Langford.  

I just can not give Dempsey all the credit he gets on this board.  People speak of him like he's some sort of god.  If Larry Holmes ducked Gerry Cooney I don't think he would be considered or ranked as high as he is on most All-Time lists, nor should he.  No fighter should be avoided just because of race.  

IF you take out all the members of ANY race from any sport you eliminate any chance to see who is really the best.  Many people feel that Wills would have beaten Dempsey or Tunney.  It's said that Tunney retired so he wouldn't have to fight Wills.  

People are always complaining about the shape of the division today.  Look at the division during Dempsey's period.  Willard would not even be in the top 10 today.   He wouldn't be in the top 10 among Tyson's challengers either.  Dempsey was not the tough guy people make him out to be.  Marciano would have crushed him.