"A good big man will beat a good little man" (boxing)

[sevensages]

Most professional boxers are in the lighter weight classes, not in the heavyweight division. The biggest money in boxing has always been in the heavyweight division. So the lighter weight professional boxers would definitely want to be the heavyweight champion of the world. That is where the most money is. There are no minimum or maximum weights in the heavyweight division. So there is no rule preventing the lighter weight boxers from becoming the heavyweight champion of the world.

According to the International Boxing Hall of Fame, the first heavyweight champion of the world was John L. Sullivan in 1885. Many people think that there was a heavyweight champion of the world before 1885. When there was first a legitimate heavyweight champion of the world is debatable. But everyone agrees that there was a heavyweight champion of the world by 1885. So a heavyweight champion of the world has existed in professional boxing for at least 141 years.

According to the Guiness Book of World Records, the lightest heavyweight champion of the world was Bob Fitzsimmons. Bob Fitzsimmons weighed 167 pounds when Bob Fitzsimmons beat Gentleman Jim Corbett to win the heavyweight championship of the world in 1897. So in the entire 141+ year history of there being a heavyweight champion of the world, no professional boxer weighing 166 pounds or lighter has ever beaten the heavyweight champion of the world in a boxing match. No, not once. Do you agree with me that the fact that no professional boxer weighing 166 pounds or less ever beat the heavyweight champion of the world in a boxing match is proof positive that the adage "A good big man will beat a good little man" in boxing is true?

 

[martinbn]

How many 166 pound guys lost the title fight in the heaviweight division? Probably none because no 166 fought a heavyweight boxer, so we don't really know, do we?

 

[sevensages]

How many 166 pound guys lost the title fight in the heaviweight division? Probably none because no 166 fought a heavyweight boxer, so we don't really know, do we?

But there is no rule against a 166 holding the heavyweight championship of the world. No 166 fought as a challenger for the heavyweight championship of the world because one has to earn a title shot. No 166 ever earned a title shot because a good big man will beat a good little man.

I don't think that your point really is much of a knock against my thesis.

 

[berkeman]

 

[Ibix]

Do you agree with me that the fact that no professional boxer weighing 166 pounds or less ever beat the heavyweight champion of the world in a boxing match is proof positive that the adage "A good big man will beat a good little man" in boxing is true?

Formally, no, because the fact that something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it won't happen tomorrow.

Informally, the big guy is going to withstand strikes better and hit harder, so if they exchange at anything like an equal rate the big guy will win. But people do win things with unorthodox tactics that catch their opponent off guard, or just plain get lucky, so I wouldn't see it as a law of nature that the big guy will always win.

 

[martinbn]

But there is no rule against a 166 holding the heavyweight championship of the world. No 166 fought as a challenger for the heavyweight championship of the world because one has to earn a title shot. No 166 ever earned a title shot because a good big man will beat a good little man.

I don't think that your point really is much of a knock against my thesis.

Of course it is. If you haven't done an experiment, you cannot say that it proves your point, can you? Make the 166 or under fight havywrights and we will see.

 

[Baluncore]

David and Goliath, but David was skilled, and armed with a weapon.

 

[sevensages]

Of course it is. If you haven't done an experiment, you cannot say that it proves your point, can you? Make the 166 or under fight havywrights and we will see.

The experiment is 141+ years of boxing history in which anyone weighing 166 pounds or less is eligible to win the heavyweight championship of the world but never does.

 

[martinbn]

The experiment is 141+ years of boxing history in which anyone weighing 166 pounds or less is eligible to win the heavyweight championship of the world but never does.

Thus none of the 166 have ever lost a heavyweight fight. So how can you claim that they would have?! Have you seen any Tyson's matches? All his oponents were visible bigger than him. Do you think he only have losses?

 

[sevensages]

Thus none of the 166 have ever lost a heavyweight fight. So how can you claim that they would have?! Have you seen any Tyson's matches? All his oponents were visible bigger than him. Do you think he only have losses?

