Well yeah, all relevant mass should be properly accounted for and factored. Massless particles like photons gain momentum from their pure energy. Do you disagree? The mass of “massful” particles becomes infinitely huge as the the speed of light is approached - as doe the energy required to move it. The faster than light speed punch may well disappear mid travel, evaporating before everyone’s eyes - ending up somewhere back in time in another space-time dimension - possibly connecting on the chin of some other unwitting sap previously alive in days gone by.. Your bro is up on this stuff, right? I thought he is the smartestestest. You should ask him and report back. So, to be clear, you’re saying you BP’d 290? Keep up the DB curls, they actually get that much easier in a shorter time than you would think. I’ll stop here before someone lowers the boom and says “This ain’t no Physics forum!”. PS - Fantasy match - Einstein v Tesla, mano a mano? My money’s on 6’2” Tesla, too much advantage in height and reach though little Albert’s tenacity might see him last the distance.
My Brother wrote a pop take off on many genres through a light understanding of physics. You likely know more! You can see his latest one [url]HERE[/url]. I know about the energy & force involved in approaching 186k miles per second-but you are not joking about a punch exceeding that traveling to another space-time dimension or back in time? Assuming that this was even possible, how would that happen? Time slowing relative to us would not suggest moving into another timeline or "place" just due to such speed right? My concern is that Occam's Razor would find this entirely too complex, fanciful, & suspiciously pleasing to sci-fi sensibilities lol! Just like in my complete layman's understanding, it would seem far more likely that anything falling into a black hole is instantly obliterated, rather than literally a portal to another universe. Does the former not sound too conveniently complex, intact, organized & created? I thought the massless particles travel at a constant speed as an intrinsic feature. I guess momentum need not involve mass, but if they are neither accelerating nor have any weight to them, it is hard for me to see that as momentum *gained". Nah I am saying I did 225 X 10 reps on a decline BP. The angle likely added 2 reps, but no warm up & 1 machine press to failure must have stolen one. So the math on 9 reps on this 2 plates at an average neuro-muscular efficiency-& knowing what I did in the past between reps & 1 RM- would equal 290 on a flat bench with proper form. Usually most can do ~ 8 reps at 80% of their 1 RM. And no gear for me, either worn or internal! I have no interest in maxing out on DB curls, I had done endless arms to the max (absent any PEDs or even Creatine) for a while in the past. That very specific isolation excercise for each limb means little for overall strength. Are you equally strong on the 3 powerlifts?
I’m just using DBs at this point in time. They do me fine. Did a few random bench presses a long time ago at a mates house after a decent drinking session - he had about 200 lbs on it - so that was it.
OK maybe you can get back to the physics I asked about later. Or send me a DM if you prefer. DB if you use them for the larger lower body muscles too are fine-like for deadlifts & squats. if they are heavy enough for you. So are just body weight exercises. With the bar that might be up to 245, if so you are around where I am.
The HWs make sense if you're talking in a strict p4p sense. Marciano and Rocky as two of the most powerful ever at around 185-190 lbs? Sure. My main objection in that sense is probably Duran. The guy could punch, but wasn't really that paralysing kind of puncher. Arguello would be a better mention there, I think. Tsuy also had that numbing power. But all in all it looks good. Foster, Hearns, Jackson... They were absolute killers. Shavers, Liston and Foreman were monster trucks for 210-220 lbs and Marciano and Dempsey for 185-190, so no problems there. Sure, it kind of neglects anyone after the 80's, a period where there's been many, many punches due to roids and whatnot, but it's a good look down history nonetheless.
Best not to get too heavy on the physics here - your knowledge is very good and sometimes answers, even if available (read: even high end experts disagree on some fundamental stuff) can’t be simply put. I’m just a casual on the subject like you - possibly take it to the lounge at some point - pretty sure there would be plenty of other budding Einsteins or, worse still, Sheldon Coopers compelled to throw their hats in the ring also with their knowledge and opinions. Many so called experts (and many very pretentious) will try and drown you in what they do know but ultimately fail to be on point and actually answer the burning questions put to them. Many don’t entertain faster than light speed - replying that it’s just not possible, doesn’t fit into their current frame so “no point going there” - truth is, if or when proven, they don’t have any rules to fit it into and therefore no means to forecast its effects/ramifications. Yep, the old DBs are very versatile for multi applications.
