Your top 10 greatest Heavyweight of all time?

Dehydrating a fighter definitely harms his chin, which is one of the reasons Foreman had trouble in some of his 70's fights.

This is easily remedied in fantasy fights as follows:

"Chris Arreola vs. George Foreman with a bottle of water."

 

Yet in the previous thread, neither of us could find a source correlating neck size / strength to concussion resistance.

(Let alone a source saying that having fat cheeks or a big jaw made you more durable).

Again, you'd think that, but "common sense" isn't necessarily a good guide to sports science. If it was, the boxers of the past would be fitter than modern guys. Early trainers thrived on what they considered "common sense" rather than peer review studies.

Speaking of which--

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/26/3/433.short - Parenthetically notes that increased neck strength might decrease risk of concussion.

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/36/12/2328.short - Ditto.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1323293/ - No effect.

http://www.athleticbusiness.com/sports-injury-expert-dawn-comstock-talks-concussion-prevention.html - Claims to be the first to actually show some connection between neck strength and concussion resistance. The study was only performed on young children.

http://www.thera-bandacademy.com/el...kley-2010_abstract_final__201006DD_053404.pdf - Neck plyometrics increased neck strength, but didn't have a significant enough effect on head acceleration, etc. with this sample size.

http://ajs.sagepub.com/content/39/5/958.short - Parenthetically proposes neck strength as a possible explanation for the concussion differential between male and female athletes. But it also contains this interesting tidbit: "...Biomechanical factors such as head size and neck strength and girth have been associated with higher concussion rates among females..."


So I think you'll need to do a lot of research before you make such definitive statements based on common sense.

Yes, I agree that Foreman being calm was a factor in his later durability.

But I also think that the natural conclusion -- "common sense", in fact -- is that Lyle hit harder than you're assuming.

Where have you successfully argued that fat gives you more stamina?

There are also successful boxers who drink, take drugs, smoke, and neglect their trainers. Just because a fighter is successful doesn't mean that he's making sensible choices.

The main issue with fat is that it's useless. It just sits there and weighs you down. It's not propelling your fists or legs like muscle tissue does.

What indications?

Ali was not overweight during his prime years, which is where people consider him at his best. And you also consider Ali to be an incompetent fighter by modern standards anyway, so this actually hurts your argument.

Also, this is pretty anecdotal stuff compared to the "correlations between size and KO%" stuff from the heavyweight blog.

Neck size would at least make some intuitive sense for decreasing risk of concussion.

But the jaw doesn't do much stabilization, IIRC. And the idea that chubby cheeks are some kind of armor just seems a bit silly, IMO.

All fighters back then were to some degree. Foreman's was more extreme. Most fighters didn't drain themselves of water weight, for starters.

Arm / core maintenance more than leg maintenance, though. Most power comes from the legs.

I'd have to do some research. I can tell you right off the bat that fighters back then did a lot of roadwork.

"Heftier" in the sense that he's fatter, yes. But again -- muscle propels the fist. Fat just sits there and decelerates you.

Sharper? Yeah, but sometimes slow clubbing punchers (Peter) hit harder than crisper ones.

 

You're free to perform a comparison of KO% for old boxers vs. young ones, like the heavyweight blog did for size and KO%.

I guarantee that you will find a very strong correlation between getting old and getting KO'd. Almost as big as the correlation between size and chin.

 

From: http://www.wired.com/playbook/2011/07/athletes-peak-age/ --

"The careers of more than 1,150 swimmers and track-and-field athletes, as well as the accomplishments of nearly a hundred chess grandmasters, were scrutinized based on the event they were participating in, as well as their age and how old they were when they established any world records. In all, more than 11,200 performances among these athletes made it into the data set, and the results confirm that there reaches an age — a physiological tipping point, if you will — when athletes start to experience an irreversible downturn in their abilities.

Generally speaking, athletes start to see physical declines at age 26, give or take. (This would seem in line with the long-standing notion in baseball that players tend to hit their peak anywhere from ages 27 to 30.) For swimmers, the news is more sobering, as the mean peak age is 21. For chess grandmasters, participating in an activity that relies more than mental acuity and sharpness rather than brute, acquired physicality, the peak age is closer to 31.4.

For setting world records in a given athletic discipline, the mean age is 26.1..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Swimmers and track and field athletes start declining by their mid-20s, or earlier. None of these sports are as tough as boxing.

Foreman was in his 40s.

