Boxing Science: How Manny Pacquiao's Body Has Tricked Analysts and Opponents
by Bad Left Hook on Mar 15, 2011 4:27 AM EDT
in Boxing Commentary & Opinion
Email
Print
Anthony Wilson passed this on to me as a possible feature on our site, and after reading it, I think this is one of the best and most unique pieces we've ever posted on Bad Left Hook. I can't think Mr. Solis enough for his research, and Anthony for sending it our way. It's unique and looks at something much-discussed in a different light that I found very interesting. Give this a serious read if you're interested in the science of the sweet science, because it is tremendous. -- Scott Christ, Managing Editor, Bad Left Hook
Back when I was writing at The Rumble, there emerged in the comments section this diehard boxing fan with a unique background. As it turned out, the dude, Leandro Solis (Rumble username leo_sol) was a scientist. Yes, an actual scientist - one who happened to possess a deep affiniy for the sweet science. And occasionally, he would apply the knowledge of his field to discussions about boxing, providing a unique angle and enlightening us with some pertinent and fascinating information we otherwise wouldn't have been exposed to.
He's basically done the same here, only over the course of 2,000+ words. I won't say too much about it, except that it's plenty interesting and insightful. In particular, I think his findings about Manny Pacquiao will reverberate.
Leo's words begin with the next paragraph. -- Anthony Wilson
* * * * *
The first goal of this little study was to look at some physical characteristics of fighters - specifically height, weight, and wrist size - and check if these three characteristics could indicate how likely it would be for a fighter to have a good chin and stamina. My interest in this is that in most pre-fight writings, fighters are usually given some type of score or grade on these two attributes in addition to others like punching power, experience, etc. In all cases these ratings are given based on the writer's perception of such attributes in previous fights, so I wanted to check if there was a more objective way to assign some of these ratings. Now why did I decide to focus on the combined attribute of chin + stamina, and why am I using height, weight, and wrist as my predictors? Well, the answer lies in the available data (which as it is, unfortunately, is limited), and more importantly, in some aspects of human physiology which I will describe shortly.
The second goal is related to my first goal in the sense that it looks at the same physical characteristics, however, here I was interested in figuring out how big or small Manny Pacquiao really is compared to other fighters, and whether or not there is anything in particular about his physical characteristics that would allow him to move up in weight in such an explosive manner. The reason for this second goal is that in boxing it is pretty much mandatory before every fight to read about which fighter has the size advantage prior to each fight. People usually look at things like which fighter is taller, who has a longer reach, who is the "naturally bigger man," which, at least from what I have seen, to most people means who has fought at a heavier weight for longer and simply looks bigger at the photo-ops. These types of comparisons are particularly prevalent before every Manny Pacquiao fight, who for the past three years has made a habit of not just beating but completely destroying opponents that appear to be too big for a man of his size. In addition to the comparisons already mentioned, to a lesser degree, other measurements like size of biceps, chest, thighs, or neck, among others, are also used to highlight the physical differences between two fighters. The wrist size is at times found on this extended list, but even when it does, most of the time it goes without much fanfare, at least to my impression.
Having stated the goals I had in mind when I started looking into these measurements, I think it is now time to explain why my interest in wrist size. In bone literature it has been shown that in males the wrist size is positively correlated with skeletal frame, as well as bone density and mineral content, which in short means, bigger wrists equals bigger bones. For fighters fighting at a given weight class what this means is that if both fighters weigh say 160lbs, the percentage of that weight that is made up of bone in proportion to soft tissue (skin, muscle, fat, blood, organs, etc) will be more for the guy with bigger bones.
So what does having bigger bones mean to a fighter and how does this relate to my goals? Well, I can think of three basic advantages: 1) Bigger bones in theory should give a fighter a better chance to take a punch, in the same manner a house with strong foundations is harder to bring down than one with weaker ones. 2) An athlete's stamina is highly dependent on the content of red blood cells in the blood since these cells are responsible for transporting oxygen from the lungs to every other organ/tissue in the body. Red blood cells are made in the bone marrow, so bigger and denser bones should mean more available red blood cells, and more red blood cells, better stamina. 3) The bigger the skeleton, the more weight a fighter can put on such skeleton, which should allow him to move up in weight more easily. The caveat for this third point, is that higher muscle content means higher demand for red blood cells, which will decrease your stamina, so it is a bit of a balancing act. If a fighter grows too big his stamina will probably be affected even if he has a really big skeleton; this is somewhat evident in the heavyweights, who generally tend to fight at a less intense pace than smaller fighters.
