Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-03-2007, 10:54 PM   #61
roxyboxy
Journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 63
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

Quote:
Originally Posted by cross_trainer
I have read that they hypothesize it's possible, through training, to make slow twitch fibers can be trained to behave rather similarly to FT. This may have been just speculation, though...or I may be entirely mistaken. In any event, I strongly encourage you to share your wisdom in the Training forum, for which you seem quite qualified.

I think what you are referencing is some pretty interesting research. My post is pretty reductionist and doesnt go into the science (for practical reasons). Jumping in a bit, the fiber types themselves have been grouped into subtypes and fast fibers do have a component that is adaptive in a way similar to slow twitch fibers. the problem occurs that actually fast twitch fibers can be made to use fuel in a way that is modeled with slow fibers -- in essence, making them produce high rates of explosive work for longer periods, more efficiently (like a 400 meter runner). but, the interesting aspect is that this is fast emulating slower, not vice versa, which is more of a holy grail. all of this has to be framed up appropriately in the value of training both fiber types to enhance what is inherently productive in each: slow fibers using fuel efficiently and fast fibers contracting quickly. the enhancement of fast fibers has an interesting history, not the least of which was the various training experiments (and i dont mean steroids) implemented by the soviet and east german blocs. they got pretty esoteric in their methods, with a lot of plyometric principals being refined by the soviets. the net result was an affected PERCENTAGE of fast fiber, but only as an exponent of their natural tendency to occur in the sample (person) to begin with. all of which, again, points toward the advantage of having natural proclivity for a certain fiber type. interestingly, i belive actually the mitochondria for the dna for fiber type is held in the female egg and conversely in the tail of the sperm. this suggests, since the whole sperm does not fertilize the egg, that fast fiber type is inherited from the mother. i do not remember the status of that particular research, and that is just an anecdote to chew on.

in any case, if you're naturally fast/explosive, you have a significant edge for retaining that quality over a naturally slow-twich individual.

incidentally, your point about enhancing fast twich presence is a very hot area of ongoing research with many unresolved questions. there are a lot of factors involved, mostly which get to the neurological level, since at its core a fast-twitch fiber's neuron bundle is thicker (and produces a greater recruitement signal). the adapability of the muscle is a second factor with hundreds of co-factors, making the "can i make more fast twitch fiber" a very, very complex question to answer. you are right, however, that various emerging training methods are attacking the core of the question with various success.
roxyboxy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 10-03-2007, 11:31 PM   #62
RoccoMarciano
Blockbuster
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,446
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
There is a long debate on another thread with various opinions of the relative power of a big man such as Lennox Lewis against a relatively small heavyweight such as Dempsey or Marciano. I did a little study comparing Marciano to Lewis, as the records of each are complete. To judge the p4p as well as the absolute punching power of the two men, I compared Marciano's HEAVIEST ten opponents with Lewis LIGHTEST ten opponents, and the weights worked out pretty close.

Lennox Lewis--ten lightest opponents and results
1. Bruce Johnson (192 lbs) TKO 2 record-5-10-1
2. Melvin Epps (194 lbs) DQ 2 record-14-19-1
3. Greg Gorrell (202 lbs) TKO 5--record 21-7
4. Jean Chanet (206 lbs) TKO 6--record 24-10
5. Mike Dixon (207 lbs) TKO 4--record 10-5
6. Dan Murphy (211 lbs) TKO 6--record 25-4-1
7. Zeljko Mirovic (214 lbs) W 12--record 27-0
8. Al Malcolm (215 lbs) TKO 2--record 11-12-1
9. Mike Weaver (215 lbs) TKO 6--record 35-15-1
10. Evander Holyfield (215 lbs) D 12--record 36-3

Average weigh 207 lbs (w/o lightest man 209.3 lbs)
Total record of opposition 208-85-5 71% winning %
Lennox Lewis' record 9-0-1 with 7 knockouts
average rounds fought 5.7
Lewis' average weight for 10 bouts-232 lbs
25 lb advantage per man