 

I still find it amusing when people claim 40 is not that old for a fighter. ****, I'm 41 and I can feel a noticeable decline in my physical abilities from 10 years ago and I hear the exact same thing being said by everyone my age or even a bit younger, both men and women.

The fact that I'm no pro athlete makes no the slightest shred of difference. I eat about as clean as anyone can eat and am not overweight (slightly underweight if anything) but I feel the difference anyway, especially in the legs and knees.
It's just an argument that leads to a dead end man.

 

I'll respond to the rest whenever I can, but this citation in particular made me go "Aaaarghlglglglgl!", and clasp my hand to my head like this smiley - atsch

Your research skills aren't at fault. The fault lies solely with expertboxing.

That article was entirely unscientific silliness, unmoored to any reputable sports knowledge. It's exactly the sort of stuff that Louis and company would have told you in the 1930s. Much of it would have been familiar to Fitzsimmons.

I think that some people ripped it apart in the "Training" forum a couple months ago.

If you want to understand how these things work, a good book would be Tudor Bompa's work on periodization. (http://www.amazon.com/Periodization-5th-Edition-Theory-Methodology-Training/dp/073607483X). Or even his shortened version. (http://www.amazon.com/Periodization-Training-Sports-2nd-Edition/dp/0736055592/ref=pd_sim_b_1). Bompa was an Eastern Bloc sports scientist when they were coming up with a lot of the stuff that's standard today. He explains how programs are put together, how muscles work, etc. He's the sort of guy that modern boxers' S&C coaches are reading.

Alternatively, check out the ACE's certification textbooks for personal trainers. Or the NASM's.

Actually, even one or two of the more recent MMA books on conditioning might (but be VERY careful which ones you pick) give you a good grounding in how this stuff is supposed to work.

Again, not your fault, but the article was very incorrect.

(Incidentally, I think they measured it at something like 30-40% of power coming from the legs, and another 20-30% from trunk rotation. The arms aren't the most important ingredient. It's been a while, though.)

 

Not one of those sports is nearly as skill based as boxing. I have boxed and I have long jumped and sprinted on a pretty high level. There is simply no comparison on the skill level required between the two sports. Everything I needed know about jumping I learned by 13 or 14.

The question with boxing is where the skill advancement is offset by the physical decline. As I noted in an earlier thread, Mike Powell was still long jumping over 27 feet in his very late 30's… good enough to win a lot of big competitions. Now, imagine the sport he was in weighed much heavier on the skill component than the raw athletic ability. He still had world class stuff pushing 40 but if his acquired skill had risen dramatically he may be said to be peaking at that time.

 

That's fair, but Foreman wasn't doing intensive boxing training during his 10 year layoff. He was just getting older, fatter, and rustier.

Leaving Foreman's unusual career trajectory aside for a moment, boxing places a heavier strain on the body than almost any other sport, which I think more than compensates for their learning new technical skills. Boxers wear down as they get older. This is certainly more the case in boxing than in track and field. And that's not just the usual wear and tear that you'd expect from getting punched a lot for 12/15 rounds while exhausted. It also damages the brain in ways that makes testosterone production difficult.

Boxers today have managed to extend their primes for a while because of better drugs, and because they become more skilled as they age. But reaching a "prime" in your 40s -- even in a skill sport -- is unlikely. Wrestling, Judo, and Tae Kwon Do are other skill-heavy combat sports with worldwide participation. Competitors peak in their mid/late 20s.

 

The fact the Lyle hurt Foreman and Morrison didn't shouldn't lead you to conclude that Foreman's chin was better in the 90s (counter intuitively and contrary to what we appear to know about fighters' chins generally), but rather it should cause you to reconsider your position that Morrison hit harder than Lyle.

As for Lyle being a "complete oaf," I certainly don't see Arreola taking a points lead into the 11th against a 1975 Ali. Your mileage may vary.

 

That`s true. I think Ali would come out on top.

 

I appreciate your opinion. I don't agree, but I don't dislike it. I certainly don't dismiss video evidence; IMO, the video evidence suggests that Arreola makes Lyle look like Sugar Ray Robinson.

 

Im a former boxer/kickboxer (not pro though) Im 28 now and my 'prime' was when i was 16-18. I already noticed years ago the footwork has gone, handspeed has gone, struggling to throw more than 2 punches at a time, Punch resistance has gone even though i try to keep myself in shape as much as possible.

My hat goes off to guys like Foreman, Ali and Tyson who made something of a comeback after so long out of the sport.