You are probably only saying that Mike Tyson's opponents were visibly bigger than he was because Tyson's opponents were taller than he was. Your mistake is to be thinking that the adage "A good big man will beat a good little man" is all about height instead of weight. If you think of the words big and small in this adage in terms of one's lean body weight (which is what one's body weight would be minus the fat on one's body) instead of height, the adage is a lot more consistently true.

Why have all heavyweight champions of the world in the last hundred years been at least 5'10" or taller? 1# There is more potential room to fit muscle mass on a tall skeleton than on a short skeleton 2# Taller boxers generally have longer arms, which gives them a reach advantage over shorter boxers.

A person's height is definitely correlated with one's lean body weight to some extent, but height is not directly correlated with one's lean body weight. A person's height kind of puts a limit on what weight it is possible to get one's lean body weight up to.

Mike Tyson was 5'11" and weighed around 220 pounds in his prime. I estimate Mike Tyson had a body fat percentage of around 10% or less in his prime. So his lean body weight would be around 200 pounds. A 200 pound lean body weight is probably a heavier lean body weight than over 90% of the population of men. So Mike Tyson was not a little guy at all. Mike Tyson is not a knock against my thesis. Mike Tyson did not weigh 166 lbs. or less when he won the heavyweight championship of the world.

The adage is "A good big man will beat a good little man". The adage is not "any big man will beat a good little man".

 

[pinball1970]

You are probably only saying that Mike Tyson's opponents were visibly bigger than he was because Tyson's opponents were taller than he was. Your mistake is to be thinking that the adage "A good big man will beat a good little man" is all about height instead of weight. If you think of the words big and small in this adage in terms of one's lean body weight (which is what one's body weight would be minus the fat on one's body) instead of height, the adage is a lot more consistently true.

Why have all heavyweight champions of the world in the last hundred years been at least 5'10" or taller? 1# There is more potential room to fit muscle mass on a tall skeleton than on a short skeleton 2# Taller boxers generally have longer arms, which gives them a reach advantage over shorter boxers.

A person's height is definitely correlated with one's lean body weight to some extent, but height is not directly correlated with one's lean body weight. A person's height kind of puts a limit on what weight it is possible to get one's lean body weight up to.

Mike Tyson was 5'11" and weighed around 220 pounds in his prime. I estimate Mike Tyson had a body fat percentage of around 10% or less in his prime. So his lean body weight would be around 200 pounds. A 200 pound lean body weight is probably a heavier lean body weight than over 90% of the population of men. So Mike Tyson was not a little guy at all. Mike Tyson is not a knock against my thesis. Mike Tyson did not weigh 166 lbs. or less when he won the heavyweight championship of the world.

The adage is "A good big man will beat a good little man". The adage is not "any big man will beat a good little man".

 

[sevensages]

View attachment 370477

Although I think that Bruce Lee might have weighed 166 pounds or less, Bruce Lee is not a knock against my thesis. Bruce Lee never beat the heavyweight champion of the world in a boxing match.

 

[sevensages]

Formally, no, because the fact that something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it won't happen tomorrow.

Informally, the big guy is going to withstand strikes better and hit harder, so if they exchange at anything like an equal rate the big guy will win. But people do win things with unorthodox tactics that catch their opponent off guard, or just plain get lucky, so I wouldn't see it as a law of nature that the big guy will always win.

I don't think that it's a law of nature that the big guy will always win either.

I think that you (and many other people on this thread) are not paying close enough attention to the adage. The adage is "A good big man will beat a good little man". You and other people are pretending like the adage is "Any big man will beat any little man". Of course it is possible for a smaller boxer to beat a larger boxer. Half of boxing is about boxing skills (such as footwork and bobbing and weaving punches and slipping punches and counterpunching and perhaps other aspects of technique) which has nothing whatsoever to do with size and strength.

 

[sevensages]

So far the only person who seemed to sort of agree with me was Ibix. Everyone else is arguing with me.

So nobody thinks that I have a point in the OP of this thread?

 

[russ_watters]

So nobody thinks that I have a point in the OP of this thread?

