Tweet
I am often appalled at how little about biophysics posters on here know. They seem to think that bigger is always better in a fight. However, they could not be more wrong. In fact, size is often one of the least important factors in a fight. What is important is speed, agility, and strength. These are the qualities that determine who will win a fight, not size.
I will give an example. Evander Holyfield was slightly lighter and leaner than Mike Tyson when they fought on the 9th of November 1996, and yet he pushed him around the ring en route to a memorable and an historic win on that night.
I think what surprises me most about this is in a lot of posts I see regarding two of the best heavyweights of this generation, Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder.
First of all, posters state that Tyson Fury cannot be defeated by Oleksandr Usyk because Oleksandr is comparatively small. They might be right, but in my opinion, we’ll never know until they fight. Usyk uses his opponents weaknesses to his advantage, and he turns their strengths into weaknesses.
While Fury may indeed emerge victorious in the end, I foresee it being down to his indomitable will and his Mayweather-like ability to adapt to difficult situations. But I don’t see him bullying Usyk like he was able to do against Wilder.
I think the posters’ errors lie mainly in the metaphorical neurogenesis of thought of that moment of being astonished at how easily Fury was able to bully Wilder and get up from his punches, and ascribe this only to his large size. I remember the amazing moments from all those fights, they are one of those things like when the Berlin Wall fell that people simply remember in their subconscious. They knew where they were when it happened, what color shirt they had on, and what they ate and drank that night for dinner.
Where they go wrong is that they take this example and state the obvious, namely that Usyk is much smaller than Wilder, and extrapolate this into a firm, and to themselves, an ironclad conclusion that Usyk would fare similar as Wilder did, only much worse due to his smaller size and relative lack of knockout power.
I think this shows a certain level of immaturity, an inability to read the coffee pot. This leads me to my second point, mainly that I am even more astonished at how many posters on this site seem so uninitiated to what would make a person difficult to knock out.
For example, it is often stated on here that Fighter A (let’s be honest, usually it’s stated in reference to Deontay) would most certainly defeat, or have defeated, Fighter B by devastating knockout, because only Tyson Fury was able to get up, and that only because he is so big.
I hypothesize that size was only a small part of it. There are more important factors involved such as skull density, thickness, and level of hydration.
And as anyone who has studied physics knows, a lower center of gravity is advantageous for balance and the will to survive. This is because it is easier to stay upright and not fall over when the center of gravity is low.
If someone does fall, it is easier to get back up again.
A lower center of gravity also makes it easier to move around in general and have good agility.
Don’t believe me? Take a skilled soccer midfielder like N’golo Kante, and compare his agility and balance to that of a skilled basketball center like Nikola Jokic. While both are tremendous athletes, Kante will be lightyears ahead of Jokic in terms of balance and agility.
This is why I would like to postulate that a heavyweight who is comparatively short, has a great chin, good agility, fast hands, and has shown he can get up from a hard punch could quite possibly actually be a tougher opponent for Wilder than Fury himself.
With that said, not every shorter, stockier heavyweight is prime Tua. And I think that Fury’s win against Wilder may be more down to his incredible spirit and indomitable will than anything else. Only time will tell, but I think that posters on this site should have a more open mind about what it would take, or has taken in the past, to beat Wilder, and not marry themselves so easily to the conclusion that Fury only beat Wilder and took his power well due to his enormous size.
I am not trying to come up with any sort of crazy theory on here, and have proven time and again that I neither detract from Fury and Wilder, nor do I think either of them are as unbeatable as their most fervent fans claim.
Lets keep an open mind, and approach the discussion with an appreciation of the way things work in physics and everyday life.
Wilder is not a machine nor a magician. He is a human being who operates according to the same biophysical principles as anyone else, and these can be exploited and negated under the right conditions.
Likewise, Fury is an astonishingly good and agile fighter for his height and size, but he too has weaknesses that could be used against him by the right, adequately skilled smaller heavyweight.
Usyk very well may be that heavyweight.
I will give an example. Evander Holyfield was slightly lighter and leaner than Mike Tyson when they fought on the 9th of November 1996, and yet he pushed him around the ring en route to a memorable and an historic win on that night.
I think what surprises me most about this is in a lot of posts I see regarding two of the best heavyweights of this generation, Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder.
First of all, posters state that Tyson Fury cannot be defeated by Oleksandr Usyk because Oleksandr is comparatively small. They might be right, but in my opinion, we’ll never know until they fight. Usyk uses his opponents weaknesses to his advantage, and he turns their strengths into weaknesses.
While Fury may indeed emerge victorious in the end, I foresee it being down to his indomitable will and his Mayweather-like ability to adapt to difficult situations. But I don’t see him bullying Usyk like he was able to do against Wilder.
I think the posters’ errors lie mainly in the metaphorical neurogenesis of thought of that moment of being astonished at how easily Fury was able to bully Wilder and get up from his punches, and ascribe this only to his large size. I remember the amazing moments from all those fights, they are one of those things like when the Berlin Wall fell that people simply remember in their subconscious. They knew where they were when it happened, what color shirt they had on, and what they ate and drank that night for dinner.
Where they go wrong is that they take this example and state the obvious, namely that Usyk is much smaller than Wilder, and extrapolate this into a firm, and to themselves, an ironclad conclusion that Usyk would fare similar as Wilder did, only much worse due to his smaller size and relative lack of knockout power.
I think this shows a certain level of immaturity, an inability to read the coffee pot. This leads me to my second point, mainly that I am even more astonished at how many posters on this site seem so uninitiated to what would make a person difficult to knock out.
For example, it is often stated on here that Fighter A (let’s be honest, usually it’s stated in reference to Deontay) would most certainly defeat, or have defeated, Fighter B by devastating knockout, because only Tyson Fury was able to get up, and that only because he is so big.
I hypothesize that size was only a small part of it. There are more important factors involved such as skull density, thickness, and level of hydration.
And as anyone who has studied physics knows, a lower center of gravity is advantageous for balance and the will to survive. This is because it is easier to stay upright and not fall over when the center of gravity is low.
If someone does fall, it is easier to get back up again.
A lower center of gravity also makes it easier to move around in general and have good agility.
Don’t believe me? Take a skilled soccer midfielder like N’golo Kante, and compare his agility and balance to that of a skilled basketball center like Nikola Jokic. While both are tremendous athletes, Kante will be lightyears ahead of Jokic in terms of balance and agility.
This is why I would like to postulate that a heavyweight who is comparatively short, has a great chin, good agility, fast hands, and has shown he can get up from a hard punch could quite possibly actually be a tougher opponent for Wilder than Fury himself.
With that said, not every shorter, stockier heavyweight is prime Tua. And I think that Fury’s win against Wilder may be more down to his incredible spirit and indomitable will than anything else. Only time will tell, but I think that posters on this site should have a more open mind about what it would take, or has taken in the past, to beat Wilder, and not marry themselves so easily to the conclusion that Fury only beat Wilder and took his power well due to his enormous size.
I am not trying to come up with any sort of crazy theory on here, and have proven time and again that I neither detract from Fury and Wilder, nor do I think either of them are as unbeatable as their most fervent fans claim.
Lets keep an open mind, and approach the discussion with an appreciation of the way things work in physics and everyday life.
Wilder is not a machine nor a magician. He is a human being who operates according to the same biophysical principles as anyone else, and these can be exploited and negated under the right conditions.
Likewise, Fury is an astonishingly good and agile fighter for his height and size, but he too has weaknesses that could be used against him by the right, adequately skilled smaller heavyweight.
Usyk very well may be that heavyweight.
Comment