Quote Originally Posted by S_B View Post
The bottom line, in as simple terms as one can get....it all boils down to ability.
Size can NOT determine ability, you either have it or you don't. And more often than not, when you get significant size, ability decreases.
That doesn't mean there isn't exceptions to the rule. I have seen very fast, very agile larger fighters with finish.
My personal preference would be right in the middle of small and large.
Great topic NQ, we do not all have to agree, how interesting would that be?
S_B
I agree, it all comes down to ability.

And, while I also agree size cannot "determine" ability, the FACT is a bigger fighter is less likely to have "high ability" than a smaller man.
More importantly, at the TOP of their game, a bigger fighter will NEVER have the same level of ability as the best smaller fighters

Further, even power-wise, it's the same thing, proportionally ... smaller fighters are better in this area also

FACT: Only 1 heavyweight Champion in the history of the game has been able to maintain a greater than 80% KO percentage;
By contrast, there are MULTIPLE other lighter weight Champions have maintain a greater than 80% KO percentage.

Every other GREAT heavyweight KO artist is in the 70th %, and even here there are only 5 who have done this;
Meanwhile I could roll out a mile-long list of lighter fighters who are in the 70th percentile KO % [Hagler, Ketchel, Foster, Julian Jackson (81%), McClellan (85%), etc.]

Again, there really is nothing to debate.

Heavyweight fighters really can't compare, in ANY stats, to the lighter weight fighters ... not # of punches thrown, not KO%, nothing.

Heavyweights are just big ... and a few of them are big and GOOD.
But as far as actual KO stats in relation to power goes ... they really pale in comparison, proportionally, to the most devastating smaller men.
Again, facts are facts, stats are stats.

As previously stated, denial isn't rebuttal; it is only denial.

Jack