It's an unanswerable hypothetical, but the distance between "probably never would" and "proof positive" is probably pretty small from a practical standpoint so I don't really understand what the value is in trying to establish it as "proof positive". But the width of that hair seems to be important to you, since if memory serves you've brought the subject up before.

 

[sevensages]

It's an unanswerable hypothetical, but the distance between "probably never would" and "proof positive" is probably pretty small from a practical standpoint so I don't really understand what the value is in trying to establish it as "proof positive". But the width of that hair seems to be important to you, since if memory serves you've brought the subject up before.

I think it is answerable.

If you think that the fact that nobody 166 pounds or lighter has ever beaten the heavyweight champion of the world in a boxing match is not proof positive that a good big man will beat a good little man, then how do you explain the fact that nobody 166 pounds or lighter has ever beaten the heavyweight champion of the world in a boxing match when most boxers weigh 166 lbs or less and they would all like to be heavyweight champion of the world (since that is most lucrative)? Do you think that it is just a coincidence that nobody 166 pounds or lighter has ever beaten the heavyweight champion of the world in a boxing match?

 

[Ibix]

You and other people are pretending like the adage is "Any big man will beat any little man"

No I'm not. Let me rewrite my earlier post to make this explicit. Changes in bold:

Formally, no, because the fact that something hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it won't happen tomorrow.

Informally, the good big guy is going to withstand strikes better and hit harder, so if they exchange at anything like an equal rate the good big guy will win. But people do win things with unorthodox tactics that catch their opponent off guard, or just plain get lucky, so I wouldn't see it as a law of nature that the good big guy will always win.

The point you seem to be missing is the first paragraph of that quote: that something has not happened yet does not mean it will never happen. There are certainly very good reasons to believe that, all other things being equal, a bigger guy will usually beat a littler guy of similar skill level. And the bigger the size difference the worse chance the littler guy of similar skill level has. However, you seem to believe that there is some size difference where that probability is zero, but the only evidence you have provided (or indeed, could ever provide) is that your empirical estimate of that probability is zero and this is not the same thing.

 

[martinbn]

So far the only person who seemed to sort of agree with me was Ibix. Everyone else is arguing with me.

So nobody thinks that I have a point in the OP of this thread?

I think you misunderstood my objection. All i said was that you cannot insist that your statement is true if you have no evidence. If 166 pound or less boxers have never fought heavyweights, how can you know what the outcome would have been?

 

[pinball1970]

Although I think that Bruce Lee might have weighed 166 pounds or less, Bruce Lee is not a knock against my thesis. Bruce Lee never beat the heavyweight champion of the world in a boxing match.

Bruce Lee studied boxing along side other martial arts and won a competition in Hong Kong.
I do not know if any of the boxers he beat were heavy weights, he was 5'8" and weighed 141 lbs.
Lee was super fast, accurate and was very strong for his size, small guys can be the best.

Being bigger does not mean you have all the advantages, Tyson also demonstrated that. There is no point fixating on 166lbs as heavy weights do not compete at that weight, there is another division for that.

Just to add, Tyson gave away two stone and 4 inches in height and inches in reach to Frank Bruno and he still beat him. Bruno was taller, heavier, longer reach, lower body fat. Tyson was a better boxer that's why he won.

 

[dextercioby]

What's the topic here? This is 2026. Are boxers under 75 kg allowed to compete in the heavyweight professional divisions? If not, then the question about an impossible situation is useless. If they are allowed, even if with this body mass (cause this is phyicsforums, so kg is mass, not weight) they could compete in middleweight, then it makes sense to ask if they theoretically had a chance in a fight against a decent 90-100 kg boxer. But mass is only one thing; height, arm length, training (being fast in reactions or slow), and stamina (energy consumption over time, pro fights are usually at least 10x3 minutes) are more important in assessing who has the bigger chance of winning a fair fight.

And bringing famous (sadly dead) martial artists into the discussion is useless. Boxing is one thing, karate or other martial arts are another.

 

[pinball1970]

And bringing famous (sadly dead) martial artists into the discussion is useless. Boxing is one thing, karate or other martial arts are another.

