A Shorter Reach Fighter CAN outbox a Longer Reach Fighter

[Mr.MojoRisin']

I just finished the 1st round and think that Spinks did a beautiful job at keeping Taylor on the outside. With Speed and Slickness a shorter reach fighter can make up for that gap.

I haven't watched the rest of the fight so I don't know how it goes yet.

[Boxfan83]

I just finished the 1st round and think that Spinks did a beautiful job at keeping Taylor on the outside. With Speed and Slickness a shorter reach fighter can make up for that gap.

I haven't watched the rest of the fight so I don't know how it goes yet.

A good recent fight is Commey vs. Easter Jr. personally I had Commey winning a razor close fight but thats besides the point. Commey had a huge reach and height disadvantage and moved in and out nice...

[watchayouhead]

Tyson didnt have much of a reach, or joe frazier, Stiverne has the shortest arms on a HW i ever saw, Hagler didnt have reach, or Holyfield against most guys.

Guys with reach try to stick and move to control the fight, but pressure does the trick, even against boxer/ punchers.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Tyson didnt have much of a reach, or joe frazier, Stiverne has the shortest arms on a HW i ever saw, Hagler didnt have reach, or Holyfield against most guys.

Guys with reach try to stick and move to control the fight, but pressure does the trick, even against boxer/ punchers.

Hagler had great reach. It was his biggest asset to him. He probably wouldn't have beaten half the guys he did without it.

[watchayouhead]

Hagler had great reach. It was his biggest asset to him. He probably wouldn't have beaten half the guys he did without it.

Show me where.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

Show me where.

To analyze a fighter you have to look at more than just a knockout or highlight real.

In Hagler's fights he often kept his opponent out of range from hitting him but close enough for him to hit them.

His jab was his greatest weapon because of his superior reach. He had a 75" reach at like 5'8". You can't take one look at Hagler and tell me he didn't have a long reach.

[watchayouhead]

I think Marvin's best weapon was his ability to take a punch, I never saw him get hurt.
Which allowed him to be in your face all day, AND HE ALWAYS STEPPED INTO HIS PUNCHES LIKE A BOSS, AND SOMETIMES LEAPED INTO THEM.
Thats probably why you believe he had a reach. I have never ever seen any fighter step into his punches like that because most guys don't want to get caught coming in.
I disagree that Marvin liked to stay outside and box, I saw Marvin strictly as a switch hitting pressure fighter.
Not a boxer/puncher, not a counter puncher, not a brawler - just right in front of you looking to trade.

[Mr.MojoRisin']

I think Marvin's best weapon was his ability to take a punch, I never saw him get hurt.
Which allowed him to be in your face all day, AND HE ALWAYS STEPPED INTO HIS PUNCHES LIKE A BOSS, AND SOMETIMES LEAPED INTO THEM.
Thats probably why you believe he had a reach. I have never ever seen any fighter step into his punches like that because most guys don't want to get caught coming in.
I disagree that Marvin liked to stay outside and box, I saw Marvin strictly as a switch hitting pressure fighter.
Not a boxer/puncher, not a counter puncher, not a brawler - just right in front of you looking to trade.

Unfortunately that isn't Marvelous Marvin Hagler.

[AddiX]

Tyson didnt have much of a reach, or joe frazier, Stiverne has the shortest arms on a HW i ever saw, Hagler didnt have reach, or Holyfield against most guys.

Guys with reach try to stick and move to control the fight, but pressure does the trick, even against boxer/ punchers.

Tyson wasn't tall but he actually had a long reach.

Still doesn't change the fact he was technically superior to most fighters.

[TMT Hassan]

Pacquiao vs Margarito is a example.