Height to Reach Ratio Question

[No7oriouS]

I've read that the average reach (wingspan) about the same as the person's height, in inches. I'm 67 inches tall (5 foot 7) and my reach is 73 inches, meaning my reach is 6 more inches than my height. Did I calculate wrong or is this a simple case of a reach being above average? And in competition, would is this considered a big or small advantage? I ask simply out of curiosity.

 

[Nuclearlandmine]

Look at Bones Jones. His reach is one of his best used weapons when in the cage. So yeah, you have quite a good advantage there. I weeped about my reach......it is not simply matched up to my height (

 

[Da Speeit]

People dont realize how many factors play into reach.

You could just have really big hands, being it's fingertip to fingertip

 

[The_Crow]

I've read that the average reach (wingspan) about the same as the person's height, in inches. I'm 67 inches tall (5 foot 7) and my reach is 73 inches, meaning my reach is 6 more inches than my height. Did I calculate wrong or is this a simple case of a reach being above average? And in competition, would is this considered a big or small advantage? I ask simply out of curiosity.

Its "average" reach, the operative word being average. That means some people have a longer or shorter reach than what is the calculated average. Doesnt really mean anything and is mostly just genetics.

I would say a guy like Sean sherk has a short reach for his height. Other guys have a longer reach for their height, I have seen plenty of tale of the tapes where both guys are the same height but one guy has a 4-6" reach advantage.

as for reach being an advantage/disadvantage well it depends where you like to fight, not only standing up Vs on the ground but if you fight from the inside, the outside, the clinch, wether your a counterpuncher etc.

 

[buttermania**]

I've read that the average reach (wingspan) about the same as the person's height, in inches. I'm 67 inches tall (5 foot 7) and my reach is 73 inches, meaning my reach is 6 more inches than my height. Did I calculate wrong or is this a simple case of a reach being above average? And in competition, would is this considered a big or small advantage? I ask simply out of curiosity.

Are you Black, or Aboriginal?

 

[Cannon_6]

...I'm 67 inches tall (5 foot 7) and my reach is 73 inches... And in competition, would is this considered a big or small advantage...

It will only be an advantage if your opponent's reach is shorter than yours. You won't always be the only guy in the room with monkey arms.

And unless you're fighting at 147lb or below, don't count on it; there are a lot of tall, skinny guys out there.

 

[No7oriouS]

Are you Black, or Aboriginal?

I'm neither Black or Aboriginal, why do you ask?

It will only be an advantage if your opponent's reach is shorter than yours. You won't always be the only guy in the room with monkey arms.

And unless you're fighting at 147lb or below, don't count on it; there are a lot of tall, skinny guys out there.

Lucky for me then, as I would consider competition at 135 or 145. I understand what you mean when you point out the fact that it's important to consider my opponent's reach as well.

I would say a guy like Sean sherk has a short reach for his height. Other guys have a longer reach for their height, I have seen plenty of tale of the tapes where both guys are the same height but one guy has a 4-6" reach advantage.

as for reach being an advantage/disadvantage well it depends where you like to fight, not only standing up Vs on the ground but if you fight from the inside, the outside, the clinch, wether your a counterpuncher etc.

So then, considering my height and reach, would you say I have a longer than usual reach for my height? I understand the points you bring by introducing the different scenarios, by the way. I am personally a counter puncher.

Thank you to anyone else who replied, much appreciated.

 

[The_Crow]

It will only be an advantage if your opponent's reach is shorter than yours. You won't always be the only guy in the room with monkey arms.

And unless you're fighting at 147lb or below, don't count on it; there are a lot of tall, skinny guys out there.

Reach advantage is useless if the guy has you in a colar tie and is raming you with uppercuts from his t-rex arms or your eating knees caught in his thai clinch for example.

Reach Vs Reach is not as simple as longest reach wins.

 

[The_Crow]

I'm neither Black or Aboriginal, why do you ask?



Lucky for me then, as I would consider competition at 135 or 145. I understand what you mean when you point out the fact that it's important to consider my opponent's reach as well.



So then, considering my height and reach, would you say I have a longer than usual reach for my height? I understand the points you bring by introducing the different scenarios, by the way. I am personally a counter puncher.

Thank you to anyone else who replied, much appreciated.

If you worked it out correctly then yes you must have a longer tha naverage reach for your height. That said there could be people who have another 3 inches reach on you at your height/weight.

Its not like it gives you a massive advantage against every opponent you face, its going to be practically useless if the guy your fighting is a master of takedowns whose plan is to stuff you against the fence and smash your face in UNLESS you use that reach effectively to keep him at bay and most importantly manage to stuff all his takedowns.

 

[The_observer86]

First of all, make sure your measurements are accurate and precise. One way to estimate reach is to measure and mark a flat wall from the ground up and make a couple of marks with pencil or highlighter around 6ft. Measure your height, then try touching the ground with your middle fingertip and reach as high as you can with your other hand while keeping close to the wall. This measurement should be close to your actual reach, within 1-2 inches. (I can easily touch 6ft @5'8''-5'9'' height, for example)

Second, just because your reach is above average for your height, does not mean you will have a reach advantage in your wt. class all the time. Someone taller with average reach will be equal, plus height also can also play advantage, depending on skillset. Someone with quick feet could easily make up the reach deficit (ex. Pacman vs Margarito), and having good reach is not end-all stat when it comes to striking. There have been good strikers with a wide spectrum of body-types, you have to learn how to use yours.

Yes, your reach is above average for height (I'm about inch taller w/ 1 inch shorter reach), but even in 135 division, Miguel Torres has 76" reach! (Yeah, that's rare, but my brother is 5'10" with 76 reach also) Attributes do play a part in fighting, but even Torres got dominated by a 5'4'' Benavidez two fights ago. Other attributes, such as conditioning, strength, speed and skill are actually more important.

 

[gobucks34]

Honestly, why do people consider Sean Sherks arms short? 5'6" 67" inch, of course with wide shoulders, but I think they look shorter than they appear because of all the Mass.

I've never met the guy or seen him in real life, so I cant be the one to judge correctly. Also, in high school I was 5'7" and pretty skinny. Looking back at old hs pics, I looked hella lanky. Now, 4-5 years later my arms appear to be shorter. Who knows, maybe they shrunk, but I think its just the fact I put on muscle/mass. Im 165 now compared to 135-140.

Anyone met him in person, does he really have hella short arms?

 

[Cannon_6]

Reach advantage is useless if the guy has you in a colar tie and is raming you with uppercuts from his t-rex arms or your eating knees caught in his thai clinch for example.

Reach Vs Reach is not as simple as longest reach wins.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. We're not discussing "who wins"; we're discussing "reach advantage" to satisfy TS's curiosity -- that's all.

(And, incidentally, throwing uppercuts from a collar tie is one of the dumbest things you can do while clinching.)