I collected data available online from fighter's tales of the tape and recorded a fighter's height and wrist size. For weight it is a bit more complicated since most fighters have campaigned in more than one division, so I used the weight from the weight class were said fighter was perceived to be at his peak; for example, in Pacquiao's case I used 147. For fighters in the heavy weight class where there is no standard weight, I used the average weight of several fights. The first figure in the power point slide shows each individual fighter based on their height (x-axis), wrist size (y-axis), and weight class (color and marker). The second figure shows the average height and wrist size for each weight class. Notice the near linear pattern (you can also see this with the individual data points although not as clear). Here are the avg results for each group:
| Class | Height | Wrist |
|---|---|---|
| Heavyweight | 75.31 | 7.69 |
| Super Middle/Light Heavy | 72.38 | 7.31 |
| Jr/Welterweight | 68.81 | 7.09 |
| Super/Featherweight | 66.1 | 6.35 |
Ok so the biggest problem so far is how accurate are the measurements, since who knows how they are taken for the tales of the tape. I did find some inconsistencies (if I recall correctly about 4 fighters out of all checked), but they were always for the height. Since luckily for me the height is always reported I looked at several of them and took the one most reported (in general only about 1 or 2 of the pre-fight reports had an odd measurement compared to the rest).
Having all my data the first thing I did was do a regression analysis using only the height and wrist size, in which the height was used as a predictor for the wrist size. This test showed a statistical significant result, meaning that as height increases so does the wrist size (which I must say is not surprising). The actual equation for this was wrist = 0.935 + height * 0.088. What this means is that someone who is, for example, say 68in (5ft 8in) should have a 6.9in wrist. To check for accuracy, I looked at the data reported in a study from a bone journal, in this study the participants had a reported avg wrist size of 7.17in, with an avg height of 70.6 in. Using the equation I just mentioned above, the expected wrist size of someone who is 70.6in should be 7.15in. What this suggests to me is that the reported heights and wrist dimensions from fighters are actually accurate enough, and that the actual dimensions of the fighters do fall within the average dimensions of a regular population. Now lets look at some fighters: for example, Mayweather is right on target (5ft 8in, 7in wrist), Wlad Klitschko has a wrist a bit smaller than what his height would suggest (should be 7.8in instead of 7.5in), while Hatton is a bit higher (should be 6.8in instead of 7in). Variation is a certainty in everything, so again, it is no big surprise that some fighters are above average while some are below average. Where things get interesting is in the extreme cases, and among these fighters there is no bigger extreme than Pacquiao. The man has 8in wrists, which is higher than the wrist average for heavyweights. When you consider he is only 66.5in tall (just over the superfeatherweight avg height) it feels even more impressive. While I was not thinking of this at the start of this little project, something caught my eye as I looked at the data. One of the things that has characterized Pacquiao during the past two or three years is his ability to punch extremely hard for someone his size against seemingly bigger foes. Well, two fighters among those I checked who also were recognized for their power and who also have 8in wrists with much smaller height than their wrist size would suggest are Joe Louis, 74in height, 8in wrists (should be 7.45in) and Mike Tyson, 71.5in height, 8in wrists (should be 7.23in). I'm assuming it is not necessary to highlight that both Louis and Tyson fought at the heavyweight class.
So far I've only looked at height and wrist together. Now we all know weight is a crucial element in boxing, it is the way to ensure that fighters fight against someone their own size and don't get unfair advantages. What I did next was I used both height and wrist size as my input variables, and the weight of each fighter as the outcome variable and again did a regression analysis. Again the result was statistically significant, meaning that indeed height and wrist can predict the weight of a fighter. The equation this time was weight = -469.47+(7.523*height)+(14.874*wrist). I again compared this outcome to the one reported in the bone study I mentioned before. So again using a height of 70.6in and wrist of 7.15in, the expected weight should be 168lbs. The actual average weight for the participants in that study was 178lbs, so my estimate is off by 10lbs, but if we take into account that most fighters typically fight lighter than their actual walking weight then I'd say the result is probably not to far off since the equation was built using official fighting weights. Using the same approach I did before, again I found that some fighters fight at around their expected weight, some fight lighter than they should (meaning they probably really kill themselves to make weight), while some actually fight heavier than what you'd expect given their height and wrist size (this was the case for almost every heavyweight). Something to take note of, is that if you add 10lbs to the expected weight of a heavyweight then most of the heavyweights included here fight right around their target. This makes sense if one assumes a heavyweight doesn't need to drain himself to make weight and fights at a weight closer to walking weight (assuming they stay in shape between fights).
