Why does size matter?

:yep i used all my speed and craft for 2rounds of sparring, ate one left uppercut and was hanging on for dear life against a cruiserweight.

 

This is obviously true

 

So is this a long-winded way of saying that you have no idea?

 

Let me slow things down then. Even most casual boxing fans recognize that very, very small increments of weight matter a lot in lower weight classes. Even when the weight differences are so small that they wouldn't matter in most other physical activities or be obvious in ordinary life. So for example, if anyone here were to match up a 122-lb man v. a 130-lb boxer, everyone here would recognize that the size disparity (8 pounds) was very important.

That 8-lb difference would obviously be far less important for heavyweights, as it is a smaller percentage of their body weight. But nobody here has ever argued about 8 pound differences in these heavyweight match-ups-- we're talking about differences of 20,30,40 pounds or more. Only in the world of overly-sentimental fight fans are the latter differences in size not nearly as important as the former.

 

The only thing for certain is I cant tell you how long you will keep asking a question unrelated to my post.

I guess it depends on whether you are simply too stupid to pick up on it or just maintaining your charade to save face...which could go on forever.

 

20, 30... 40...50 lbs of weight require increasing amounts of cardio expenditure to use them. The heart cannot easily adjust to suit increasingly large body size. It cant increase its size proportionally much at all, or it loses effieciency and result sin the heart of a non athelete who would get destroyed in a boxing ring.

So you get a proportional increase in cardio loss with much bigger wieght increases the closer you get to huge human frames.
You'll understand what that proportional increase is, seeing as you are happy with the idea of proportions delivering diminshing returns as weight increases.


nutshell - size is a bonus in terms of mass/force/punch if you use it properly, but it takes away too, your cardio, restricting your proper use of your size advantage AT THE MOST EXTREME sizes..

 

Michael Spinks did beat Holmes the first time, I believe.

 

I don't disagree with any of this in the abstract. But it begs the question of whether the heavyweights we've been discussing are AT THE MOST EXTREME sizes or not. Which is why I've been trying to get you to specify more details about where the actual dividing line/lines fall.

 

yeh you are still looking for a single figure for living weighed and measured hearts. Assuming they are all in the same bodies too. sheesh someone MUST have done that study, eh?

man, you must love the scenic route.

Perhaps you just want to make a dayjob of denying that extra tissue needs extra oxygenation. fair enough - but dont assume the rest of the world wants to join your denial.

 

in excess of 6 foot 5 isnt a particularly massive size in a human, yes well done mate. all my mates in school were that tall.

10/10 for sticking to your guns anyway.

 

I haven't been sticking to any guns. Was just trying to understand the implications of your argument as well as possible, but now I see that there really isn't any payoff. In my opinion, the bottom line remains that in-shape, athletic big men benefit more from the advantages in reach, power, strength, and ability to withstand punishment, than they lose from the marginal extra burden on their cardiovascular systems. Cheers! :hi:

 

yup, you SO arent.... VVV

k.s.d.o.a.

 

Efficiency in terms of stamina probably goes down at around 125 pounds bodyweight.
Looking at 10km runners tells me that.