Tweet
Originally posted by Humean
View Post
-
In that case, the man with a frame designed to carry 175 will be at a strength disadvantage if he's boiled down to 160. -
1. It is simply a medical/scientific fact that wrist/ankle measurement gives an indication of your frame/skeleton size along with height.Originally posted by BennyST View Post
This is the funniest thread I've read all day. Hilarious stuff.
Anyway, you guys are arguing as if there's only one measurement of size. Height and reach are just one aspect of size, clearly a very important one in boxing though. Frame is also just one aspect of size too.
For instance, is Pacquiao bigger than Margarito? The way Humean and SCJ are arguing they'd say yes. Pac has bigger wrists and legs, but he's significantly shorter, less reach and weighed less. He's clearly smaller. You'd have to be ****ing daft to argue that his larger wrists and legs indicate a size advantage.
Now, another point. We're talking size in boxing terms. It depends on your style which will be of more advantage, but generally, height and reach are the indicators of size. For someone like Lamotta it would be his frame size because he used his weight, body and strength more. His stocky frame was advantageous to him, while Hearns' thin frame but amazing height and reach helped him. In boxing terms though, height and reach are the usual size indicator because we have weight classes. Same weight, so it's height and reach that determine who is 'bigger' typically. Always exceptions though.
To pretend Paul Williams was smaller than some welterweights he faced because they might have had larger wrist and ankle circumference though? You'd have to be a ****** or an argumentative ****, or a pretentious wanker trying to bring up scientific size measurements. We're talking boxing here people!
Either way, there is no one single way of determining size. We typically use height and reach, and if they're of similar size that way, then frame etc come into play too. For instance, Pac and Hatton. Both very similar in size, but Pac was bigger in frame in nearly every respect than Hatton, while Hatton weighed more, the fat prick, so who is bigger? Pretty similar if you ask me.
2. Now of course height is also part of it. The reason I did not mention it was because the discussion was on the size of Hearns and Jones jr and everyone knows Hearns is taller therefore there was no need to point that out. For Jones jr to be bigger than Hearns he'd have to have larger wrist/ankle circumferences.
3. In light of the second point I was certainly not suggesting Pacquiao is necessarily bigger than Margarito because he has larger wrists/ankles because obviously height is part of the measurement also. Pacquiao's lack of height has however fooled people into believing he is smaller than he is, the size of his wrists/ankles does indicate that.
4. Size in a general sense is of course important in boxing and it is in this sense that the relevance of size is important. If you have the larger frame and are therefore the larger man then you will have an increased chance of being stronger, having a more powerful punch and better able to take a punch.
5. In light of this your post is largely incorrect, height alone does not measure size, to believe that is to forget the other dimensions in space.
6. Like many on this forum you have misunderstood what someone else has written and then had the gall to think that they are the ones being ******.Comment
-
Not if they made weight correctly and rehydrated properly. Indeed isn't that the whole point of dehyration and rehydration to make weight?Originally posted by SBleeder View PostComment
-
I have a pretty large bone structure and weigh over 200 pounds with a little fat. The only way I could make 160 is if I didn't eat for a month. I'd be weak as a little girl, but according to you I'd still be big because I have big bones.Originally posted by Humean View Post
Height, weight, and reach affect the outcomes of fights. Frame size does not. 160 pounds is 160 pounds. You can get 160 pounds of weight into a punch whether your skeleton is big or small. If you lean on someone in a clinch, you're making them support 160 pounds. If anything, having a larger frame just makes for a bigger target.
Being big-framed would make moving up in weight easier, but that issue is not germane to a discussion about two middleweights.
When has HBO ever included ankle size in the tale of the tape graphic?Comment
-
You are making non-sequitur's all over the place, nothing I said implied what you have written at the beginning here. Frame size is important, I don't know what else I can say to convince you of that but if you take your height and wrist/ankle measurement that will give as good an indication as anything of your frame.Originally posted by SBleeder View Post
Old tale of the tape did usually include wrist and sometimes ankle measurements in newspapers, where do you think I got the information from for Hearns and Jones jr? If you look around online you should find examples of it for fights/fighters of the past.
Here's an example from Leonard -Duran
http://farm8.static.flickr.com/7057/...72dfec4090.jpgComment
-
Good lord! Please give an explanation or disperse from the conversation.Originally posted by SCtrojansbaby View PostComment
-
While Im on the fence here seeing good points for both sides, I due remember wrist and ankle measurements as part of the tale of the tape years ago.Originally posted by Humean View PostComment
-
-
Did you see that fight? pazienza actually had some early success pressing Jones.Originally posted by Cardinal Buck View PostComment
-
Comment