Having this information in hand I looked at some particular cases. The two men that sit at the top of every p4p list right now are Mayweather and Pacquiao.
Floyd has always looked nearly unbeatable at 147lbs and Pacquiao certainly does as well since he moved into the division. So what are their expected weights: 146lbs for Floyd, 150lbs for Pac. Some other interesting cases:
Marquez has always looked in top form and at his best except when he fought Floyd as a welterweight. Even at lightweight many think he is already pushing his limit, well, according to my calculations his fighting weight should be 131lbs, just around the weight where he gave Pacquiao hell in their second fight and defeated Barrera. Pacquiao is ½ inch shorter than Marquez yet he was able to move up in weight while Marquez could not. Many people have used this argument to suggest something improper on the part of Pacquiao; what they miss is that Pacquiao's wrists are 8in while Marquez's are only 6.5in, giving Pacquiao an overall much bigger skeleton. This highlights why a great fighter like Pacquiao can easily adapt to a much higher weight without losing any speed, power, or chin, while another great fighter like Marquez can't, event though both have very similar heights.
Another interesting fighter is Margarito, he always seemed huge for a welterweight, and prior to his defeat against Mosley there were reports that he looked awful in camp and struggled to make weight (Margarito claims that was the reason he looked so bad in that fight). Since then he's moved up in weight, and against Manny, even though he made the catchweight of 150lbs, come fight night he was close to the super middleweight limit. Well, his estimated weight is 176lbs, since he has decent height (71in, and bigger than avg wrists 7.5in). Margarito is someone who certainly benefited from having really big bones in a division that should be too small for his frame size, which might explain why his iron chin took so damn long to get cracked. Another place where this advantage would show itself, assuming he made weight in a safe manner (meaning he did not just drain himself like he did for the Mosely fight), is in the stamina department, with proportionally more bone (+red blood cells) than muscles (less demand for red blood cells) compared to every other fighter in the division.
Cotto cemented his name in the 147lbs division, but since then has moved to the 154lbs division claiming the title there, which he successfully defended this past weekend. His estimated weight: 154lbs.
Roy Jones Jr., one of the best fighters of the last 20yrs, campaigned and had success at several divisions. Many have claimed he is the best 168lbs fighter ever. His optimal weight: 169lbs.
The point I hope is becoming evident is that "how big" a fighter is should not be based solely on height (which in many occasions is what happens). Referring specifically to the case of Pacquiao, Nazeem Richardson said it best: "The best trick Pacquiao has pulled is making you believe he is smaller than you are" (I'm paraphrasing). Sure the man is short compared to most if not all top fighters in the 147lb division, but if you were to look at x-rays of every fighter in the division, I'd put money down that he has the biggest skeleton in the division (in overall bone volume) with the exception of Margarito if he were to go back to 147lbs.
91 comments
|
11 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This is sort of like when I “discovered” Bill James and Baseball Prospectus for myself — it’s making me think about the subject in a new light, and I can already see myself looking at certain fights and fighters differently.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
Now if only Manny could get his OBA up a notch
"Silence is golden when you can't think of a good answer"
---- Muhammed Ali
Interesting Stuff
This was a great piece. It’s always interesting to read a different angle, and the data seems pretty solid.
TheBoxingBulletin.com
If anyone knows let me know
Sorry, so far I have not found any tale of the tape were they mention his wrist size.
Yes, an actual scientist
Hey now…..
Also what is this guy’s R^2, cause it doesn’t look fantastic but this study is still interesting.
Obviously I then measured my own wrist and thought about a couple of things which bring up some serious questions. When someone breaks a bone, it usually grows back thicker and slightly more dense. Therefore, there would be a skewing toward boxer’s who have wrist problems. The reason I brought this up is that I have one repaired wrist and one normal wrist. The injured wrist is a full inch bigger than the other wrist, which would show that a previous injury really does increase the size. Now back on to Pacman.