Rocky Marciano-ten heaviest opponents and results
1. Jerry Jackson (254 lbs) KO 1--record 2-1
2. Bill Wilson (229 lbs) TKO 1--record 42-11-2
3. Johnny Shkor (220 lbs) TKO 6--record 29-18-2
4. Joe Louis (213 lbs) TKO 8--record 68-2
5. Pat Connolly (213 lbs) KO 1--record 8-5
6. Eldridge Eatman (207 lbs) TKO 3--record 15-19-3
7. Bill Hardeman (206 lbs) KO 1--record 1-4
8. Don ****ell (205 lbs) TKO 9--record 66-11-1
9. Artie Donato (201 lbs) KO 1--record 9-6
10. Lee Savold (200 lbs) TKO 6--record 93-39-3

Average weight 215 lbs (w/o heaviest man 209.4 lbs)
Total record of opposition 333-116-11 74% winning %
Rocky Marciano's record 10-0-0 with 10 knockouts
Average rounds fought 3.7
Rocky Marciano's average weight for 10 bouts-186 lbs
29 lb average disadvantage against each opponent.

Comment--Marciano is clearly a ton better as a p4p puncher, but in fact the evidence points to Marciano being the harder puncher absolutely.
Marciano hit about as hard as a crocodile bites with his right hand. The left was no chopped liver either. Anybody that thinks he lacked immense punching power is just plain stupid!
RoccoMarciano is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 04:08 AM   #63
NickHudson
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 447
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

I am very impressed by this analysis Old Fogey. You have normalised the data to weight and found an interesting result.

Of course, there are some confounds which I am sure you have thought of - e.g. the number of punches landed by Marciano and Lewis before the KO, the quality of the chins of the 2 sets of men despite their equal size ertc...

Nevertheless, you have found an interesting result using an analysis which will focus the debate. Great approach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
There is a long debate on another thread with various opinions of the relative power of a big man such as Lennox Lewis against a relatively small heavyweight such as Dempsey or Marciano. I did a little study comparing Marciano to Lewis, as the records of each are complete. To judge the p4p as well as the absolute punching power of the two men, I compared Marciano's HEAVIEST ten opponents with Lewis LIGHTEST ten opponents, and the weights worked out pretty close.

Lennox Lewis--ten lightest opponents and results
1. Bruce Johnson (192 lbs) TKO 2 record-5-10-1
2. Melvin Epps (194 lbs) DQ 2 record-14-19-1
3. Greg Gorrell (202 lbs) TKO 5--record 21-7
4. Jean Chanet (206 lbs) TKO 6--record 24-10
5. Mike Dixon (207 lbs) TKO 4--record 10-5
6. Dan Murphy (211 lbs) TKO 6--record 25-4-1
7. Zeljko Mirovic (214 lbs) W 12--record 27-0
8. Al Malcolm (215 lbs) TKO 2--record 11-12-1
9. Mike Weaver (215 lbs) TKO 6--record 35-15-1
10. Evander Holyfield (215 lbs) D 12--record 36-3

Average weigh 207 lbs (w/o lightest man 209.3 lbs)
Total record of opposition 208-85-5 71% winning %
Lennox Lewis' record 9-0-1 with 7 knockouts
average rounds fought 5.7
Lewis' average weight for 10 bouts-232 lbs
25 lb advantage per man

Rocky Marciano-ten heaviest opponents and results
1. Jerry Jackson (254 lbs) KO 1--record 2-1
2. Bill Wilson (229 lbs) TKO 1--record 42-11-2
3. Johnny Shkor (220 lbs) TKO 6--record 29-18-2
4. Joe Louis (213 lbs) TKO 8--record 68-2
5. Pat Connolly (213 lbs) KO 1--record 8-5
6. Eldridge Eatman (207 lbs) TKO 3--record 15-19-3
7. Bill Hardeman (206 lbs) KO 1--record 1-4
8. Don ****ell (205 lbs) TKO 9--record 66-11-1
9. Artie Donato (201 lbs) KO 1--record 9-6
10. Lee Savold (200 lbs) TKO 6--record 93-39-3

Average weight 215 lbs (w/o heaviest man 209.4 lbs)
Total record of opposition 333-116-11 74% winning %
Rocky Marciano's record 10-0-0 with 10 knockouts
Average rounds fought 3.7
Rocky Marciano's average weight for 10 bouts-186 lbs
29 lb average disadvantage against each opponent.