Its Bruce Lee! He did box, included it his style, won a competition and sparred with boxers. All the martial artists who filmed with him, trained with him, sparred with him commented on his speed and strength for a small guy, including Chuck Norris who was a heavy weight in his class.

I included Lee to illustrate speed and skill can compete with size, if you are good enough.

 

[sevensages]

What's the topic here? This is 2026. Are boxers under 75 kg allowed to compete in the heavyweight professional divisions?

Yes

 

[sevensages]

Its Bruce Lee! He did box, included it his style, won a competition and sparred with boxers. All the martial artists who filmed with him, trained with him, sparred with him commented on his speed and strength for a small guy, including Chuck Norris who was a heavy weight in his class.

Why didn't Bruce Lee box and defeat Muhammad Ali, the contemporary heavyweight champion of the world? Because he couldn't. Neither the WBC nor the WBA would give Bruce Lee a title shot against Muhammad Ali because Lee was not worthy of a title shot.

I included Lee to illustrate speed and skill can compete with size, if you are good enough.

Nope. That's not a good example at all. The fact that Chuck Norris and others complimented Bruce Lee's boxing skill is not impressive when weighed against the fact that Bruce Lee never defeated Muhammad Ali (the contemporary heavyweight champion of the world) or even a top ten contender in the heavyweight division.

 

[martinbn]

Nope. That's not a good example at all. The fact that Chuck Norris and others complimented Bruce Lee's boxing skill is not impressive when weighed against the fact that Bruce Lee never defeated Muhammad Ali (the contemporary heavyweight champion of the world) or even a top ten contender in the heavyweight division.

You keep repeating this, but Bruce Lee also never lost a match against Muhammad Ali. So if they never fought why do you keep saying that if they had, Ali would have won?

 

[sevensages]

You keep repeating this, but Bruce Lee also never lost a match against Muhammad Ali. So if they never fought why do you keep saying that if they had, Ali would have won?

Because Muhammad Ali was the heavyweight champion of the world. If Bruce Lee wanted to know that he could beat everyone else in a boxing match, Lee needed to beat the heavyweight champion of the world. Lee failed to do so. If he could've, he would've.

 

[martinbn]

Because Muhammad Ali was the heavyweight champion of the world. If Bruce Lee wanted to know that he could beat everyone else in a boxing match, Lee needed to beat the heavyweight champion of the world. Lee failed to do so. If he could've, he would've.

Ok, we understand your claim, why do you keep repeating it? I am asking for the reasons you are so sure that it is true. Or is it just a belief? Then why did you come to a science forum to state you belief/opinion without any argumentation!

 

[sevensages]

You keep repeating this, but Bruce Lee also never lost a match against Muhammad Ali. So if they never fought why do you keep saying that if they had, Ali would have won?

Muhammad Ali beat the heavyweight champions of the world in boxing matches at least twice (Sonny Liston and George Foreman).

When did Bruce Lee ever beat the heavyweight champion of the world in a boxing match?

 

[sevensages]

Bruce Lee studied boxing along side other martial arts and won a competition in Hong Kong.
I do not know if any of the boxers he beat were heavy weights, he was 5'8" and weighed 141 lbs.
Lee was super fast, accurate and was very strong for his size, small guys can be the best.

Being bigger does not mean you have all the advantages, Tyson also demonstrated that. There is no point fixating on 166lbs as heavy weights do not compete at that weight, there is another division for that.

It is entirely within the rules for all four boxing organizations with championships (WBA, WBC, IBF, and WBO) for anyone of ANY weight to be the heavyweight champion of the world.

 

[martinbn]

Muhammad Ali beat the heavyweight champions of the world in boxing matches at least twice (Sonny Liston and George Foreman).

When did Bruce Lee ever beat the heavyweight champion of the world in a boxing match?

When did he loose a boxing match against the heavyweight champion?

 

[pinball1970]

When did Bruce Lee ever beat the heavyweight champion of the world in a boxing match?

When did he ever lose? Come to think of it when did I ever lose? I boxed at school and retired undefeated. Ali, Tyson, Buster Douglas and Rocky Marciano never beat me.