My theory is that when he was younger, he was malnourished and frequently hurt his wrists due to boxing. Therefore I think that his wrists are bigger than they are theorized to be mostly because of this break and reform cycle that could occur. I’m not saying that this study is bunk or anything like that, I would just want to see if this is a correlation or just indicative of another property that matters (Hand mass/volume, literally heavy hands).
"The bell that tolls for all in boxing belongs to a cash register."
-Bob Verdi
There's no evidence of
previous injury to MP’s wrists whatsoever. Also, Solis is using wrist size as an indicator of general bone size, and it’s obvious to the naked eye that MP has an extremely sturdy frame. Check his legs—they’re really thick, dense-looking legs.
I do sometimes entertain the thought that going hungry young simply delayed full growth into adulthood—I’ve seen it happen, over time, with adopted, previously neglected/underfed pets. They very slowly catch up. I’ve always figured that’s what happened with MP, because usually, as with the animals, so with us.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
Oh yeah I wasn’t saying it was complete fact or anything but it is a completely plausible explanation (unfortunately totally unverifiable too). I don’t necessarily believe it but it is an interesting theory to consider. Do boxers from poorer backgrounds have bigger wrists because of poor nutrition and poor medical support?
"The bell that tolls for all in boxing belongs to a cash register."
-Bob Verdi
by Waldo Rastel on Mar 15, 2011 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
They really would
have just the opposite, and, were they to have so suffered, would be worse off than Paullie Malignaggi 10 seconds into their first fight—it’s an imaginative concept, but wrists that damaged in youth would never serve in any arms/hands oriented sport, couldn’t play tennis either.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
I was thinking that they would have had a bunch of micro fractures which would have eventually strengthened the wrist quite significantly. This process would be quite similar to the process that Martial Artists go through in order to break objects like concrete. Microfractures in the hand eventually strengthen it to the point that it can be used to break solid objects like multiple planks of wood and multiple slabs of concrete.
"The bell that tolls for all in boxing belongs to a cash register."
-Bob Verdi
by Waldo Rastel on Mar 15, 2011 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know about earlier, but apparently he was treated for wrist injuries after the Margarito fight, and there’s also this article detailing some wrist swelling that comes and goes.
R^2 = 0.807
For those not familiar with the term, R^2 represent how much of the variability in a particular statistical model is explained by the predictive variables used.
Actually pretty good when you look at some of the correlations claimed in sociology papers. Obviously not physics or anything but still very very good.
"The bell that tolls for all in boxing belongs to a cash register."
-Bob Verdi
by Waldo Rastel on Mar 17, 2011 2:03 AM EDT up reply actions
good read...
definitely another factor to consider when analysing who is the bigger man.
also, for those more knowledgable than i, worth lookng at some other boxers whose wrists are exceptional relative to their height.
Pacquiao unusual wrist bone size
The article scientifically studied and concluded height and wrist bone factors relation.
I feel and think of it as logical for ordinary person to understand too basing it on the same. " If a sturdy and well trained punch lands perfectly on target just once is good already{Donaire,Pacquiao etc.},what more of steady combo with above average intensity of punching power hitting all the same target .Well trained big bones of a boxer is definitely a higher quality offense /defense factor.
“bigger and denser bones should mean more available red blood cells”
Has this been proven? I know it intuitively seems like it should be true, but is there scientific evidence to support it?
Absloutley
Red blood cells are manufactured (for want of a better word) in the bones
For example…. A friend of mine, approx 2 years ago broke his Femur in a car accident. (femer being upper leg) It’s the biggest bone in the body and he almost died because of it. The reason for the near fatality…. Because there was a lack of RBC, and therfore a lack of oxygen to his muscles, Brain and so forth.