Possible should you take more care in reading accurate, as it might be adivisble for some people in this community. I wrote about both and specified it in their different records, so I thought it was obvious that I didn't mix anybody up, as I compared actual one with the other. I really don't know if you intentional ignored my previous words or not. But your incorrect quoting gave my statement a whole different meaning. On the other hand were it only side-lines, so it seems you fixed on this to switch the subject. I didn't shift to biggest puncher, but you first wrote "biggest puncher or hardest puncher" like it would be the same and equally. I just wanted to point, it is different. Your phrase "almost certainly" is for me just nonsense, I have to maintain it this hard; it is like of somebody who want to appear intellectual, but doesn't know the meaning: certainly is very very little and almost certainly most likely doesn't exist. But Foster was in these topics, which I previous pointed, indeed mentioned as well. Moorer had a much weaker opposition, even than Vitaly Klitschko in his first 27 professional bouts; so if you think the first was a superior puncher than Moore in Light-Heavyweight, then you might agree that the second is one of the best puncher in the Heavyweight, otherwise you use here just double-standards (which is hypocrite). My other main point was rather, that Foreman's knockout-rate shrinked a bit down and he went more often the distance than he used to do in younger ages, which disproves that you don't lose power when you get advanced aged. Klitschko can have hit harder than Wilder, as his competition was so much superior, I doubt Stiverne could have survived 12 rounds against him, but Wilders output might be even similar (although get faster tired), so he need more than one usual (apart of friend Scott) to stop his opponents . Whatsoever I think we can make it simple: How many punches you need for a knockout is not relevant to be a successful puncher, but only that you get the knockout (the result, there can be used different ways to come to this, but non is wrong). So the knockout-rate is pretty applying to measure it. Like for instance nobody describe Hernandez as pure puncher, rather as boxer or boxer-puncher, but he likely hit harder than Huck and Lebedev. The difference between puncher and boxer is not just the power, but the style you go into the fight and how you force a knockout; as Lemieux or Dempsey (he threw possible over hundred against Wilard) usual needed many many punches to get their opponents out and have no great one-punch power for me.
I am sorry I mixed up Moore & Moorer & thought you did. But you do not understand how mangled your English is, it can be difficult to understand. For example you then wrote wondering if I ignored your previous words. But even if your language was good, when we write so much if you want anyone to comprehend-say what words you mean! Also what is the supposed "incorrect quoting"? You need to say what this refers to, if I am wrong I will admit it. I do not know if you ever do this or not... But it makes no sense to assume that because something is a "sidelight" that I intentionally changed the subject. NO. I am relentlessly pedantic in addressing points; there was never a cause to suspect otherwise. Look up "[url]Occam's Razor[/url]": the logical conclusion is in long posts & when one party is not great at the language, that it is much more likely something was missed or misunderstood than that you are being ignored. Now "biggest puncher" DOES mean "hardest puncher" unless the phrase is modified in a certain context to show a different intended meaning. It does *not* mean who is the best puncher, or the most effective at KOs. If I start a thread about this virtually everyone will agree. You provide no evidence otherwise & given your unfamiliarity with English, there isno reason you should assume otherwise. Now I want to do some things so will address your other claims later. Some of which we agree upon! Don't go thinking you are being avoided or disrespected or some such cynical, incorrect assumption.
