Muscle Bound Fighters Being More Injury Prone... Fact or Fiction?

No, well, yes. I USED to when I was competing in bodybuilding. HAd a major pec rupture, tendon came off completely and had to quit. I had surgery and had it repaired but the scar tissue was an issue and never quite got back to where it was. Eventually came right of everything, around 30 yrs old, but after a couple years was diagnosed for ultra low T levels, so now I'm on TRT. Thank god for that lol
Wish I had never touched that **** or took my bodybuilding hobby to the stage. One of my main regrets in life for sure. I came away undefeated though, one step from Pro level, at only 21 yrs old. Was making quit a stir and then bam, it was done. All I got to show is some rusty trophies, minus about 15 g, and no natural testosterone. It's the dumbest "sport" in the world lol

 

I think it boils down to being muscle bound. A lot of guys (not all) I see that are heavy weightlifters/bodybuilders have terrible flexibility, and that will significantly increase your risk of tearing something.

Also, without the use of other PED's to compensate, they will typically have worse stamina, all other things being equal. That's because muscles increase in area (which is related to strength) by a factor of radius square, but the mass increases by radius cubed--ie, it takes more energy for the same movement because the limb is more massive and mass will increase quicker than the strength will. This is also you don't see bigass gymnasts.

 

Yea I agree with that totally. More muscular guys usually aren't as agile/flexible, unless you're talkin about Roy Jones Jr.
You see that stamina issue sometimes too in the UFC with the more muscular guys.

 

I have lifted for years, never would use even Creatine, & like the vast majority not a genetic outliar. I think you confused a couple things in this formula. You compare muscle size in area to mass: these are similar things, size is mostly all muscle, only significant amounts of fat (& to a lesser degree dehydration) will account for much mass. Still unless quite obese, the vast majority of a linb is muscle. I think you meant to contrast mass with strength?

If so though, you have reversed the equation. Strength increases much faster & in potential than size. I (& most natural lifters can) reached twice the strength of an average untrained man. The biggest steroid monsters-guys with huge genetic potential, years of hard effective work & plenty of powerful hormonal drugs-can reach 5X the average dude's strength.

Yet the biggest 'roid monster ever has only approaching (not counting actually injecting coagulating substances like Synthol) 2X an average dude's arm size same for chest, legs, etc...Considering the same height, still "only" about doubles the lean body mass (weight with zero fat) of an average dude, despite a generally thicker bone structure.

There can be more variation in body mass compared to height due to training & drugs, where the talest man ever was" only" a little over 50% taller than an average man. Yet strength is both about neuro-muscular efficiency, & a small factor is that the bone size stays the same (like when you double the plates on a barbell you do not double the weight, since the 45 lb. Olympic bar is not doubled/only one.

Mainly the cubed/squared size/strength dichotomy applies because an increase in muscular size allows this differential in strength! Thus an average 13" arm may curl a strict rep with 75 lbs. But increase the muscular size by 1/3 to 17.5 & you are at around 150, a 100% increase in strength. Assuming the same body fat % & proportionately developed biceps & triceps...

 

BIG MUSCLES, ARE NOT GOOD FOR A PRO BOXER. JUST ASK MIKE HERCULES WEAVER & JEFF LACY, Those heavy muscles use a lot of energy folks!

 

:bolt

haha, good post though.

 

Basically, these guys look like greek gods, but there oxygen flows like molasses! In turn, what they are doing is crippling there fast muscle twitch skills!

 

WRONG on several levels Robert. This notion is just as simplistic & misguided as those who naively think bigger muscles are always better.

When there is no weight limit there is much more flexibility to have different builds, & many ways to succeed-relative abilities, developed & natural, of size, strength, reach, height, speed, defense & boxing skills which can be defined many ways.

Often it helps to add muscle for power, ability to take a punch & move guys around/not be bulled in close. And how much is too much due to what attributes of speed, work rate & endurance depends on both how much bulk one can naturally handle, how much value or disadvantage one gets naturally, AND through practice & acclimatization, of different physiques.

It is hard to know how much one can improve endurance with bigger muscles. Some boxers with MORE muscle weight have better endurance than those with less. Now did the best in the past realize all their potential as so often cruiserweights, even small CWs for their height? At best sometimes the trade off was worth it. But usually it is doubtful. All sports progress in terms of science, nutrition & training.

There is no absolute correlation with muscular size & lose endurance, though there is often some connection. People just do not attribute it to size when a smaller guy gasses. Foreman had much better endurance in his 2nd career, with as much muscle & clearly more fat. That was not all moving less, it was likelt better training, & as he said not having all the nervous energy.

Weaver was not muscular by a modern HW standard! He had a bit less body fat & more upper body definition. But with a big bone structure, you can just triangulate these with his height weight-& look at his tale of the tape measurements-& see he was not actually carrying much musle for a modern HW.

I looked up 3 listings & one was a tale of the tape. He was 6'1", listed once at 210 otherwise as 207. Tyson when lean came in 10 lbs. heavier & at under 6'. & had good endurance then. He had MORE muscle than Weaver overall & was really fast.

What an individual body can handle & is best, + whether one trains effectively for speed & flexibility varies a great deal. It is absurd to insist on either extreme, that muscle & strength never helps-if this was so we would have guys ~ the 180's able to beat anyone as when folks were smaller, which is manifestly untrue. Or to think that there is no point of diminishing returns or harm to effectiveness depending upon the individual & how they add mass & strength & train for speed.