There are often extreme stances taken on both sides of the common HW vs LHW debate, some people say the HWs would destroy the LHWs due to size and power while others say the faster, more skilled LHWs would destroy the HWs. Both these statements are exaggerated though because of a fact that I don't understand why people ignore - LHWs are just small HWs who cut weight! Before some smartass makes a sarcastic remark like "hurr durr, LWs are just small WWs who cut weight", the difference is that traditionally small HWs have usually been the most successful HWs, so being a small HW would not be a disadvantage in the same way being a small WW for example would. There is no significant size gap between say Cain who is 6'1 240 and guys like Rumble and Glover who are not shorter and walk around in the 235 range while carrying less fat, similarly guys like Werdum and JDS are taller but weigh around 235 for HW fights, so why would one believe there is a massive physical difference between the two groups of guys? I'm not arguing either that the LHWs would usually beat the HWs or vice versa, but that the only real difference between a "HW" and a typical modern "LHW" is whether or not they choose to cut weight, so whether a LHW would do well at HW should be judged based on the specific fighter and not because there is some magical difference between "LHWs" and "HWs" simply because the former cut weight. Many modern LHWs are actually bigger than some historical HWs such as prime Fedor and Crocop, and striking sport HWs like Spong. If anyone disagrees, what am I missing that physically separates big LHWs like Rumble, Glover and OSP from HWs like Cain, Fedor and CC?