That were the adjective which explained the formula was not narrow meant, but more in general, that speed (in a factor² of their mass) becomes energy.. I wrote it could be around two times as much to make it more visible for anyone, but declared it is not exact and did this several times. It seems to me, that you did it possible intentional, to discredit my original point or to argue and to claim you are right, but I have to be wrong. I have learned in a psychological training (for just one week) in September 2019, to fix discusions/ arguing on just few points/ arguments and not go too wide spreaded, likely because it gives the counterpart the chance to go away from the original subject and make many war places which stretch the discussion very large and long (to avoid the main points). If you are pedantic on details, when you have to know that the biggest puncher is not automatically the hardest or most powerful puncher. The skills you mentioned which play a role as technics, fundamentals and timing are not just boxing abilities, but parts of a puncher what makes whom to this too. Power is just one part of it as well and can be about equally with the speed, which might be more important than mass (weight), what was my previous point and I wanted to declare it with the E=Mc², but I ought to have let this out and made my statement there shorter. The other point is, if the knockout-rate is not important to define a puncher/ knockouter, then why does we even count knockouts? It would be just a waste of time to number these in any record and let the ring anouncer or commentators read these. But it looks almost as meaningful as the results in it (wins, draws, defeats) for most follower of boxing (fans, experts, media, sanctioning bodies). By the way if it goes to natural one-punch power, I really do think Vitaly Klitschko has more than Jack Dempsey, Joe Frazier, Muhammed Ali and Evander Holyfield, that by some margin. Yoan Pabloe Hernandez was maybe one of the 3 hardest hitter in Cruiserweight since the year 2000 (besides Haye and perhaps Bell or Gurov). On thing I'm really annoyed is to use such phrases as "certain", "unquestional", "general common" or "no doubts", as these are used often to kill any discusion about something and is an arrogant attitude to claim other opinions are not legit/ discredit these: Like some (likely most) insist that Ali have to be placed as top 2 in Heavyweight and Duran as greatest boxer in Lightweight, like that anybody with a different view has no knowledge about boxing. I mean everyone can make their individual rating and we don't have to agree with something before the subject/ discusion has even started.
You said the formula established speed as twice ths significance of mass. You were wrong. E=MC2 has absolutely nothing to do with this matter-as several of us have said. You backed off when called on it. There is no cause to believe I did anything but be completely sincere & above board. It is also still very hard to understand you, so be humble about assuming anything negative on other's intent. Now you change it to speed "might" be more important, but this is so broad as to be meaningless. Biggest puncher DOES mean the hardest puncher. Those words *mean* the same thing. Sure many elements you mention go into punching, no debate there. KO rate DOES define a puncher. You are again arguing against something I did not say. It just does not show with any accuracy how much pure force someone throws with, since soooo many elements go into a KO. Your other thought about Vitali having more one punch power than those other 4 ATGs: you may well be right. Because they were not the hardest single hitters (even Dempsey said Marciano had more power), & with his size, when his condition allowed him to sit down on his punches, given his size, that may well be true. But I doubt by a great deal. And not as hard as Wilder. Although he is better than Wilder, much more skilled & effective. That is a fair point about people assuming certitude-although "general common" words just indicate what most people think. I do think some things, although opinion, are virtually certain-but Ali or Duran being #1 are surely debatable. Who do you think were better than them in their divisions?
No I didn't and you are incorrect again and I'm convinced now it is intentional... I have many times pointed, it could be around twice, to make it for casual people visible. That is a absolute different statement than what you allege I shall have claimed! So please stop liyng and read my statements correct, then you wouldn't misinterpret it! Only answer to what I wrote and not interpret something what I never have written in any way... As I hinted you five times that you didn't quote me correct and you continue to ignore it, that are bad intentions in my view. You knew it was different, but you go further and further! I didn't change anything, it was my very first statement, that speed is as important or more than weight, if you look back to the begin of this. No you are wrong biggest puncher are all components which make a puncher, hardest puncher might be just the power. I thought you already recognized this, but I could have overestimated you... You have no proof for any of your thesis. Wilder didn't even throw upper-cuts, which are kind of the hardest puncher which can be landed, he mainly throw straights which can't be as hard as hooks (due to ankles) and has not the musculature on his shoulders/ upper-arms to hit that hard/ harder than "Dr. Ironfist" (and before you go again to anatomy; he has also smaller fists and not so thick bones). Dempsey, Frazier and even Holyfield were much lighter and had not he physique of a big heavyweight, to hit that hard, they were rather vollumne-puncher. Also have they not often used upper-cuts, but Wladimir Klitschko as well didn't, in opposite to Lewis, Tyson or Marciano. But I still think is a arrogant way to avoid debates in hinting only these choices are possible and even more so to must have Leonard as one of the best 2 welterweights (who accomplished rather little compared to Armstrong or even Trinidad did in that division more). Instead of Duran can be placed there Leonard, Ambers, Gans or Armstrong among others. For Ali can be Louis, Johnson, Marciano, maybe also Tunney, Holmes or even Tyson placed. I wouldn't state to do it, but it is not impossible. To make something common in boxing is actual very odd, as most can't be sure, particular in prize boxing, where not everyone faces each other (there is a lot of show/ entertainment). To the previous point about Moore being very active; Maher had in one year over fifty fights (which means in average one per week).