Comment--Marciano is clearly a ton better as a p4p puncher, but in fact the evidence points to Marciano being the harder puncher absolutely.
NickHudson is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 04:11 AM   #64
NickHudson
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 447
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

This is not a fact, it is nothing more than your perception.

And your formula does not tell the whole story. For example, it is not much good having superior leverage, if you do not know how to use it, and have poor timing...

quote=PowerPuncher]No its called science - its fact that Lennox hit harder.

The comparison is pointless. And what if the smaller/larger men are leagues better or worse

It also ignores the fact Lennox wasn't as aggressive and didnt go for KOs as aggressively.[/quote]
NickHudson is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 06:51 AM   #65
ChrisPontius
March 8th, 1971
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Holland
Posts: 9,640
vCash: 238
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD FOGEY
There is a long debate on another thread with various opinions of the relative power of a big man such as Lennox Lewis against a relatively small heavyweight such as Dempsey or Marciano. I did a little study comparing Marciano to Lewis, as the records of each are complete. To judge the p4p as well as the absolute punching power of the two men, I compared Marciano's HEAVIEST ten opponents with Lewis LIGHTEST ten opponents, and the weights worked out pretty close.

Lennox Lewis--ten lightest opponents and results
1. Bruce Johnson (192 lbs) TKO 2 record-5-10-1
2. Melvin Epps (194 lbs) DQ 2 record-14-19-1
3. Greg Gorrell (202 lbs) TKO 5--record 21-7
4. Jean Chanet (206 lbs) TKO 6--record 24-10
5. Mike Dixon (207 lbs) TKO 4--record 10-5
6. Dan Murphy (211 lbs) TKO 6--record 25-4-1
7. Zeljko Mirovic (214 lbs) W 12--record 27-0
8. Al Malcolm (215 lbs) TKO 2--record 11-12-1
9. Mike Weaver (215 lbs) TKO 6--record 35-15-1
10. Evander Holyfield (215 lbs) D 12--record 36-3

Average weigh 207 lbs (w/o lightest man 209.3 lbs)
Total record of opposition 208-85-5 71% winning %
Lennox Lewis' record 9-0-1 with 7 knockouts
average rounds fought 5.7
Lewis' average weight for 10 bouts-232 lbs
25 lb advantage per man

Rocky Marciano-ten heaviest opponents and results
1. Jerry Jackson (254 lbs) KO 1--record 2-1
2. Bill Wilson (229 lbs) TKO 1--record 42-11-2
3. Johnny Shkor (220 lbs) TKO 6--record 29-18-2
4. Joe Louis (213 lbs) TKO 8--record 68-2
5. Pat Connolly (213 lbs) KO 1--record 8-5
6. Eldridge Eatman (207 lbs) TKO 3--record 15-19-3
7. Bill Hardeman (206 lbs) KO 1--record 1-4
8. Don ****ell (205 lbs) TKO 9--record 66-11-1
9. Artie Donato (201 lbs) KO 1--record 9-6
10. Lee Savold (200 lbs) TKO 6--record 93-39-3

Average weight 215 lbs (w/o heaviest man 209.4 lbs)
Total record of opposition 333-116-11 74% winning %
Rocky Marciano's record 10-0-0 with 10 knockouts
Average rounds fought 3.7
Rocky Marciano's average weight for 10 bouts-186 lbs
29 lb average disadvantage against each opponent.

Comment--Marciano is clearly a ton better as a p4p puncher, but in fact the evidence points to Marciano being the harder puncher absolutely.
nice analysis Fogey.

I would like to point out a few things, though.

1. The only fights of Lewis (listed) that did not go the distance are Mavrovic, Holyfield and Epps. Epps was a disqualification, i don't know about the nature of that one but it's hardly fair to categorically list this as "Lewis failed to stop his opponent" as you did, while in fact it didn't go the distance. Mavrovic has an absolute iron chin and has never been floored or even hurt in 37 fights.

