The Ape Index

[The Old LefHook]

Lads, the link below is excellently written and researched, despite the fact that I thought (maybe still think) that Cassius Clay possessed a reach of 81'', not 78".

The concept is easy--subtract your height from your wingspan, and that is your ape index. A negative ape index indicates a wingspan shorter than a man's own height. The article lists some of these specimens from boxing history, too.

The Ape Index of any fighter you follow is suddenly a must to know. The statistic actually seems to be a relevant one. At the very least, it is an interesting curiosity, but I suspect it has much more importance than mere novelty or anomaly.

A positive Ape Index is not a sufficient condition for boxing greatness, nor is it even a necessary one, but nonetheless it seems to be a prominent physical trait more often present than not among boxing's top echelon.

https://howtheyplay.com/individual-s...pan-in-History

[Willie Pep 229]

Where does Tyson Fury fit into this logic. I find it interesting that Liston's predicted height would be 6' 9" same as Fury's natural height with Fury only having a one inch reach advantage.

[The Old LefHook]

Where does Tyson Fury fit into this logic. I find it interesting that Liston's predicted height would be 6' 9" same as Fury's natural height with Fury only having a one inch reach advantage.

I thought Fury was listed. But anyway, his wingspan is 85 and his height is 81, bestowing upon him an Ape Index of +4.

[Willie Pep 229]

I thought Fury was listed. But anyway, his wingspan is 85 and his height is 81, bestowing upon him an Ape Index of +4.

Everyone on the list was at least +7 - Fury seems to be pretty well proportional.

[DeeMoney]

Ive always felt reach was key to both Floyd and Pernell Whittaker’s success. Both were over +4, which isnt as big as many of the heavies listed in the article, but relative to a lightweight thats impressive.

That relative reach allowed them to be even more defensive, while potshotting and scoring from the outside

[uncle ben]

Lads, the link below is excellently written and researched, despite the fact that I thought (maybe still think) that Cassius Clay possessed a reach of 81'', not 78".

The concept is easy--subtract your height from your wingspan, and that is your ape index. A negative ape index indicates a wingspan shorter than a man's own height. The article lists some of these specimens from boxing history, too.

The Ape Index of any fighter you follow is suddenly a must to know. The statistic actually seems to be a relevant one. At the very least, it is an interesting curiosity, but I suspect it has much more importance than mere novelty or anomaly.

A positive Ape Index is not a sufficient condition for boxing greatness, nor is it even a necessary one, but nonetheless it seems to be a prominent physical trait more often present than not among boxing's top echelon.

https://howtheyplay.com/individual-s...pan-in-History

Why did Larry Holmes make that face when he fought?

[QueensburyRules]

- - Ali reach recorded forever as 81" that Ali fans used to justify him to big and strong, ie 6-3/81" to Louis 6-2/76" which is about par level ******ity for most boxing fans. When Ali was in ABC studio for the Wilt signing, Dundee and Bundini measured Wilt that was some outrageous number, and then Ali that was 78", so eventually boxrec caught up to the lie and replaced 81 with 78.

My reach = my height, so I am the perfectly proportioned man you see in men's ads as I'm sure you all have figured out by now...

[The Old LefHook]

Everyone on the list was at least +7 - Fury seems to be pretty well proportional.

+4 is not average (typical) in this scale, 0 is. Fury does not look typically proportioned in the ring, to my eyes, his arms look long even for his height, which they indeed are.

You must not have looked at the entire list, since seven people are under +7 on the list, Hearns being lowest at +5.

Marciano and Hatton were both proportioned at -2.5. Duran and Lamotta were at -1.

[The Old LefHook]

- - Ali reach recorded forever as 81" that Ali fans used to justify him to big and strong, ie 6-3/81" to Louis 6-2/76" which is about par level ******ity for most boxing fans. When Ali was in ABC studio for the Wilt signing, Dundee and Bundini measured Wilt that was some outrageous number, and then Ali that was 78", so eventually boxrec caught up to the lie and replaced 81 with 78.

My reach = my height, so I am the perfectly proportioned man you see in men's ads as I'm sure you all have figured out by now...

Folks, notice how he makes it sound just as if he knows what he is talking about and is telling the truth, when experience has proven time and again that most likely he is making it up as he goes along. Never trust his so-called history. But he is full of the first four letters of that word in another order.

[The Old LefHook]

Ive always felt reach was key to both Floyd and Pernell Whittaker’s success. Both were over +4, which isnt as big as many of the heavies listed in the article, but relative to a lightweight thats impressive.

That relative reach allowed them to be even more defensive, while potshotting and scoring from the outside

Actually a good point here. Four inches should be more significant in a lightweight match than a heavyweight match, it would seem to me.