You need to relax, you are *not* being rational. First off, it makes no sense to claim I am both lying "intentional", & misinterpreting things. Those are mutually exclusive qualities. Next, you did suggest speed was twice as important as mass. "Could be" suggests this. But feel free to show the precise quote. Others have called you out on this. E=MC2 has absolutely nothing to do with any consideration of what goes into the force of any punch. Nothing whatsoever. There is no reason to believe that you are more than a "casual" regarding physics, but you have a basic misunderstanding of fundalenmtal concepts. Everyone can see I am sincere & not lying. I hope you get control of yourself & stop the exclamation point laden acusations of lyng. Now then. Biggest puncher always & forever means hardest puncher. It is not "components": the words themselves *mean* how hard one hits. I know you intend to communicate something else by them. But unless one qualified this, these words do not indicate how often one lands, what effect it has, KOs...Theoretically, ou can be the biggest puncher in the world & hardly ever connect. I agree that Frazier Dempsey & Holyfield were not the hardest punchers. But you are wrong that one physique is necessary to be the hardest puncher. As so many comment on many threads-there are many ways to punch extremely hard. Tua hit nearly as hard as anyone while being compact in height & limb length. Shavers weighed no more than about 210 lbs. & may have been the hardest hitter ever-or very close to it. Someone like Wla was up there too, Foreman Liston Ruddock 'roided Morrison & absolutely Wilder. Having larger hands helps with impact. So does muscle-to a point. BUT if someone like Wilder has great length & what you celebrate, speed, he may hit as hard as anyone with long punches-there are many ways to achieve force. And if he was as big boned or heavy handed as some he may not have that speed. Oh upper cuts are not the hardest punches that can be landed. I do not know what "kind of" means, but if you have no concern for defense or accuracy-or in fights where you can land them-a long punch with striding forward rapidly is normally the hardest punch. If you were being tested on a machine-which often are inaccurate & may ironically measure speed more than blunt force trauma... Or if you were trying to hit anything or anyone the hardest, you would ideally run up, but certainly take a long stride & punch from way back-more like what Wilder does. Or say Shavers when he dropped Holmes. I nowhere ever claimed what you discuss re: SRL, Armstrong Trinidad Gans & others. I do not kn0ow if you confuse me with another, or just are making that statement. An agree with you upon those claims. Feel free to list the record of Maher-that is extreme. But unless he had a superb record, even almost 1 fight a week will not be as impressive to me as averaging 5 & 1/2 fights a year through your 40's until retiring at 49 & 1/4, & against good-great competition, in a division you had to move up to...Being 49-4 & most victories were KOs or TKOs!
Well I have proven that you are not honest, as you let intenional words out, which gave my statements a different meaning. It is just not true, but you ignore it to keep right, so you are a liar and hypocrite here. I'm done with you at that. There is just no reason to assume you are not a casual, as you just want to correct me, when I have fixed in every posting that it was not exact and in a more general picture. I even made it two posts before and previous to that more precise, but you stayed on that one sentence (when I have corrected it, that it is a factor of the mass, not always twice), which shows you want to be right and are dishonest. On the details you are not smart enough, as if biggest puncher and hardest puncher would the same meaning, then wouldn't be used different words/ adjectives for it. So when you want to be pedantic, you should make your homework first. The punching-technique among others makes the effect on the body of the opponent. The most powerful can be measured on a punching-machine, as I pointed before. I have nothing writen about biceps, please quote me where I used this word, otherwise don't put words into my mouth again! Youself wrote the bone-structure is important to punch hard, so I just went to this because of your comments, not that I think it is necessary. Do you have some trouble with memory? You also didn't disprove that knockout-rate does not define a puncher/ knockouter. Why you avoid my questions; what the reason is to count knockouts, if it is not important for this? And if Bermane "Lazyness" Stiverne would have gone 12 rounds with Klitschko. Wilder can be compared with Clark, who landed 5 first round knockouts in one night and one in the second, to collect 44 knockouts in row over about two years. Nobody rates him as top 20 puncher here. Possible should you improve your English as well, as kind means some sort of punch (as an upper-cut is a different kind than a cross or jab). You don't read accurate, as I never wrote it is the hardest punch, but one of the hardest (kinds) of punches. Are you serious? You asked me who could be ranked ahead of Duran or Ali in theses divisions, so I answered to this. I didn't mix you up, but you could have had a drink too much... It was about phrases like "certain" "general common" if you remember, which pretend that only opinions count, which rate these boxers in the top 2. So you might have switched so far away from the subject, that you got confused about all your side-lines and don't get it collected anymore. I had advised you, to keep it on few points to discuss, but you wanted to make it more complex, perhaps to not get these seperated anymore and you got lost now. Well not all opponents of Moore were good, he had also weaker one in it, which were latet in career maybe more than half in his fights per year. Maher had another year where he came close to his high number too. He landed probably more knockouts in these than Moore, especially before he met Fitzsimmons (when he was interims champions).