by Sweet science on Mar 16, 2011 6:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Here is my explanation
The reason I say “should” have more available red blood cells is because so far I have not found any study that actually tries to correlate larger amounts of blood marrow to a higher production fo RBC, so in that sense, there is some speculation on my part. Having said that, it is not some random speculation. It is a fact that the amount of RBC in your blood is produced by the marrow. How much is produced is typically constant for each particular individual assuming conditions like nutrition, athmosferic oxygen, and fitness level remain the same. If there is a higher demand the body will try to produce more until the max capacity of the bone marrow is reached. Here is a qute from an actual study: “Anemia, which may be defined functionally as lack of sufficient red blood cells to maintain adequate tissue oxygenation, develops when the demand for new red blood cells exceeds the capacity of the bone marrow to produce them. This may be due to excessive red blood cell destruction, impaired red blood cell production, bleeding, or any combination of these.” (from “Cancer-related anemia: its causes and characteristics”, Seminars in Oncology, 1994). So to clarify, is there any hard evidence that directly compares more bone marrow to more RBC, the answer is not that I’m aware of. But there is plenty of evidence that bone marrow RBC capacity has a limit, and that if the marrow is damaged for some reason (like disease), that capacity goes down. So that is the rationale for my theory.
Definitely a good read...
Well, I seldom comment here but this really piqued my interest—my kind of analysis. I won’t question the methodology but I’d like to know the sample size, the variance, and RMSE for each weight class. I also wonder if Mr. Solis have done a more complex statistical model and broken down the usefulness of each of the variables currently being reported in the “tale of the tape”.
I’m also curious where Shane Mosley falls in this analysis. I’ve always thought he’s a big boned dude.
Shane Moseley
Assuming these measurments are correct, he has 6.5in wrists, which I admit is smaller than what I thought he’d be. However, based on his height (69in) and wrist size, he fits right in with the welters (estimated weight of 146.3lbs)
I forgot
How useful the variables currently being reported on “tale of the tape” depend on what you define as useful. For example one way to look at things would be to see if the fighter that has the longer reack wins more often than the one with the shorter reach. Although I think it would be very interesting to look at something that involved it would be extremely complicated to really come to a conclusion because one thing not included in the tale of the tape is skill level.
I certainly wouldn't even begin to try and claim that the writer's evidence is irrefutable
(I’m no scientist, not even close), but the theory and the ideas are very interesting.
And they at least appear to make logical sense. I loved reading this piece—
And as someone with wrists like a small bird’s, I see all kinds of potential excuses in the data.
A large, random test best on what is presented would be very interesting. Good stuff!!
Bring on boxing analytics!
Awesome read. Does this guy have a blog or could be persuaded to start contributing to BLH?
great piece. if this scientist were to ever do a study based on the size of fighters’ calf muscles in relation to height/weight, Manny would be off the charts as well.
Glad you liked the piece
Calf muscles have the same problem as wrists, meaning that only on a few occasions they get reported. For the most part is always just height, weight and reach that gets reported. I looked at all this as a hobby on spare time, so I can go back and look for more comparisons. One problem I anticipate with comparing muscles is that measurements of muscles can change with relative ease from fight to fight depending on the fighters lifestyle.
Very interesting read.
Have a little personal anecdote to add that supports the writer’s evidence. Me and my brother are both about the same height (I 6’2", he 6’3") but he walks around at about 225 pounds, and I walk around at about 180. My wrists are quite small for my height (6.5 in which converts to about 183 lbs in his equation), which is what piqued my interest in this article. Both of us have fought amateurs, I boxing, he mixed martial arts, and neither of us have had any wrist injuries in the past. It turns out my brother has 7.8 in wrists, which converts to about 210 lbs in the equation. This makes perfect sense to me and almost explains why I never “filled out” like my brother did.
However (sorry to reply to my own post)
while I can buy that chin and stamina may be related to wrist size, I would stop at saying that it is an indicator of concussive power. Power can be derived a lot of ways, I don’t know what Thomas Hearns’ wrist size was, but I would be willing to place a large wager he didn’t have 8in wrists, and I don’t think anyone would deny his power.
I don’t think it means concussive power…. But it would certainly help
But I guess it comes down to the proportion of fast twitch muscles to slow twich. Fast twich being big power, while slow twich bein Paulie M! And of course how you deliver the puch too will be a factor.
by Sweet science on Mar 16, 2011 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Exactly how big of a wager are we talking about?
