Does bigger mean better?

[JAB5239]

- -Byrd wouldn't have beat Vitali had his AMATEUR trainer known they could've easily won the fight on points already accrued with one hand.

They learned a hard lesson how the pro game works, and in one of his last fights, with the same injury he staved off the much bigger, stronger more raging Chisora to win a wide decision.

But the unprincipled, untutored nutter butters here get their little chew to share as is their natures.

Vitaly is the one who said he couldn't go on. And if you look at the punch state, Gifs only out landed Byrd by something like 8 punches, and missed more punches himself than in any other fight before or after.

[Rusty Tromboni]

Vitaly is the one who said he couldn't go on. And if you look at the punch state, Gifs only out landed Byrd by something like 8 punches, and missed more punches himself than in any other fight before or after.

Yeah. The fact remains the injury was induced by him missing constantly. But a corner is there specifically for that reason: to manage the course of the fight.

[JAB5239]

Yeah. The fact remains the injury was induced by him missing constantly. But a corner is there specifically for that reason: to manage the course of the fight.

So he lost fair and square against the smaller more athletic fighter, right?

[DeeMoney]

I read a book a while back about genes/sport.It states some albeit very few win the genetic code and are strong in all areas of physique eg speed/power etc due to twitch fibres and other genetic factors.Hence I still feel like the book says its all a genetic lottery and some people come up trumps.

You are mostly right about it being a genetic lottery, the thing is in a big enough sample size you will get multiple winners of said lottery, and thats where training comes in.

For example, lets say 1 in every 10 million men get the genes to be an olympic sprint champion. Well there 3 billion men on the planet so that means even if you win that lottery there are 300 who others who won it too. Take into account the window you get to be near your athletic peak and you still have 50-60 competitors who are genetically on par with you.

So you train to maximize those God given gifts, not to be better than the average joe- you will be that naturally. But to surpass those who are genetically your equal. Even if training only accounted for a 5% improvement- that could be the difference between olympc gold and not even qualifying.

Moreover, this argument relied on broadstrokes, as there will be athletes that are just slightly worse genetically (barely missing out on the lottery) but utilize superior training methods to surpass those ahead of them

[Richard]

So you train to maximize those God given gifts, not to be better than the average joe- you will be that naturally. But to surpass those who are genetically your equal. Even if training only accounted for a 5% improvement- that could be the difference between olympc gold and not even qualifying.

Moreover, this argument relied on broadstrokes, as there will be athletes that are just slightly worse genetically (barely missing out on the lottery) but utilize superior training methods to surpass those ahead of them

I agree mindset comes into it as well.Why is why I admire Floyd Mayweather. Sacrificed so much for the sport and kept going into his early 40s whereas Ricky Hatton another decent fighter was washed up in his early 30s due to drinking and eating to much in between fights.

[Dmitry]

If bigger meant that much Nikolai Valuev would win every head 2 head match up while Tyson and Holyfield would be journeymen.

[The Old LefHook]

A boxer on a treadmill working a gripping machine is doing his bulk of necessary training right there. He will additionally have to hold his breath under water and soak his face in brine to toughen the skin. Then comes his schoolin'.

[DeeMoney]

If bigger meant that much Nikolai Valuev would win every head 2 head match up while Tyson and Holyfield would be journeymen.

I think you are missing the point- nobody is implying simply being bigger makes you the better of the two fighters; rather, whether being bigger makes an individual fighter better- is there no point of negative return on size?

[Anthony342]

You are mostly right about it being a genetic lottery, the thing is in a big enough sample size you will get multiple winners of said lottery, and thats where training comes in.

For example, lets say 1 in every 10 million men get the genes to be an olympic sprint champion. Well there 3 billion men on the planet so that means even if you win that lottery there are 300 who others who won it too. Take into account the window you get to be near your athletic peak and you still have 50-60 competitors who are genetically on par with you.

So you train to maximize those God given gifts, not to be better than the average joe- you will be that naturally. But to surpass those who are genetically your equal. Even if training only accounted for a 5% improvement- that could be the difference between olympc gold and not even qualifying.

Moreover, this argument relied on broadstrokes, as there will be athletes that are just slightly worse genetically (barely missing out on the lottery) but utilize superior training methods to surpass those ahead of them

I've enjoyed being on the giving and receiving end on many broad strokes in my time. Not as much since my younger days unfortunately.

[PRINCEKOOL]

I read a book a while back about genes/sport.It states some albeit very few win the genetic code and are strong in all areas of physique eg speed/power etc due to twitch fibres and other genetic factors.Hence I still feel like the book says its all a genetic lottery and some people come up trumps.

Usain Bolt is fast on land but? Is he fast on water? Michael Phelps is fast in water, but is he fast on land? Usually athletes who are blessed with the mechanics for Speed/Power my suffer in areas regarding aerobic capacity/vo2 max. There are always some sort of statistical trade off's, Usain Bolt's co-ordination & technique was not really that good in comparison to athletes such as Maurice Greene, Linford Christie and Carl Lewis etc

Is bigger always better? In depends, no point in making a athlete into a giant who is going to be deficient in certain areas 'There is not really one definitive answer to this thread'