I ignored nothing you said. You merely paraphrased what you said, & did not disprove the logic of what I said. But I do not accuse you of lying-your believing I am a liar is you being extremely cynical, distrustful, & perhaps a bit of parannoia. Sorry you have so little trust when your Ego is threatened. You cannot disagree without attacking the other person & taking it personally. Ask anyone here if I ever seemd to lie about anything. As for your "correction"-you are again arguing against a "Straw Man". I did not say you did not back off the statement-just that it never made any sense, & E=MC2 as multiple other people have pointed out has absolutely nothing to do with the matter of boxing & the force of punches. Although you clearly favored speed as likely twice as important-until challenged. Not that it was at least as important as mass. You changed things-not just "clarified". I will give you a good example of you either shifting the goalposts when challenged, or to be charitable, it could be (& is in some cases) a case of not understanding the language. I am gonna quote you precisely here with cut & paste: You JUST WROTE about the uppercut: "as I never wrote it is the hardest punch, but one of the hardest (kinds) of punches". But in your last post to me, you wrote: "Wilder didn't even throw upper-cuts, which are kind of the hardest puncher which can be landed". So you DID say in broken English that it was kind of the hardest punch. NOT that it is "one" of the hardest punches. These are two very different claims. Anyway you are incorrect; start a poll & see-any punch that you can wind up for & run forward with is potentially harder. Even though both can be thrown hard. More evidence that you are emotionally triggered & not rational at least here... Saying I "just want to correct you" has nothing to do with whether I am a "casual". You can see from thousands of posts i speak in depth about boxing-but even if I was a "casual" that would be irrelevant to my point. You just wield that as an insult. You are way off base with the words hardest puncher & biggest puncher. That there are different words means they must have different meanings? That is crazy on the surface. Gigantic, Huge, Massive, Enormous, Titanic, Humongous & numerous other words mean the precise same thing. You do not know English well at all. That is fine, I have no good second language. But it is arrogant to believe absent any reason that these things have different meanings. Anyone can tell you this. Sure technique makes a difference, I have said that all along. An punching machines can measure force-but often very imprecisely, which you do not address. Often registering only speed, "slaps by girls" as Janitor said getting high scores... Anyway none of this changes that hardest & biggest puncher both refer to Raw Force: those words absolutely do not denote effect, efficiency, accuracy, volume, combinations...or any other measure of skill. I do not know what you mean that I claimed you wrote about Biceps. You can explain by actually showing me the alleged comment. Your insult about memory makes no sense-but say I did have that problem, it would make sense to not assume I was making things up if I was confused right? I mean it is not rational to assume the worst of 2 explanations when one would account for things. Or much more likely is you do not go into detail about what you are referring to & your English is broken, so it is hard for anyone to understand. I am engaging you with some effort; few do because it is just tough to comprehend you. I go line by line to try to answer what you say man. When most ignore you. To assume I am skipping your hard to understand points is silly & offensive. A "knock outer" (although grammatically incorrect) is defined by knock out rate, sure-but that is obvious, circular reasoning. But the word "puncher" denotes a hard hitter; they may or may not be effective KO artists. See based on the way you wrote I could not tell you were answering me re: Druan & Ali. I average less than a whole drink at one time a year. No cause to assume any insulting or hateful deficit on my part. Also I respond to your points-I did not bring up external matters, I was being nice & asked what your opinion was. I do not know what you mean when you say Maher came close to Moore. And you can see the competition & their record of these fighters on boxrec. I do not see Moore's competition getting weaker as he aged, amazing. Anyway I was not arguing about Maher: but if you think he was as impressive, LINK his recond such as on box rec & point to what years you are speaking of, I am open minded.
