Who has the advantage, short or tall boxers?

[Oliverlogan263]

Shorter Boxer

Taller Boxer

[dynamicyandere]

Generally speaking, I’d say tall has the advantage for boxing.

For grappling and throwing, it could arguably be short, because they have a lower center of gravity and would have better balance and stability.


But for boxing and other striking martial arts, where grappling or throwing your opponent isn’t allowed, a reach advantage can make a big difference.


Just like in a sword duel, a short sword will have more trouble against a long sword because there will be many opportunities for the long sword user to land an attack, while the short sword user can’t reach their opponent.


If you ever sparred against anyone a head taller than you, you’ll know what I mean when they can reach you with their jabs before you can reach them.


It requires the shorter opponent to be faster than the taller opponent, because they need to be able to close the distance without being hit, in order to begin landing hits themselves.


Once they close in, closer than the tall opponent’s ideal striking range, then the shorter fighter has the advantage.


So, the shorter fighter is going to have the disadvantage whenever they are not close enough to land a hit.


Whenever a round starts, it begins with enough space between the fighters, so that the taller fighter already has the reach advantage, at the start of EVERY round.


The shorter fighter is then forced to put maneuver and be fast enough to close the distance, in order to neutralize the reach advantage.

[dynamicyandere]

forced to out-maneuver*

[robhazelnut]

Very good points as well!

[dynamicyandere]

Thanks! 🙂

[WhiteSteve]

Tall guy probably has a reach advantage, that’s big. I watched Lennox Lewis beat Mike Tyson back in the day because he was like 6’5 and Tyson was 5’10, and Tyson just couldn’t get inside on him to do any damage. Lennox kept him at a distance with jabs, just *tap*….*tap*….*tap*….. no killer shots, but halfway through the fight Tyson’s eye is swelling shut. I forget the exact finish, but Lewis started teeing off after he closed Tyson’s eye, and that was ultimately how he beat him. Tyson was a ferocious fighter, but that night, he just wasn’t able to get it going. He was getting old, too, but the reach disparity was what really made the difference.

[Billlewis]

I want to get your opinion on a match between Marvin Hagler and Sugar Ray Leonard that took place in the spring of 1985. I was sure Haglef won by a mile, but Leonard got him with a bunch of soft 'rabbit punches' and was declared the winner by split decision. Worst outcome of a boxing match I've ever seen. Are you familiar with this match? Thanks

[WhiteSteve]

@Billlewis I’m from Hagler Country, so I remember this even though I was young. I’ve seen the fight since, but not for a while. As I remember, I thought Hagler took it. Only thing was I think Hagler came out orthodox at first, instead of his natural southpaw, and he might have lost a couple rounds doing that. Overall, I thought Hagler was the better fighter that day. I think he was getting old then too, though.

[Billlewis]

I know, right? To me, it was just smoke and mirrors. I don't know how you can score one guy ahead of the other guy, just because he connected on more punches, when 80% of them were little taps, and the other guy is landing haymakers left and right... lol

[robhazelnut]

For KOs, the taller boxer due to reach to their opponent's face. For doing bodily harm, the shorter boxer due to reach to their opponent's torso. If they have the same weight and muscle/fat/bone proportions, then the shorter boxer will be stronger.

[dynamicyandere]

Very good points!

[robhazelnut]

@dynamicyandere Thanks!

[Joshydavid25]

It really depends on other factors like skill, and speed.. If the shorter fighter has the speed and power advantage over the taller fighter, the short fighter has the advantage.. But with the same skillset the taller fighter would probably be at an advantage simply because of reach.. The shorter fighter couldn't get into the zone if the taller fighter keeps them out.

[Cocochoh]

Reachability vs access. I'd go with short guy. He got access to rib shot, dodge easily, and definitely easily chin check a guy. Tall guy may have more upper body strength, Reachability, and so on. But my money is short guy.

[joehypo1]

If you have the skills reach is to the advantage the shorter person will have the advantage inside and if they have the skills to get inside makes for a good fight it boils down to skills and fundementals as far as boxing goes

[AviatorTom]

Height is almost always an advantage, that's why armies try to take the high ground in war.

[exitseven]

A taller boxer generally has a longer reach which is a big advantage

[Drewtate]

Big skilled man usually beats a short skilled man.

[Anonymous]

Taller. That's why they always compare the reach of fighters because reach makes a big difference. a lot of people erroneously think jabs don't matter. But repeated jabs can wear your opponent down. And a good strong jab can freeze your opponent.

[Djaay]

The shorter guy always has the advantage with speed , power and quickness especially inside scrapping.

[spartan55]

Well, I think we know the answer from the picture shown.

[NathanDavis]

Experienced and skilled boxers..

[andreasderjuengere]

I have the advantage.

Boxers believe in ''rules''.

I believe in survival :D

[OddBeMe]

Seems like advantages/disadvantages are subjective and complex. That pic tho would say the taller one. But I don't know.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Taller Boxers

[Anonymous]

Taller body, longer arms, longer reach