2. Marciano fought much more agressive because you can't stick and move and box to a decision when you're 5'10 with stubby arms. Obviously he's going to have more knockouts. Lewis went the distance with Holyfield because he focused on boxing, throwing quick combinations not focusing on power but on outlanding and did so succefully, if not for judges bought by Don King. You can see Lewis preparing exactly this strategy during sparring before this fight.

3. If we throw out the DQ on Lewis' record, there is only Mavrovic and Holyfield left who went the distance. These are extremely durable fighters, more so than Marciano's opponents. Louis was very durable although he was old. Holyfield was old too, but he had a great showing against Tyson twice a few years earlier, whereas Louis had a bad showing vs Charles a few years earlier. Holyfield went on to beat ranked contenders (in fact he's getting another title shot next week, a full 8 years later), Louis retired after his fight with Marciano.

If we look at the other two quality opponents of Marciano, then it is fair to say he did not impress at all. He looked aweful against Savold (who wasn't knocked down, by the way) and perhaps even worse against ****ell, whose 205lb is deceiving because he was fat, and he was stopped much more convingly by a middleweight.

4. To say Marciano "performed better" against that group is deceiving. Yes, he scored more knockouts. But is that performing better? His style is to score knockouts, not to outbox his opponent. Lewis had the option to outbox his opponent and have a guaranteed win without risk.
Since both Lewis and Marciano knocked out all of their "bum" opposition, let's look at the best 3 of this list and compare:

Marciano had Louis, Savold and ****ell. He impressed in the Louis bout but had the worst fights of his career against Savold and ****ell.

Lewis had Holyfield, Mavrovic and Weaver. He dominated Holyfield despite the judges' decision, won all 12 rounds against Mavrovic and knocked Weaver out with a single punch while not giving up a single round.

So i would hardly say "Marciano performed better".

5. I am not impressed by Marciano's "bigger" opposition. I will give him Louis but he was in his last fight. Savold and ****ell are nothing special and he didn't exactly roll over them. Big guys in Marciano's day were so rare that there was such a lack of talent in that weight range that they could not beat their smaller counterparts, as is evident by looking at the champions.
In Lewis' day, people grew much larger naturally and 185lb fighters have never been consistently competitive ever since and a cruiserweight division was created to make things more fair.

6. How does Marciano having knocked out more opponents than Lewis prove that Dempsey punches harder than Lewis?

7. 90% of the KO's that you are mentioning here are over mediocre opposition at best (most would call them bums). So i don't really see what this proves. I am not suprised that Marciano can knock out a 220lb unskilled fighter. As i've pointed out before, if we filter out the mediocre fighters, then the picture changes drastically in terms of how "easy" he went through them.

Last edited by ChrisPontius; 10-04-2007 at 09:17 AM.
ChrisPontius is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 07:38 AM   #66
rydersonthestorm
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

This is what i have been saying, you say you don't trust science but then you cherry pick some figures to make marciano look great,you can't have it both ways, you can use figures to make anyone look great. I have no doubts marciano was a great puncher and as i said p4p harder hitter than lewis but when lewis came out a ggresive he bombed out some huge men very quickly, could marcinao do the same.
rydersonthestorm is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 07:50 AM   #67
Vantage_West
ヒップホッププロデューサー
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 黒人文化の恋人のサンプリ
Posts: 10,024
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

Quote:
Originally Posted by roxyboxy
Can you explain further? Are you saying that you think humans are growing in size? that the species has gotten that much bigger in the last 50 years? or are you saying that the average size of the HW boxer is increasing?
at last somone said somthing.i couldnt believe my eyes when he said that we had evolved 2 inches in 50 years...in roman times 5'8/5'9 was an average hieght thats 2000 years ago.

but really
boxing back then size wasnt really a factor. we are in awe of guys who are 6 foot + welters and tall boxers. but back then wieghts and big muscles was a sign of danger i think somone like joe louis changed that who was around 6'3 198 pounds showed that a guy with less wieght can pack just a big a punch than the bigger guys. and marciano was a perfect example of that small but could pack a punch and swarmed ,rolled then landed those shots once he was in position.

i mean how many times have we said that guys like terry norris were too small for the wieght.yet could beat up much bigger men...it's silly to say that one inch makes a difference....