I’m not saying it is a slam dunk clear indicator of concussive power, like I mentioned, that’s something I had not tought of when I started colllecting the data, just something that I noticed as I went along. Wheter bigger bones could help to deliver heavier punches I’d say it probably would, since at it’s simplest Force = mass*acceleration, so the faster and more weight a fighter can put behind each punch, the better. However in the end I think skill is the determinant factor for this. Now back to that wager, I had not included Hearns in the initial list of fighters I looked at, so I looked him up just for you. Hearns wrists: 8in (http://articles.latimes.com/1988-06-06/sports/sp-2949_1_thomas-hearns/2)
I must be blind
I keep looking for the part in that article where it mentions Hearns’ wrist size and I can’t find it, but I’ll take your word for it. I was searching myself for a little while and couldn’t find the data. Just figured with arms as long and skinny as his there’s no way his wrists could have been 8 in thick, plus it doesn’t really fit in with your equation when he weighed 147 lbs, means he was fighting a whopping 50 lbs under his expected wrist/height weight prediction. Whle this might explain his supposed chininess, its hard to fathom a guy that far under your predictor still capable of any athletic activity, let alone at the highest level of competition.
At the end of second page
It’s a two page article, the tale of the tape is at the very end of the second one. It’s written as a continuous sentence so its a bit harder to read than the usual list found now a days. Yes you are correct about how light he was fighting, but keep in mind he eventually moved all the way to cruiserweight (his highest weight recorded in boxrec is 191lbs). His last fight as a welter was when he was 23, after which he started to move up in weight. By the time he was 31 he was a light heavyweight already.
That is unreal.
Found it. While Hearns eventually did make it all the way up to Cruiser, even in that article you posted, he’s fighting at 160 at 29, still 40 pounds under! The reason I’m so interested is does this mean at 6’2" with a 76 in reach, because my 6.5 in wrists indicate I have a smaller bone structure, I should set my weight goal lower than 167? I cut down to about 172 right now without draining water, and feel I could still lose more body fat while still feeling healthy, but have been told by many people (none doctors or scientists) that it would be unhealthy for me to continue losing weight. Does your research indicate this is not true? What are the other factors I should be taking into account when attempting to find an optimal fighting weight (other than the obvious muscle mass/body fat ratios and such)?
Nevermind the last two questions.
Got a little too excited for an blog article comments section. But thank you for all the great info!
Interesting
I liked the article though it’s not too detailed or rigorous. I don’t mean that as a criticism since a real study would be a significant undertaking. Still, wrist size varies too much in relation to other factors to really make conclusions about any one individual. Just because it’s true of a population does not make it true of each member therein.
I think it would be great if the author and/or others kept digging. I’m a big fan of advanced stats/analysis in other sports and I’m sure there are all kinds of interesting aspects of boxing that research could bring out.
Yeah, me too — I’ve always wanted more stuff like this on the site, but I’m not smart enough to do it myself.
Bad Left Hook
"To the town of Agua Fria rode a stranger one fine day..."
by Scott Christ on Mar 15, 2011 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Some more details
I agree with the rigorous part, I’m the first to admit that if I were to submit this to a science journal it would not pass mustard as it is. For starters because the data would have to be collected from a relaiable source, not from random tales of the tape posted online. Even if the average results seem to be very close to those from an actual study conducted in a laboratory setting (“Relations bewteen frame size and body composition and mineral status” Chumlea et al, Am J Clin Nutr. 2002). For those of you wondering, the avg height+-stdev in the study was: 70.59+-2.55in, wrist: 7.17+-0.37in, and weight: 178.86+-27.28lbs. The avg+-stdev measurments from the fighters were: height: 71.33+-3.78, wrist: 7.23+-0.69in, weight: 171.88+-38.57lbs. So the averages from the fighters are very close from those in the study using an average male population, however you’ll notice the standard deviations are a bit bigger. This is probably due to the fact that in the stuy they had 224 participants, while for this write up I had data from only 29 fighters.
And yes you are correct, conducting a formal study is a huge undertaking (usually at least 6 months of full time work).
leo!
still spewing your unsubstantiated fancies? kidding, of course. great work. i wonder if, all things being equal, when two fighters are rehydrating post-weigh-in, does the fighter with more bone mass “suffer” less while rehydrating because of less reliance on muscle mass? i don’t understand this stuff very well so maybe that makes no sense, but i’ve always wondered about rehydration process, given the really aggressive weight cutting that takes place. again, great work.
Hey long time no see pal!
