Teddy Atlas: "Taller guys have a disadvantage close range"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 466273
  • Start date Start date
@spacetime

Where do you rank him then?

Surely he deserves respect for his record and level of competition
 
@spacetime

Where do you rank him then?

Surely he deserves respect for his record and level of competition

Hard to say but his level of opposition wasn't all that great, and he still struggled with a lot of them and was appalling technically in many respect, missed heavily.

I put him below Dempsey, and Dempsey is hardly top 15 in my book...

Joe Louis considered it a disgrace to boxing if he were to lose to Marciano, and was winning on the scorecards until the KO. He later had a lot of respect for his power.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tall fighters obviously give up thier reach advantage by fighting on the inside but I’m not convinced that translates to a disadvantage. I’ve seen some tall guys throw some nasty ass uppercuts while they were infighting.
 
OP destroys famed boxing coach’s comments with powerful broscience.


94cf1e02mksy.jpg
 
Tall fighters obviously give up thier reach advantage by fighting on the inside but I’m not convinced that translates to a disadvantage. I’ve seen some tall guys throw some nasty ass uppercuts while they were infighting.

Uppercuts are deadly for a tall guy but they are also leave you open for a hook.
 
Okay, let's simplify.

Your arms are a certain length. Longer arms are both longer from shoulder to elbow, and elbow to wrist. Taller guys can't change that. You can only bend at the joints.

Imagine your arms as extensions of yourself similar to melee weapons like a baseball bat. You step up to the plate ready for a pitch. You situate yourself so that in your stance, without leaning, you can touch the tip of the bat to the opposite side of the plate. Pretty standard range-check. Except, now, imagine this isn't an open-air environment. There is a concrete wall perpendicular to you cutting halfway through the plate; running in a straight line from mound to the catcher. It's as if you're in a tight tunnel, with your back up against one wall, but a tunnel that is so narrow you can't swing the bat naturally extending your arms without the bat coming into contact with the opposite wall well before you have generated maximum power, and the bat crosses the plate.

You have to choke up to swing through, or the bat's arc is cutoff by the opposite wall. Except you can't choke up any more than you can unhinge your shoulder from its socket (without dislocating it and injuring yourself).

Now, do you want a full-length bat to swing in that tunnel? Or do you think a shorter, fatter, but equally heavy bat would be a better tool to generate power in that environment?

This is a timeless truth. It's why the ancient Japanese crafted short swords intended for the niche of fighting indoors. Outdoors, the longer katana has superior range, and is therefore preferable. Range always wins given space. That's why we evolved archery, artillery, firearms, and ultimately ICBMs. I hit you. You can't hit me. No exchange is more desirable.

But when a short guy has closed the distance, and gotten inside, you don't have that space. You are fighting in a choke point. This is true with straight punches, too. The shorter man is able to fully express the proper punching technique, and achieve maximum velocity on his punches within a short distance. He isn't expected to hit as hard when the taller man is able to express his full range, since the taller man has more distance to create velocity, but even given equal distance in that box, angular momentum doesn't favor the taller man's longer limbs, nor his wider stance/shoulders.

When I say "angular momentum" I'm referring to our bodies, and the nature of our muscular strength. Think about it. Are you concentrically stronger when your knees are fully bent at a 90-degree angle in a squat, halfway bent at a 45-degree angle, or for the final 10 degrees when you stand up? Lifters exhibit different weak points across a complete lift, but generally speaking, we are all much stronger in that final 10 degrees than we are in the first 10 degrees transitions out of the hole. The same is true for the bench press, and for our punches.

Make sense?
Great post. Well thought out and concise.
 


This myth again perpetuated..

Tall and Rangie George Foreman was not at a disadvantage against swarmers/close range fighters like Frazier and Ron Lyle. He literally punched their heads of in those slugg fests.. He was NOT at a disadvantage despite his speed deficit. Did just fine, to put it mildly

It is simply not the case, what Atlas is claiming in that clip.

Your average short guy is going to get slaughtered just as much close range as he is long range by the taller guy. If the taller guy is the superior fighter long range, he will MOST likely be the superior fighter close range, and his tallness will be to his advantage in any slugfest.

Imagine one guy throwing clubs at your face, while the other one swings baseball or telephone poles at you. Guess who is favorite in those exchanges, all else equal?


LOL at using Foreman as an example of a typical tall-Rangie boxer. Nothing about Foreman was typical.

Foreman could generate a ton of power with loopy arm punches on the inside, anybody else throwing those punches doesn't do much.
 
LOL at using Foreman as an example of a typical tall-Rangie boxer. Nothing about Foreman was typical.

Foreman could generate a ton of power with loopy arm punches on the inside, anybody else throwing those punches doesn't do much.

Name an elite boxer who struggled against another elite boxer with close range fighting. Evander Holyfield had a massive reach advantage over Mike Tyson and beat him soundly close range fighting.
 
So your point is that all time great fighters often have well rounded games?
 
Back
Top