-


-
^ thats an inch if i were to jab my jab wouldnt change hieght at all.
Vantage_West is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 08:31 AM   #68
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

Quote:
Originally Posted by roxyboxy
I think what you are referencing is some pretty interesting research. My post is pretty reductionist and doesnt go into the science (for practical reasons). Jumping in a bit, the fiber types themselves have been grouped into subtypes and fast fibers do have a component that is adaptive in a way similar to slow twitch fibers. the problem occurs that actually fast twitch fibers can be made to use fuel in a way that is modeled with slow fibers -- in essence, making them produce high rates of explosive work for longer periods, more efficiently (like a 400 meter runner). but, the interesting aspect is that this is fast emulating slower, not vice versa, which is more of a holy grail. all of this has to be framed up appropriately in the value of training both fiber types to enhance what is inherently productive in each: slow fibers using fuel efficiently and fast fibers contracting quickly. the enhancement of fast fibers has an interesting history, not the least of which was the various training experiments (and i dont mean steroids) implemented by the soviet and east german blocs. they got pretty esoteric in their methods, with a lot of plyometric principals being refined by the soviets. the net result was an affected PERCENTAGE of fast fiber, but only as an exponent of their natural tendency to occur in the sample (person) to begin with. all of which, again, points toward the advantage of having natural proclivity for a certain fiber type. interestingly, i belive actually the mitochondria for the dna for fiber type is held in the female egg and conversely in the tail of the sperm. this suggests, since the whole sperm does not fertilize the egg, that fast fiber type is inherited from the mother. i do not remember the status of that particular research, and that is just an anecdote to chew on.

in any case, if you're naturally fast/explosive, you have a significant edge for retaining that quality over a naturally slow-twich individual.

incidentally, your point about enhancing fast twich presence is a very hot area of ongoing research with many unresolved questions. there are a lot of factors involved, mostly which get to the neurological level, since at its core a fast-twitch fiber's neuron bundle is thicker (and produces a greater recruitement signal). the adapability of the muscle is a second factor with hundreds of co-factors, making the "can i make more fast twitch fiber" a very, very complex question to answer. you are right, however, that various emerging training methods are attacking the core of the question with various success.
Theres much more too it than fast twitch fibre, for instance many GREAT GREAT 100m runners had only 60% fast twitch fibre. This is not a very high percentage. No boxer in history is as explosive as a great 100m runner.

Ofcourse we can see from footage Maricano is not explosive. Dempsey was explosive, Tyson was explosive - relatively Marciano was not. Slow punching can in noways be described as explosive. Lewis shows when powerpunching to be more explosive
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 08:35 AM   #69
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
No its called science - its fact that Lennox hit harder.

The comparison is pointless. And what if the smaller/larger men are leagues better or worse

It also ignores the fact Lennox wasn't as aggressive and didnt go for KOs as aggressively.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickHudson
This is not a fact, it is nothing more than your perception.

And your formula does not tell the whole story. For example, it is not much good having superior leverage, if you do not know how to use it, and have poor timing...
The use of leverage in the punch is obvious. If a fighter doesn't use leverage then it doesn't get factored in.

Timing is another matter - landing the punch in a target area when it is at maximal velocity

As mentioned its a simplistic example.

Last edited by PowerPuncher; 10-04-2007 at 09:11 AM.
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 08:49 AM   #70
roxyboxy
Journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 63
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerPuncher
Theres much more too it than fast twitch fibre, for instance many GREAT GREAT 100m runners had only 60% fast twitch fibre. This is not a very high percentage. No boxer in history is as explosive as a great 100m runner.

Ofcourse we can see from footage Maricano is not explosive. Dempsey was explosive, Tyson was explosive - relatively Marciano was not. Slow punching can in noways be described as explosive. Lewis shows when powerpunching to be more explosive
I hope you don't mind my coming in with a few clarifications.