Sent, it’s been a while. The question you pose is an intersting one, I’d say that it would probably be the other way around. If you assume everything is the same except the ratio of bone-muscle mass, and both fighters dehydrate and then rehaydrate the same exact percentage of weight for the fight, the guy with bigger bones actually had to lose more water in proportion to his soft tissue mass compared to the other guy, therefore I’d expect him to be weaker. That’s why I mentioned in my write up, the the added stamina would only apply if the fighter cuts weight safely (meaning actually reducing muscle mass and fat) in preparation for a fight, as opposed to just dehydrating the day before. To put it in simpler terms, if a fighter cuts actual muscle before a fight lets say he ends up with 80lbs (random number) of muscle, so come fight night, he has 80lbs of muscle at full strenght. If instead he decided to come in at 85lbs of muscle and cut weight (to 80lbs) by dehydrating and then rehydrating, he’d have 85lbs of muscle but would be operating at less than 100%. So there is the trade off.
More on rehydration
I don’t know if you remember some of the articles I cited last year when we talked about this but to summarize (I’ll look up the actual reference since I haven’t read those papers in a while): in two studies with amateur boxers and judo fighters they asked the fighters to perform a series of physical and mental task prior to cutting weight and recorded the performance. Then they were asked how they thought they would perform after cutting weight in preparation of their upcoming fights and they all said they would perform better after cutting weight. They had a week to make weight for their fight and could cut weight in whatever way they typically did. On average they cut about 5% of their weight. After rehydrating, they performed the same physical and mental tasks they tested before and lo and behold, they all performed worse. Overall the main symptoms they observed in the fighters were fatigue, irritability, and inability to concentrate. I can give you more details once I find the actual papers.
FLAWED ANALYSIS
1. Bigger wrist size does NOT automatically translate to bigger bone structure.
Wrist size is not only determined by the size of the person’s bone on the wrist, but also by the amount of tissue, muscle or fat covering the outer structure of the wrist, Generally speaking, bodybuilders, athletes and even FAT PEOPLE have bigger wrist size compared to the others since depending on how athletes trained or how fat a person is, will predominantly determine the size of a person’s wrist. Athletes who trains their wrist will have a relatively bigger wrist compared to those who does not train their wrist. So having a bigger wrist DOES NOT automatically mean that the person has a bigger bone structure. And to be more frank, Bigger bone structure does not necessarily make a person punch harder nor does it make him take punches better. (which I will answer later on my 3rd point).
2. Bigger bone structure does NOT automatically mean the person produces more red blood cells.
Red blood cells are produced by our bone marrow that’s a fact, however the amount of red blood cells produced by the bone marrow is NOT dependent on its size, there are some determining factors that would indicate how much red blood cells are produced by a certain person, such as the person’s age, sex or even their lifestyle. The author’s contention that by having a bigger bone means a bigger bone marrow THUS having MORE red blood cells, is SCIENTIFICALLY UNSUPPORTED and was only based on his OWN THEORY.
3. Bigger bones has got NOTHING to do with a fighter’s ability to take a punch.
Just like what I said earlier, bigger bone structure has got NOTHING to do with the fighter’s ability to take a punch nor makes the fighter punch harder, the author cited how a house/building is built, and I quote “in the same manner a house with strong foundations is harder to bring down than one with weaker ones” – This sounds like a good point, however how humans are designed is totally different from a house or a building, what’s the main difference? MUSCLE – Aside from our inner ear and brain, human muscle is the main body part that controls our balance, everytime a boxer is hit on the chin, the inner ear comes into action and is the body’s main organ of balance, but the brain also receives messages from nerve-endings in the neck, back, leg and feet muscles. The brain sifts all this information and sends messages back to the muscles, allowing us to perform incredible feats of balance even after being hit by a solid punch, that’s why if you ask any boxing trainers around, training the neck muscles is an essential part of training if the fighter wants to have a stronger chin.
(I remember I had this argument a few years ago at the MAB forum, when a member posted the same argument about the “bone structure”)
4. Bigger bones does NOT automatically mean denser bones.
Fact is, you CANNOT train your bones to become bigger, BUT you CAN train your bones to become denser.
Besides, having a bigger bone structure is irrelevant, since it does not give any advantage to a boxer who has bigger bones, I may sound like a broken record but again, bones has got nothing to do with how a boxer takes a punch or how hard the boxer hits, and contrary to the author’s claim/theory, the human muscles, inner ear and brain are the foundation that controls our balance especially with boxers like Manny Pacquiao who are hit with punches on the chin, what makes Manny stand up despite being hit with solid punches by bigger opponents was not because of him having a bigger bone structure but rather because Manny has a tremendous sense of balance with his MUSCLES, INNER EAR AND BRAIN excellently working hand in hand.
