Translators are crap/ poor, they doesn't work well and you shouldn't use these as the mostly take the meaning out of the text. But in this case I had trouble with my keyboard on the tablet. This was my point; to generalize it, power is about 2/3 speed and 1/3 mass. So for this rating is it easier in the Heavyweight to have a high knockout rate. Therefore it is in the lower divisions even more impressive, which is one reason to rate Zarate, Valero, Zamora or Freitas high. On the other hand had Mosley a better knockout-rate than above (especially in Light-Middleweight).
Where is the evidence that power is 2/3 speed & 1/3 mass? Even if that is accurate, getting that mass behind a punch is a matter of technique. And it is not merely that; because things like a heavy bone structure to avoid loss of energy transfer, + larger hands that have more effect are factors. KO rates are only in part due to power. At most power is one of many factors: accuracy, volume, combinations, speed & disguising elivery increases effect due to surprise for the same force deployed, chin & endurance & defense to *get* to KO anyone...
It is arounded, due to the formula: E=MC2 If you have the better punching-technique, you might be the superior puncher in my view, as these are felt harder by the opponent. That only matters, but is subjective (objective is it just by a machine), as every individual feel different, when who is natural. When you have poor/ not so good technical skills, when your power is not effective and you are probably not the best puncher (knockouter). So knockoutrate is more evidence objective, then something what someone said about his opponents (which can hardly been proved/ verified nor questioned). As most boxer are normally human and nobody is the same. Technique have to be one ability of a puncher (if you look to Crawford or Alvarez) and is a necessary part which have to be taken into the account and not just the muscles or force behind.
Of course technique matters, both to produce more force & be more effective. KO% is an objective measure, but not of raw power. It is circular reasoning to claim it measures effectiveness, of course. Testimony + the eye test & comparing opponents is imperfect but good evidence to present, in context. E=MC2 does not at all say that speed is twice as important as mass. That is completely mistaken. Anyway the force of a blow has many elements, no need for me to repeat them, although mass & speed are significant parts of it.
This formula doesn't say anything about the proportion between speed and mass... Why people on boxing forum try to talk about physics when they have no clue about it?
But it is more accurate than just opinions, which can be very different and a matter of taste (eye-test in no proof by any meaning and can be seen by anyone in another way). The results are very good hints and as more contests are rated, that the more exact these are. These numbers are no product of coincidances and a better basis than anything human can create. I maintained that this was generalized and rounded, but shows how it about can work; the speed could be a potence of the mass.
I don't know, maybe can answer this yourself... I my view it is about light-speed, which means potencia of mass in speed can transform this to energy.
Excse me, but if a boxer hit another boxer at the speed of light it most certainly would result in a knockout.
I pick fighters their are plenty of film on. 1#J.Jackson #2 D.Lopez #3 P Cuevas #4 E.Shavers. #5 S.Saddler #6 T.Hearns #7 B.Foster #8 Foreman #9 J.Mugabi # 10 A.Arguello
KO rates or absolute numbers of KOs are a measure of effectiveness, they are not a good bases of determining raw power. Otherwise Archie Moore might be the hardest hitter ever at least at LHW. Nobody believed he was near that, just great at boxing. Since KOs are largely determined by so many factors of speed overall & specific aspects of offense & defence, volume accuracy even chin & endurance to make them happen... Testimony & visuals speaks more directly than KOs. Although how which opponent reacts when hit in what way how often means a lot. But this shows that effectiveness has as only one ingredient raw power; it must be isolated. I do not know what your last statement is saying, but E= MC2 just does not at all say that speed is twice as important as mass. Which was your very specific claim.
Oh I guess most people here rate Moore as the hardest hitter of Light-Heavyweight, but pound for pound has he not one of the highest rates. I thought here was a survey were most voted for him. Also is visuell totally subjective and doesn't measure power by any meaning. It might be fun, but is unimportant for any rational (objective) rating. If only visuell counts, when we don't have to name knockouts into record and doesn't even count them. But for one reason or another, we know that Marciano had 43 knockouts out of 49 fight, that Moore had maybe 140, Valero 27. It is even meaningful in which rounds these happen, as earlier knockouts are mainly more impressive; therefore is Vitaly Klitschko a big puncher (rather than his brother or Lewis), as he accomlished 25 in the first two rounds, which is more than half of his bouts. Even if the knockouts are not only result by raw power, the other factors are parts of a puncher too, no matter if you need many instead of one punch, that doesn't make you a worse puncher than someone for who applies this vice versa. And to the formula you just hang on, but didn't read the whole context, you only pick a part of it out, which suits your statement. I have to this nothing to add.
Feel free to show me the whole statement-you were brief & clearly said Einstein's formula sproved the specifics of speed being twice as important as mass for force. Perhaps it was a language problem, but that is what your words meant. Do a search for Moore: I do not think there ever was a survey where anyone rated him as the hardest hitter in any division. Actually it is unfair to him to use total KO% to determine that for two reasons: most obviously it in part measures overall effectiveness, MANY factors... But also someone who fights forever like Moore has a huge disadvantage, compared to others, especially someone like Marciano who only fought a relatively few prime years! But even when Moore weighed virtually precisely what Rocky did, I think you will find nobody who says he hit as hard. An Rocky himself while a really har hitter especially for his size, had many who said for individual blows, some like Satterfield & Shepherd, also at most small HWs, hit harder. Just not nearly as often, & not as good overall! Visuals & comparing the effect of blows on what opponent & how landed is a good estimation. You are confusing *effectiveness* of achievng KOs, which is far more objective, with being a harder or bigger puncher! But even that cannot just go by how early it is accomplished. I like Vilali & many underrate him. But his early KOs are largely due to efficiency, high volume, & quality of opposition. He is called an arm puncher: still hit pretty hard due to his size & strength. But almost nobody will say he hit as hard, let alone harder, than his Brother or Lewis!
No, this formula says that mass can be transferred into energy (and vice versa) and the speed of light is just a coefficient of potential transfer. It says nothing about movement.
It's impossible for boxer to hit another boxer with a speed of light, because anything that carries mass can't move with a speed of light.
