The importance of skeletal structure, musculature and general physiology...

It's important but, in the case of things like muscle density, tendon strength, lung capacity and so on, almost impossible to accurately evaluate. The best you can do is form a general image of the fighter from images and statistics, and then proceed to gauge how well that image correlates with the available footage of the fighter in action, re-evaluating as you see fit until you have a reasonably accurate representation of that fighter's internal makeup.

 

Interesting thread......I can´t say nothing because I think that my knowledge on this subject is small..
But looking forward to this thread and the posts :good

 

Yes, very interesting thread.

 

Utter bollocks. In boxing, so much is an estimation based on results that you can confer these suppositions upon boxers with limited veracity. But let's try to apply this same "science" to another, more rigidly measured endeavor, track sprinting.

Please to evaluate the following athletes...

This content is protected

5-11 160 lbs 9.92 seconds

This content is protected

6-3 180 9.86 seconds

This content is protected

6-0 185. 9.85 seconds

This content is protected

6-5 175 9.86 seconds


All varied physiques and muscalature, all 100 meter champions and/or world record holders with roughly analogous times given conditions and track surfaces over the years. All capable of roughly the same performance. And I know you are talking more about just height and weight (length of levers, compactness of muscles). However, these athletes do give a wide representation of other attributes within the context of being the very elite world class in their field... i.e. there are no 280 lb couch potatoes represented.

 

It's an interesting thread. I don't think Seamus cynicism is unreasonable. The problem I imagine is that it's sometimes hard to tell the physiology of a fighter by his appearance. Surely, more obvious examples like Tyson, Marciano, and Pacquaio can be discerned more physiologically based. How often, though, are the physical performances of a fighter used to reinforce physiology based ideas in regards to fighters. In other words, it seems kind of circular. Basic things like seeing Chuvalo built like a tank can show how physical features matter in boxing. A short thick neck and strong base (Back, legs) will obviously help you take a punch. The same runs true for Tyson and Tua's stature in regards to punch resistance. At the same token, Bute is obviously a fighter with a long thin neck. His not built to endure punishment.

Pac explodes with punches. His form, technique, and general punch execution often looks amateurish. Instead of sitting down on his shots and garnering leverage and punching through a target he explodes at a target. Often times you see Pac's feet off the ground or all over the place. I imagine Pac gets away with this because of his physiology. His quads are massive for most fighters, even fighters at higher weights. His calves are huge. He clearly has great fast twitch muscle fibers. The conjunction of all this allows him to explode off the canvas to gain such tremendous speed and power. Does it look like Pac is really punching with such great power? Beyond obvious superficial physical explanations, how can one tell? How does one tell a fighter has a small skeletal structure, particularly when he's well built and rather muscular (Yes, muscles generally reduce cardiovascular potential on a general notion). Did George Foreman have bad stamina because he big muscles on top of a small skeletal structure? I don't think so. At the same time, what you say is true. It was said Hagler's skull was thicker than the average men which allowed for him to take greater punishment. Maybe something like that can help explain why certain fighters can take tons of punishment and end up fine while others tend to become more affected later on. Often it's difficult to discern or imagine in regards to internal physiology, though.

Great thread. Sorry if my post was a little wordy and in-concise.

 

I had a bigger chest than Marciano when I left school. Tyson has thin calves but big thighs.Marciano had big legs period, but his chest, biceps and neck were nothing exceptional,where did he get his tremendous power from ?
I don't think you can pin it down .Some people with pronounced bone structure around the eyebrows ect , tend to cut easily, Cooper, Antuofermo, eg ,others do not. Why did Frazier s face swell up , yet he rarely cut ? I have a cousin 6'2" rangy, and thin, he is tremendously strong, big hands thick wrists but small biceps probably 2-3" smaller than mine, yet he can lift, and carry weights that would be far beyond me. It's a mystery ,well to me at least. But, good luck with your quest.

 

There are simply way too many variables to even guess at whether someone will make a good fighter or not let alone what kind of style and tactics will be best suited for him.

Just in muscle composition regarding punching power alone, which is invisible to the naked eye, you have fiber type, firing rate, firing speed, recruitment of fibers, length of fibers, elasticity of tendons, synapses thickness, insertion points, cp levels, just to name a few...

For stamina, you have heart size, pumping strength, lung capacity, lung oxygen absorption rate, red blood cell oxygen capacity, capillary density in muscles, lactic acid removal rate, just to name a few...

Some are innate, some can be trained to world class levels.

There is way too much stuff going on to be able to take even a close look at someone, and have an inkling of an idea of that person's abilities.

 

Sprinting and boxing just are not comparable IMO.

 

Had an interesting talk with my pops which was sort of relevant to the topic. We were talking about genetics and I mentioned epigenetics which I saw about on a science show. My father talked about his cousin who ingested proteins and eggs and got into working out very early. His siblings were all smaller and not as big in bone structure. My dad basically believes that his cousin built himself to be at that level from what did at an earlier age. Basically, he could never touch a weight again (Which he hasn't as far as I know) and he will always be big. I am bigger than him and my brother and he believes this happened with me to an extent as well. I am not so sure, but it's an interesting nevertheless.

It got me thinking about Marciano. He was a fitness freak always looking to get stronger as a kid. He took advice from kids and always tried things out and tried eating well. Maybe this sort of thing helped Marciano in some way grow into his structure or be stronger from life onwards. This is taking the concept of epigenetics and narrowing it down even further. More understanding of science and biology is very limited though.

There are obvious counterexamples. Tyson was always a freak. About 200 pound all muscle at 16 years old. The first time he went to bench press he pushed up 275 or 315 pounds. A good figure by most average fellows goals. So obviously genetics play a crucial factor. A very important one. But you have some choice and way to perhaps enhance what you may have already. At least this is shown to be true through generations with epigenetics in terms of obesity, and something as simple as a pregnant mother altering her child simply due to being in a stressful situation during pregnancy.

 

There is not a correlation being drawn between the two sports but a challenge to this "eye test" mentality that asserts it can by physiogamy draw conclusions on an athlete's performance.

I say, total bollocks.