Rocky Marciano's so called punching power

OK so lets look at this in your terms.

Do you think that Lewis Wlad and Joshua could take a punch better than Toney, Holyfield and Guillermo Jones.

If not then you would have to give a fighter more credit for his power, based on stopping the latter group of men.

You would also have to conclude that the most durable cruiser weight sized fighters from other eras, probably also took a punch better than the latter group of men.

If you were training the former group of men for a title defense against say Herbie Hide, would you be telling them that they could throw caution to the wind, because the smaller man could not hurt them?

I think that I already know the answer to that.

It is virtually a given that the hardest punching cruiser weight sized fighters, would be a serious threat to these men in terms of their power.

 

That would actually be an argument for the smaller fighters, if it were valid here, which it is not.

It is saying that speed is far more important than mass in determining impact.

 

The best predictor for punching force indeed is strength (1RM= one rep weight aka maximum strength) and handspeed. They did straight punches, so there isn´t much rotational force of the body mass here. 1RM of course is a function of size.

Why should it be valid for smaller fighters only? WTF is this crap?

Do you honestly think Dempsey punched the same avarage force, lets say out of about 20 punches to a bag than Foreman, Tyson, Morrison, Shavers, Ibeabuchi and Tua?

 

I agree totally, he had great power for small cruisers not against big hws. A 40 years old moore lasted a lot with him and knocked him down however frazier killed bob foster in 2 single rounds in one sided fashion. Frazier showed more power against durable full hws. Ali was nearly out in 1971 and this one was not the 1963 green version of clay

 

Let's take your erroneous argument to its logical conclusion.

If you double the mass of an object in motion, you double the impact with which it hits.

If you increases the velocity, you are squaring the impact with which it hits.

Therefore increasing the velocity, increases the impact by far more than increasing the mass.

Therefore smaller fighters would hit far harder relative to their size, due to their greater hand speed.

The hardest puncher of all time would probably be a welterweight!

 

All else being equal bigger will be harder hitting, but there are so many other factors. How much speed you can generate, how much of your weight is going in (Jack Dempsey was great at dropping into his punches to increase his power), if you can get a stretch (easier if you are faster), how many muscles you can put into it, how weak is the weakest part of the chain, your leverages. Plus hitting the right places, hitting at the right time, and having the engine to put a lot into punches often.

Deontay Wilder is very light for a current top heavyweight, but his power is probably the best of the lot.

 

The term "according to their size" is trash. And it means nothing. At end of the day the only important thing is the result so a bigger and stronger guy will hit harder.
The same thing is with the weight lifting
A guy can be stronger "in relationship with his size" but at the end of the day the heavier guy usually can lift more weight( not always but the most of the times yes)

 

Welterweights generate twice the velocity of heavyweights? I seriously doubt it. What about the mass difference of a bigger fist, much bigger forearm, bigger wrist and upper arm?

Punch force of course isn´t only generated by the mass of the arm.

Thats why I´m saying most strong punches are build up by adding rotational body mass to the impact! For example the hook is the most powerful punch according to a paper I saw. Do you see the fist beeing accelerated to a higher velocity due to a longer reach, if you for example compare Wilder and GGG? So much for higher velocity and reach

 

The case of the wilder is because he got a large frame, very long it is not robust but "big" because is very very long . anyway it has to do also with natural strength and power, the classic gym guy like joshua use to be only a poser not the strongest guy

 

I'll try to address this in its component parts.

Yes I do. But I don't think the difference is as huge as advertised. And Jones never fought at a high level at HW, so his chin is somewhat unproven.

I would absolutely give a fighter major credit for stopping any of those three men. It's actually why I rate Samuel Peter's raw power so highly, as he was the only man I ever saw that was able to repeatedly rock Toney without putting a huge amount of effort into his punches.

No, I don't come to that conclusion. What's your reasoning for thinking this?

No, of course not. But then Hide was a proven puncher in the modern era. It's not enough to prove yourself as a puncher against other similar sized men if you're a small man yourself, since smaller men on average punch with less force than bigger men. Hide was an outlier who proved he was an outlier.

Yes, I agree, as long as you're referring to fighters in the 210 bracket. This current batch of killers (Usyk, Gassiev, Briedis) will likely go on to prove just that once they move up, though I'll reserve my opinion until they actually prove it in the ring. Briedis has already started to do so.

 

I see that physics is was not your strong suit at school.

If boxing power worked the way that you are claiming it does, you would get a much greater increase in power for a given increase in speed, than you would for a given increase in body weight.

This would inherently favor the smaller and faster fighters.

Why is this so hard to grasp?

I am not saying that it works this way, I am saying that it does not work this way, but the argument is doing you no favors.

Punching power is primarily a neuromuscular thing, that does not correlate with speed, and only correlates with body mass very loosely.

You could find a big fighter with fast hands who couldn't break an egg if you wanted to.

 

This is becoming ridiculous. Do Janitors got Physics at University too?

What of

"Thats why I´m saying most strong punches are build up by adding rotational body mass to the impact! For example the hook is the most powerful punch according to a paper I saw. Do you see the fist beeing accelerated to a higher velocity due to a longer reach, if you for example compare Wilder and GGG? So much for higher velocity and reach"

do you not understand?

The impact of a physical body is given by 1/2mv² and 1/2Iw² for rotational mass. Thats the way impacts are generated in real worlds, no fantasy bull****.
You need more (or load up) more energy to a fist sitting on a longer arm (=reach) than a fist ending on a 55" reach span. Everyone without any knowledge of physics can imagine swinging a longer lasso possessing more ebergy than a short one.

For arm punches only: You are claiming WWs generating much more velocity than heavys, which is overestimated.

 

I don't think that a longer reach is necessarily going to result in greater velocity or power, because most of it comes from the lower body anyway.

I would also dispute your assertion that the left hook is the hardest punch, it might just as easily be the right cross.

There is no formula for punching power, so don't waste your time looking for it.

I don't think that the analogy of a lasso is a valid one.

It is more like arguing that a longer piston will have more power traveling in a straight line, if you put the same engine behind it.

If there was any correlation between reach and power, or build and power, we would be able to identify a clear patter among the power punchers throughout history.

The fact is that they can literally be any sort of build.

Stop looking for a pattern, because you will never find it!

We would be justified in saying that smaller fighters typically have faster hands, just as we would in saying that bigger fighters are generally stronger.

Therefore if your hypothesis was correct, it would favor the smaller fighters, because velocity would increase impact far more than body mass.

I am absolutely rejecting your hypothesis, but you are not doing yourself any favors by arguing it!

 

OK, some common ground here.

If there are ha handful of cruiser weight sized fighters, or perhaps even smaller fighters, who have better chins than some of the top super heavyweights of their era, would it not be reasonable to infer that there was probably somebody like that around in the 1930s say?

Then would it not be fair to say that there was probably a Hide type puncher in the 1950s, even if the fighters were not around for him to prove it against?

 

Well, all he did here was lower the quality level of this forum to something even lower than the General forum. He came off as a typical cowardly internet blowhard bully, using insulting words and jacking off from behind his anonymous keyboard sanctuary. **** him.