Quote:
Originally Posted by krawk
Well yea, I meant size doesn't make a difference in terms of chin and plenty of old school smaller guys were much bigger hitters than today's giants. Even Foreman was small by today's standards (6'3''/ 220) but he hit and took hits like no one else. When he returned in his 40's he was just absorbing everything, the Tommy M. fight is a great example.
What makes a fighter have a good chin or a lot of power is really one of those unknown questions that will likely never be objectively answered. Size is clearly only one factor though it is an important one. Mixed martial artist Francis Ngannou has the record for hardest punch ever measured and he's 6'4", 253 lbs. Obviously, there are bigger fighters out there but cannot throw with the violent force of Ngannou. There are also fighters who are larger but don't have the chin of a smaller fighter in their division. There are thoughts that it's related to the size of a fighter's neck, shoulders, and a lower center of gravity. It could also be related to slight, subtle defensive moves that reduce the impact of a punch yet cannot be seen in real-time by the naked eye.
Quote:
And since, like you said, size means more fatigue, why do they **** around for ages and jab each other to death instead of going for the kill before the batteries run out? Just betting on not gassing out first? Why did the old guys have so much punching power and chin when they were so much smaller?
Missed punches sap more energy from a fighter than a successful strike. With stamina in such short supply for big men, there's a greater loss for each missed punch than there is in smaller fighters. That's why punch output generally goes down as the size of the fighters increases. They have to be more selective in order to avoid gassing out. Jabs score points with the judges without risking leaving yourself open for a potential fight-ending counter and consume less energy to boot.
Another reason you don't see that risk-taking is financial. The boxing world overvalues an undefeated record because that mark is a strong selling point. A loss can cost a promoter and fighter millions in future income. This incentivizes fighters to be more risk-averse in the ring. You don't see many well-known fighters with double-digit losses. As a matter of fact, only one heavyweight fighter in BoxRec's top 50 heavyweight fighters has more than 5 losses (Dereck Chisora has 8 losses). The top 10
combined have 7 losses.
But that's also what makes heavyweight boxing exciting. Openings for aggression are rare. So when they happen, a fighter has to act fast and aggressively on it because there may not be another one. This results in fighting in spurts of rock'em sock'em robots type of exchanges. This can also lead to a lot of unpredictability in the division. MMA is a perfect example. The record for consecutive successful title defenses in the UFC is just 3 fights. There's so much riding on each wave of aggression given how few there are.
Quote:
Povetkin is ranked no.3 in the world. He'd have been a bouncer in the 20th century.
Inter-generational comparisons are mental masturbation. I find it best to just enjoy what we see and be impressed with that.
Last edited by SuperUberBob; 09-23-2018 at 01:02 PM.