To your point that "there is much more to it": I wrote that my original post was not exhaustive, of course. In fact, I purposely generalized it to just outline some interesting ideas in fiber research. I thought I might touch on or clarify a bit of what you wrote:

You wrote that some of the great 100m runners had "only" 60% FT. In an untrained state, 60 percent would in fact be above average. But I am more interested in knowing what you are referencing: did you pull this number from an actual analysis of a top sprinter?

I have an visualization that may help explain what we know about adapting muscle fiber types. Say you cut your leg straight down through the thigh -- you could hold up the leg and view the flat incised surface. let's say FT fibers are blue and ST are red -- you could see bundles of FT fibers taking up say 40 percent of the space and 60 would be filled in red ST fibers.

Specific adaptive stress could let you target either muscle group for adaptation. The result would be that the *untargeted* fiber type would not adapt, and even possibly atrophy.

So then, imagine how the surface of the muscle could change, how the little blots of fiber colors could grow or reduce. With specific adaptive stress, the ST fibers could grow in AREA proportion, but not increase in frequency. Or, vice versa: with the right stress, FT fibers could be recruited for adaptation and then take up more of the area, leaving the ST fiber unaffected and atrophying.

Exercise can make inroads and the relative presence of the fiber types, but much less inroads on the percentage of occurance with respect to each other. So, your thigh colors' ratios of presence to each other could change moderately, with different training protocols, from larger areas or red (or more prominent, I should say), but you'll not be much able to affect the original inherited percentage of occurance.

For your sprinter example, an elite sprinter could have 75 percent of trained recruitment and hypertrophy of FT over ST. That is the fiber ratio. But the actual 60 percent of FT type presence goes relatively unchanged.

All of this, of course, is hardly the final word, thanks to the progress of science. with each day we understand these fibers (and their subtypes) a little better. until we know the actual mechanics involved to the core, we go with the general rule of emphasizing our inherited strengths while trying to identify weaknesses.

I hope that helps.

oh--I think your guess about comparing boxing and sprinting explosiveness could largely be true. i think, however, that it's very difficult to compare. A pure 100 meter elite sprinter is not the same as a pure, elite 400 meter sprinter. and some boxers simply are endurance athletes with the ability to generate decent static power. others are absolute wrecking balls with the ability to recruit a lot of fiber very quickly. they must be trained to rebalance their ST in a way that lets them last longer into fights, i'd estimate.

Last edited by roxyboxy; 10-04-2007 at 10:18 AM.
roxyboxy is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 09:11 AM   #71
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

Quote:
Originally Posted by roxyboxy
I hope you don't mind my coming in with a few clarifications.

To your point that "there is much more to it": I wrote that my original post was not exhaustive, of course. In fact, I purposely generalized it to just outline some interesting ideas in fiber research. I thought I might touch on or clarify a bit of what you wrote:

You wrote that some of the great 100m runners had "only" 60% FT. In an untrained state, 60 percent would in fact be above average. But I am more interested in knowing what you are referencing: did you pull this number from an actual analysis of a top sprinter?

I have an visualization that may help explain what we know about adapting muscle fiber types. Say you cut your leg straight down through the thigh -- you could hold up the leg and view the flat incised surface. let's say FT fibers are blue and ST are red -- you could see bundles of FT fibers taking up say 40 percent of the space and 60 would be filled in red ST fibers.

Specific adaptive stress could let you target either muscle group for adaptation. The result would be that the *untargeted* fiber type would not adapt, and even possibly atrophy.

So then, imagine how the surface of the muscle could change, how the little blots of fiber colors could grow or reduce. With specific adaptive stress, the ST fibers could grow in AREA proportion, but not increase in frequency. Or, vice versa: with the right stress, FT fibers could be recruited for adaptation and then take up more of the area, leaving the ST fiber unaffected and atrophying.

Exercise can make inroads and the relative presence of the fiber types, but much less inroads on the percentage of occurance with respect to each other. So, your thigh colors' ratios of presence to each other could change moderately, with different training protocols, from larger areas or red (or more prominent, I should say), but you'll not be much able to affect the original inherited percentage of occurance.

