Heavyweights punching power then and now

Guys hit harder today than they did back then. And guys in 15 years will hit harder than today. It is the evolution of the athlete and is represented in every single sport today. I find it amazing that people refuse to recognize this in boxing by continuing to argue guys in the past hit harder than fighters today.

 

This is a simple math problem.

Force = Mass times Speed squared.

Size doesn't have everything to do with it. A bullet impacts with more force than a punch not because it has more mass than a fist but because it comes so much faster. The fact that the speed is squared is very important in that scenario.

With punches, however, the speed that people throw them doesn't differ SO much. Say, and I'm just guessing because I have no idea how fast their arms are actually moving, a very fast puncher punches at 30mph, while a relatively slow puncher punches at 20mph. The weight, or mass, behind those punches is going to make a big difference. If the fast puncher throws arm punches, like a Cory Spinks, the mass of his arm is, say, 20 lbs. 20lbs times 30mph squared (900) is going to be 18000 whatever. A slower puncher who throws punches with his weight behind them, say, Taylor with a straight right is going to have 175ish lbs times 20mph squared (400) which equals 70,000 whatever. Therefore Taylor is clearly the harder puncher of the two.

Most of a punchers power comes from the fact that he puts his WEIGHT behind the punch. Correct punching technique is where the power comes from. It is the reason that broadcasters and boxing experts criticize "arm punches".

Valuev is a prime example. When he puts his weight behind his punches correctly he can hit with some power (did anyone see how he threw his entire body into that last punch against Monte Barret?) but he typically doesn't do that. Also, he is SO slow that it clearly affects his power, the speed is squared so really it is extremely important, though, not as important as the correct technique.

When you have to correct form, for say, a straight right hand, you put all of your body mass behind the punch. Wladimir has an amazingly technically correct right hand punch. Wladimir is very fast and Wladimir is huge compared to those heavyweights of yesteryear. As far as straight rights go, his definitely hits harder.

I was sort of everywhere there, forgive me.

 

Physical appearance has absolutely NOTHING to do with punching power.

Also, punching power is relative. In a boxing match, it is not about who is the most powerful as much as it is who is the most powerful relative to the other person's chin. Tyson was almost definitely more powerful than Holyfield, but he wasn't powerful enough to break his amazing beard so it didn't matter. Brewster is almost definitely less powerful than Wladimir, but he has taken the best Wladimir could dish out for four rounds and Wladimir couldn't take the best Brewster gave so it didn't matter.

Too much emphasis is put on one puncher being more powerful than another, when it isn't really that important. For instance, even if Marciano was much weaker than Klitschko, if he hit hard enough to KO Klitschko and Klitschko didn't hit hard enough to KO Marciano than it doesn't matter who hits harder. The fight will make it appear that Marciano hits harder, but it isn't necessarily the case.

 

:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl

Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of this latest version of the "bigger is better" thesis!! :yep :nut

 

It's more form than anything else. It's about correctly placing your weight behind the punch more than ANYTHING else. It's math man, the more of your mass you put behind the punch, considering that all fighters punch at similar speeds (in a physics since) the more powerful it will be.

 

All things being equal a big man hits harder than a smaller man. Our resident physicists have established that. But there's a huge difference between a hard punch and an effective punch. Accuracy has a lot to do with a punch being effective. Bang on a guys short ribs and it takes a few rounds to get the kind of effect you want. Crack him in the liver or solar plexus and good night Irene. Pop him hard square in the forehead and **** him off. Pop him in the temple and he's doing the Ottke vs Mundine reverse swan dive. That's why the punch you don't see coming is the one that flattens you.

 

well thats cause he went to jail hehe.

 

I agree. The actual force behind the punch isn't the most important factor when comparing boxers at all. Having lots of power behind a punch, for instance, is worthless if all of your punches miss. Hitting someone in the correct place with a slightly less powerful punch will be more effective than hitting them in a not-so perfect place with a harder punch. Hence the term "on the button" for a perfectly placed punch (as if boxers had a button that if you punched would be an automatic KO). Being slightly more powerful, or even WAY more powerful doesn't make up for not throwing enough punches to KO your opponet. Throwing powerful punches in combinations accurately is better than landing one punch at a time with slightly more power.

Power is overrated sometimes.

 

That's BS. Maybe there weren't as many guys throwing 90, but I have little doubt that Amos Rusie was hitting triple digits in 1900 and Walter Johnson was hitting triple digits in 1920.

I wouldn't be shocked if one or two of those smaller old timers hit as hard (or harder than) today's heavyweights. Hell, the hardest hitter right now is quite possibly a cruiserweight (Macca).

 

Yup, you were everywhere, allow me.

The simple answer to this question is that if the two sets of heavyweights were asked to hit a stationary force meter the new heavy's would hit it a lot harder then the older ones. Because as you said:

Force = (Mass)*(acceleration)

This is the simple answer.

A more complicated question would be: Who hit there opponent's harder? Because force can also be measured as a change in momentum, which is a vector quantity; therefore, the movement of the opponent is also factored into the overall force of the impact. When adding two vectors together the total force is greatest when the two oppossing forces are traveling in perfectly opposing directions (i.e. when a guy gets caught with a strieght shot walking striaght in, a la tyson v botha). In other words the actual force of an impact has as much to do with how and when a fighter catches his opponent as it does with how hard he himself actually throws a punch. More skilled fighters are better at hitting there opponent in a way that maximizes the force of the impact (i.e. better at catching them flush); therefore, the actual force of an impact has more to do with the skill of the fighter then the size of the fighter. Just try tellin' jersey Joe that he would have got hit harder by Rahman......Don't think he'd agree.

The scarry thing is when one of these giants like lewis has the skill to go with his size......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSEmWunr1bg

 

Foreman was about 220 in his prime, not under 210.

 

It is irrelevant, and I don't follow baseball but how can you possibly have little doubt that two pitchers from THAT long ago threw in triple digits? I mean, have you ever SEEN them pitch?

Also, if most guys were throwing 60-70mph back then, wouldn't a 90mph pitch seem like a BULLET compared? Isn't a 100mph pitch like, tough for most modern pitchers to throw?

 

Hahaha, thanks dude. I haven't taken any sort of physics class (high school physics only anyways) in years.

 

No worries mate....you had the right ideas. just was a little hard to follow.

 

Many fighters have stood up to an overhand right thrown and connected by many of today's superheavies. No one stood up to an overhand right thrown and connected by "The Acorn" Earnie Shavers.

Most of today's heavyweights are pure bull **** as fighters and would not last 12 rounds let alone 15 with the fighters of the 60s, 70s, . Fighters like Shavers, Foreman, Lyle, Liston would all KO most of the top 50 of the fighters in the 80s, 90s and today.