Is it better to be super tall and skinny, or really short and jacked?

[aus101]

Reach matters more than height in combat sports.

Also the fighters are some of the stockiest athletes around their weight. In rowing the 155ers weigh in before their race at 155 and they’re all 6 footers. How many 6’ bantams (who fight at 155) are there?

 

[jeremyemilio]

idk why everyone is making it seem like this so insane

he’s basically asking about corey hill v sean sherk plus or minus a inch or so

luckily all sherdogers have the best of both worlds 6’5 jacked 350 lbs

rumor has it though it might be the opposite way around

I pick Sherk over Hill any day.

As for the question, in broad terms, height is a bit of a red herring. In a fight it's reach that matters.

 

[The Finnish Flash]

As a 5'8 man, I can tell you: you make friends with even shorter people, and before you know it you're a god among manlets.

I am 5'9.5" bow down to me peasant.. am I doing this right?

 

[bigconan]

Definitely tall, i can't even imagine how "men" under 6'0 can even live like that

It's an absolute curse i wish upon nobody

mike tyson was under 6 feet...bruce lee...an absolute ton of movie action stars...so height only matters to the low self esteemed bunch, which seem to congregate here.

 

[Bangkok ready d1]

6'6 with 155 pounds is a dead corpse lol, im 5'11 and 150 pounds thats the skinnier you can get without looking like you gonna die and i have a really small frame most people would not be able to pull that off

 

[bigconan]

More often than not tall, assuming the skill is there. But there's definitely a point of diminishing returns. 6'6 is way too tall for LW. short guy would ragdoll him

But say 6'1 with a build similar to Israel but LW form, would be the absolutely optimal.

A guy like Tommy Hearns is a prime example. 6'1 and fought between 145ish lbs to 168ish

shredded and tall, but not overly lanky. not an excessive amount of muscle, but enough to hit hard as absolute fuck and stay explosive throughout a fight.

both hagler and leonard ko'd hearns, who were shorter.

 

[heavyarms21]

Tall wins, he will be normal one day but other guy never

I laughed way too hard at this

 

[jeremyemilio]

Okay so lets analyse the champs in each division to determine whether more of them are tall or short for their divisions.
HW-Stipe-6ft 4-Normal height
LHW-Jones-6 ft 4-Tall
MW- Adesanya- 6ft 4- Tall
WW- Usman- 6ft- Taller Average
LW- Khabib- 5ft 10- Average
FW- Volkanoski- 5ft 6- short
BW- Cejudo -5ft 3- short

Notice that it is only in the smaller weight classes where being short seems to not matter. In all the other weight classes the best are either normal sized or tall. So the answer really depends on weight class. Overall though being tall won more times than being short, and being short only worked when the primary skill set of the fighter in question was wrestling.

That's just a snapshot in time, though.

It conveniently sidesteps DC and Fedor, two of the all time absolute beasts. As well as Hughes and GSP... and when GSP finally met someone who gave him a real go, it was the shorter Hendricks. Hendo was pretty average height for the classes he fought, and won championships in. Penn, at his best, beat up taller guys on the reg, and Sherk has a much better record than I think a lot of people recognize. MW champions have been mostly taller guys, but GSP still went up, after a long layoff and well out of his prime, and snatched the belt, and Rashad, a natural MW if ever there was one, was pretty beastly for a while, at LHW.

I do agree that you pretty much need to be a wrestler to be effective if you are shorter than average. I would add that you also need to have a great chin.

But let's not pretend it's crazy rare just because Jon Jones exists and Adesanya and Usman happen to be (very new and unproven) champions at this present moment.

More recently, Jon Jones does skew the overall numbers, but nevertheless, height is not a very good predictor of fight outcomes. If you put $10,000 away to make small bets based on height, you would bleed money until it was gone. Every cent you made on Jones you would lose on DC... well... until they met each other, I suppose.

Statistically, reach is far more important (and it doesn't match up with height as closely as you might think) and AGE is by far the best predictor of fight outcomes (especially rematches... hard to even think of a younger fighter who has won the first fight who has ever lost the rematch).

 

[El Panteron]

Definitely tall, i can't even imagine how "men" under 6'0 can even live like that

It's an absolute curse i wish upon nobody

Fight me bitch
5'8" of sultry dad bod

 

[Hotora86]

Imagine 2 hypothetical 155 lb fighters.

Is it better to be 6'6" 155 lbs?



Or is it better to be 5'3" 155 lbs?



Which wins in a real fight?

A striker would do better if he's tall.
A wrestler would do better if he's buff.

If you have a tall striker vs a buff wrestler it depends on who can keep the fight in his realm.

If you have a buff striker vs a tall wrestler... I don't think I've ever actually seen it happen but I'd take the wrestler.

 

[rear naked ankle pick]

mike tyson was under 6 feet...bruce lee...an absolute ton of movie action stars...so height only matters to the low self esteemed bunch, which seem to congregate here.

manlet detected

 

[Xoleth]

Is it better to be Adesanya or Romero?

 

[MCS]

In boxing a rule of thumb is that a good tall guy almost always beats a good short guy. That the advantages that come with good use of reach are so big that the tall guy has to fight stupid to lose, or that the small guy is exceptional.

In MMA, even if skill between the 2 is equal, the same rule doesn't work as there are too many variables that come from styles. It depends more on the specific match-up.

 

[bigconan]

manlet detected

Realist detected you mean...funny how when you state facts, some people just can't handle it...haha....most of the biggest stars ever in action movies, were all well under 6 feet....this is simply fact. stallone, statham, cruise, etc.....

 

[Hirashin]

 

[Furious77]

Short and skinny.

As big guys age and get weaker, it takes a lot more energy and effort to do things like stand up without help.

Being big and alpha has advantages that later become a hindrance

This post sounds like it was written by a little fella. Who cares if you can if you can put your diaper on faster at when your 70.

 

[Robotnickx]

Realist detected you mean...funny how when you state facts, some people just can't handle it...haha....most of the biggest stars ever in action movies, were all well under 6 feet....this is simply fact. stallone, statham, cruise, etc.....

Schwarzenegger at 6'1 ends that idea. Greatest action star ever was a juiced meathead with a box jaw, unsurprisingly.

 

[r-harper-1]

6’6 and 155 doesn’t seem healthy......I’m 6’3 and 215 lbs and couldn’t imagine dropping 60lbs ......lame answer but I feel there are positives and negatives to having both frames

 

[r-harper-1]

This post sounds like it was written by a little fella. Who cares if you can if you can put your diaper on faster at when your 70.

I can just hear his momma telling him ....” I know you’ve been small , weak and miserable all your life, “But it’ll really pay off for you if you make it until your 70’s “

 

[blaseblah]

If I was 6'6 I would never let myself get to 155. You can always put on weight. You can't increase your height.