For your sprinter example, an elite sprinter could have 75 percent of trained recruitment and hypertrophy of FT over ST. That is the fiber ratio. But the actual 60 percent of FT type presence goes relatively unchanged.

I hope that helps.

oh--I think you're guess about comparing boxing and sprinting explosiveness could largely be true. i think, however, that it's very difficult to compare. A pure 100 meter elite sprinter is not the same as a pure, elite 400 meter sprinter. and some boxers simply are endurance athletes with the ability to generate decent static power. others are absolute wrecking balls with the ability to recruit a lot of fiber very quickly. they must be trained to rebalance their ST in a way that lets them last longer into fights, i'd estimate.
Yes I'd like to thank you for your additions they are very interesting I did not mean to sound too critical.

The sprinter I was referring to was Merlene Ottey on an analysis of her muscle tissue but I think there are others. I can't remember the exact figure and it may have been less than that. They did remark on their suprise it was so low. I dont have the source but if you have the time I'd suggest searching google using speech marks around the following:

"Merlene Ottey" "fast twitch"

Sprinting the 100m is interestingly just as important to have 'speed endurance'

According to some research Slow Twitch can be 'turned on' to act more like 'fast twitch'. Conversely fast twitch can act like . I agree training for speed/explosiveness will turn on more fast twitch fibre and maximise this type of fbre within the muscle.

With punching itself its more about generating maximal power by using as many of the muscles in the body as possible.

Very simplistically lets say your body can generate the following imagineryamounts of power from each bodypart:

Arms&shoulders&Chest - 200
Lower Back & Hips - 100
Legs: 200

Andrew Golota both have these potential numbers. Now Lennox lewis users all 3 of the bodyparts and Andrew Golota only uses his arms - lennox is the harder puncher because he totals an imaginery 500 compared to Golotas imaginery 200

Now lets say we have Marciano:

Arms&shoulders&Chest - 150
Lower Back & Hips - 100
Legs: 150

Marciano gives an imaginery 400 compared to Lennoxs imaginery 500 and Golotas imaginery 200.
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 09:22 AM   #72
JimboDs
So-called expert
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South Wales, NY
Posts: 122
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vantage_West
at last somone said somthing.i couldnt believe my eyes when he said that we had evolved 2 inches in 50 years...in roman times 5'8/5'9 was an average hieght thats 2000 years ago.
That is not an accurate statement. Julius Caesar was 5'6", which was considered very tall at the time.

Increased height has nothing to do with evolution. We won't evolve into a larger species because it is not a necessary adaptation. Average human height stagnated for thousands of years.

The reason that human beings have gotten taller in the modern age (mainly in the last 50 years) has to do with improved nutrition, particularly nutrition at the time of infancy.
JimboDs is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 09:24 AM   #73
PowerPuncher
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,610
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimboDs
That is not an accurate statement. Julius Caesar was 5'6", which was considered very tall at the time.

Increased height has nothing to do with evolution. We won't evolve into a larger species because it is not a necessary adaptation. Average human height stagnated for thousands of years.

The reason that human beings have gotten taller in the modern age (mainly in the last 50 years) has to do with improved nutrition, particularly nutrition at the time of infancy.
This is true, my fathers 5'6, I'm 6'0, my girlfriends mother is 5'0, shes 5'8. People on average are at least 2 inches taller if not more these days. Bare in mind people probably also have denser bone structures, bigger hearts, bigger muscle etc because of better nutrition.
PowerPuncher is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 09:34 AM   #74
rydersonthestorm
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,596
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

This is true the average height when my dad was young was about 5'9 and now the average height is about 5'11, so i can see the two inch's as being pretty accurate and that is only over 30 years never mind 50 or more.
rydersonthestorm is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2007, 09:35 AM   #75
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,044
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Marciano Harder Hitter than Lennox Lewis

There are a number of factors apart from absolute power that determine a punchers knockout percentage.

Marciano was not so much a good finisher as verry likley to knock you out in a fifteen round fight either by finishing or atrition.

His power was off the scale for his weight and I would not be at all surprized if he hit as hard or nearly as hard as Lewis.
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013