The importance of skeletal structure, musculature and general physiology...

Made up words, sir? Please to point to such.

 

Hah!

Seriously, I know where you are coming from but the eye test only works within a very soft precision on these matters. What is not visual is muscle composition, stamina, heart, reflexes, ring IQ, focus, fast twitch explosion, slow twitch power retention.... A whole ****ing boat load.

The proof is in the pudding. The pudding happens in the ring.

 

A more well put breakdown of what I was trying to get at (And what my father believes).

 

Great Thread, very interesting.

I tend to agree with your thoughts , I have a small strelital strutre but since I have trained on and off since I was a teenager I am still strong. I am good at own body weight exercises due to my muscle / bone weight ratio but not as good as lifting external weight, where some of my mates that have a larger struture can lift a fair bit more weights than me but cannot do a pull up due to having a higher bone / musle weight ratio.

As I have ok punching tech' and a have trained before I am a strong puncher (for a non boxer) but due to my small struture, long neck, small thin hands and slender bones I am at a disavantge to smoeone with bigger heavy hands , stocky neck, thick wrist and that has more stamina.

If I took up boxing my my small , thin hands would be broken every few fights and my long neck would get me ko'd. What hope would I have vs Rocky or Pacman who have baseball bats for arms. Pacman's forarms are as big as his biceps and has huge wrists. If you see a bloke with big strong hands and big forearems whatch out, even if the rest of his body/ frame is smaller , these guys can normally pack a punch.

 

very good post .

 

Looking back I think you're right. No offence intended , [it's nice to see you posting again], but the subject ,from Seamus's point of view appears to be." How Much Long Winded Verbiage Can I Manage To Insert Here To Impress Other Posters With My Erudition?".
From Your Corner," "Much Ado About Nothing". As old Bill S once said.
Bottom line it's two guys , having a fight.
ps How do you spell pretentious?

 

Based on what? Boxers of all kinds of skeletal frames have success. What type of skeletal frame are you suggesting is most conjusive to boxing?

You're also throwing out muscle as a variable when muscle (not size of muscle but muscle) is responsible for the speed and explosive nature of any movement

This rationale in it's essence is flawed.

Your completely disregarding the type of muscle in this statement, it's very general. Certain muscle groups are more important to boxing than others: ie the core/midsection, shoulders, legs and others are less so such as biceps (although biceps in themselves help the recoil of a punch)

There is some truth though, muscles in themselves do burn up energy, the more powerful a movement the more energy it takes up and therefore more powerful athletes throwing bigger punches tire quicker. This is pretty irrelevant though if the more powerful boxer takes the stamina kings head straight off with 1 punch

But in turn many fighters with a large amount of muscle have very good stamina. Klitchkos been an obvious example of 240lb men throwing 90punches a round with sound technique

Holyfield has a smaller skeletal frame with finer bone structure, massive amounts of muscle yet is 1 of the fittest boxers of all time

There is indeed a balance and your assumption that he doesn't get overpowered is just that, an assumption

Skeletal structure has nothing to do with stamina, in fact a heavier bone structure is more taxing on the cardiovascular system.

You also ignore the fact that in boxing the smaller man get's tired quicker because he has to do more to offset the bigger stronger man

I'd pick Baer too, but I don't see it as a beating though really and Peter seems to have the much thicker bone structure

 

Originally Posted by Manassa
As far as I know, bones will reinforce themselves when subjected to progressive minor stress (such as weight lifting) even as an adult, so I presume on a growing child it will have a much bigger influence and could mean the difference between someone being built big or small. Others are naturally heavy set.

Jesus Christ, talk to a pediatrician, will you? Serious weight lifting affects the growth of children and young adolescents NEGATIVELY. Their bone ends and growth plates are not done forming and the stress and trauma actually stunt this growth. Where do you get this stuff?

 

S - I - M - P.

Hope that helps.

 

Boxing seems to defy all kinds of logic when it comes to the ideal type of physiology. There are too many factors to take into account unlike in more restricted sports.

There have been thin welterweights who hit like heavyweights and muscled up heavyweights who hit like featherweights.

There have also been featherweights with thin necks who could take a great amount of punishment along with heavyweights with large necks and legs who couldn't withstand a punch on the chin from a smaller man.

Through research you could probably make the case of a certain physical build winning over another but there will always prove to be exceptions, making it difficult to prove anything conclusively either way.