What Makes a Good Chin (it’s not what you think)

[Chollo Vista]

I don't care what you want to hear or not.

Yawn

More photoshopping. Why run around lying to people talking about you're some big bad amateur killer all the while crying to the authorities while being 3600 miles away from me because you're scared of me?

Why claim to be some big bad ass gym killer while you can't post a shred of proof?

[War Room]

you can't post a shred of proof?

I told you why. Alzheimer's Association/Customer service: 1-800-272-3900

Call today.

[Chollo Vista]

I told you why. Alzheimer's Association/Customer service: 1-800-272-3900

Call today.

You claim to be a fighter, but clearly have no honor lol

You call the authorities while being 3600 miles away and you lie about these gym battles. The only work you've done with champions is photoshop them LMAO

[War Room]

You claim to be a fighter, but clearly have no honor lol

You call the authorities while being 3600 miles away and you lie about these gym battles. The only work you've done with champions is photoshop them LMAO

You don't know what honor means. I'm not only well respetced, but also adhere to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct.

Learn the language please.

I don't often Photoshop champs, just you and some other idiots that DKSAB.

[Chollo Vista]

You don't know what honor means.

I know that honor doesn't mean starting e-fights and baiting other men to e-battle and then running to authorities while being 3600 miles away. Real fighters would never do such thing

Again, the only work you've done with champs is photoshopping, chump LMAO

[War Room]

I know that honor doesn't mean starting e-fights and baiting other men to e-battle and then running to authorities while being 3600 miles away. Real fighters would never do such thing

Again, the only work you've done with champs is photoshopping, chump LMAO

Wrong as usual.

hon·or
/ˈänər/

noun

1. high respect; great esteem.
2. adherence to what is right or to a conventional standard of conduct.

verb

1. regard with great respect.
2. fulfill (an obligation) or keep (an agreement), "make sure the franchisees honor the terms of the contract"

How many times to you plan on saying the same thing over and over? This is why you lose every single bit of banter. You pick one thing and just repeat it. Borderline spam to be fair.

[Chollo Vista]

How many times to you plan on saying the same thing over and over?

Because you're trying to skip a step. We can't jump to step 2 without fully addressing step 1.

Admit to lying about having the full video and working with champions so I can move on to the next lesson. Your deflections and photoshops don't work with me, chump.

[real raw]

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.

This post is all over the place and does almost nothing to define what makes a good chin. Size does matter which is why you dont see featherweights knocking out heavyweights. (appreciation of the way things work in physics and everyday life) Fury's size is most definitely why he was able to get up from Wilder's punches. And it's why Usyk WONT beat Fury.

[billeau2]

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.

Sometimes confusion reigns with respect to attribute: and qualities of attribute. So clarification would demand that you define "Size" and consider whether your observation is about fighting, or specific to boxing. While Chin determination is a boxing category, the qualities that make a good chin can be universal to fighting, or more specific to boxing.

lets start with qualifying "size." Is it pure heft? what about reach? are we talking pure weight? Muscle mass? Heavyweight boxing has shown some correlations with weight changes into modern times, but not a real absolute relationship: For every lewis, Fury there is a Holyfield, Wilder and Usyk. meanwhile, generally speaking, larger fighters tend to have greater reach... Reach as an advantage extends to other weight classes as well... We might then call reach an independent attribute of size. It correlates to size, but not absolutely and with caveats.

Then we have bone size. Some fighters, like Wilder and Usyk are not as big framed as other fighters... Yet the differences in weight can be negligable. So... Liston may have weighed about what Usyk does (give, or take a few pounds) But Liston was obviously bigger... He had much bigger hands, legs, neck, etc. Muscle mass is another "quality" of size. We know that more muscle mass can actually be a detriment to a fighter. Ditto for Fat which at least not ambivalent... Nobody really wants to come in "fatter" for a fight.

A good deal of "advantage" assigned to size has to do with gross differences in weight between two opponents. The assumption, you rightly note, is that the bigger man has an advantage. If we are talking specifically about classical boxing, especially regarding gloves, a stronger opponent has an advantage because to generate power one has to swing the arms and create speed and impact. Before gloves, Size was hardly an advantage. In fact, the strength of ones hands was singularly important, because force was generated using bio mechanics and placement... Swinging hard and hitting a bone target would instantly cripple one because their hand would break. A piston movement of an inverted fist to the chin tip was the KO blow, and as Fitz did to Corbett the solar plexis shot was often used, along with hooking to the ribs.

Specifically regarding one's chin, certainly the strength of the neck muscles, the density of skull bone mass is important, but at least equally important is the ability of the opponent not to be suprised by a sudden punch. So... good peripheral vision may be equally important as skull density in this department. Most people would be shocked to find that this visual field is best accessed from the corner of the eye, and not looking directly at the opponent. Movement sensors are in that part of the eye, most likely an archiac trait from when we branched off from animals that needed to sense movement to survive, usually herbivores, like cows and such, ergo their eyes are on the side of their head so they can always be watching, in the general direction they are oriented.

The traits of toughness and willfullness are also important.