The author cannot even present an article or study that specifically state that those who have bigger bones and bone marrows will automatically have a higher red blood cell level. Again, that notion is SCIENTIFICALLY UNFOUNDED.
Sounds good...
but I’d like to see you refute his work with some numbers and data. Also, if you are going to demand some references you should provide some for your own arguments. I want to see you prove your assertions.
Your first, second, and fourth assertions does nothing to invalidate his work. Your third one needs proof. You sure bigger bones have NOTHING to do with a fighter’s ability to take a punch?
I’m not saying you’re wrong but you’re making some strong assertions and basically attacking the guy, not knowing all the details of his work.
Also, why all the YELLING?
Besides, having a bigger bone structure is irrelevant, since it does not give any advantage to a boxer who has bigger bones, I may sound like a broken record but again, bones has got nothing to do with how a boxer takes a punch
One word… Valuev!
Now he is the most Densest… thing…. I have seen in a ring. And only once have I seen him wobbled. His head is massive. hay said it was like concrete. Are you telling me that the amount of Bone in him does not help him take punches?
by Sweet science on Mar 16, 2011 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions
He is certainly a bid guy
I just came upon one tale of the tape listing Valuev’s wrists. A whopping 9in.
Yup
Here is the link. (http://www.saddoboxing.com/3970-boxing-tale-of-the-tape-nikolai-valuev-monte-barrett.html) The guy really is a giant. I found one more boxer who was also listed as having 9in wrists, Jack Dempsey.
The author’s contention that by having a bigger bone means a bigger bone marrow THUS having MORE red blood cells, is SCIENTIFICALLY UNSUPPORTED and was only based on his OWN THEORY.
Were talking about boxer’s here. If you were to take two athletes who had done excactly the same amount of training, lived the same lifestyle… well every variable apart from the bone size is the same….
I would put my house on the athlete with “bigger bones” to produce more RBC.
by Sweet science on Mar 16, 2011 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks for giving your input, I’ll try to address the points you make:
1. Bigger wrist size does NOT automatically translate to bigger bone structure.
You are correct it does not, however I clearly stated that wrist size has shown possitive correlation to bone size, not that it guarantees it (see ref I mentioned in response to driv, I can provide more if you are interested). The only way to possitively know would be to perform x-ray bone analysis, barring that, several measurements can be used like elbow width, knee width, hip width, shoulders breadth, and wrist size can be used as an estimate. Is it 100% guaranteed, of course not but it has been shown that wrist size can be a good indicator. To use another example, smoking a pack of cigarettes a day does not automatically mean a person will get lung cancer or some other respiratory disease later in life, but it certainly suggets he/she is more likely to get them.
2. Bigger bone structure does NOT automatically mean the person produces more red blood cells.
Please read my explanation to vvps.
3. Bigger bones has got NOTHING to do with a fighter’s ability to take a punch.
I think we might we talking about two different things here, what you describe (importance of balance, neck training) certainly is important to a fighter overall, howeverI believe balance only plays a role with softer punches and flash knockdowns. Here I’m talking about knockdowns were the fighter immediately gets back up with no apparent harm done (think B-Hop against Pascal). What I’m referring to is some innate ability to aviod or reduce the chance of being KO. When a fighter gets KO they don’t only lose their balance, they completely or partially lose consciousness, which means the fighter got a brain concussion. Check this link for a nice description of the sysmptoms and you’ll see they all fit a fighter on the brink of being KO or who just got KO (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=13166) . Concussions occur as a result of severe impacts to the head. There IS evidence (“The effects of skull thickness variations on human head dynamic impact responses” Ruan and Prasad. Stapp Car Crash Journal, 2001.; Motor Vehicle Collision Injuries: Biomechanics, Diagnosis, and Managment. 2nd Edition. L. Nordhoff.) that thicker skulls can decrease the amount of force absorbed by the skull. All things being equal (force, angle, and location of punch, neck muscle strenght), a fighter with thicker skull has less chance of being KO than someone with thinner skull. When you think about this, the whole point of using helmets in sports and work is providing “thicker skulls” that can better absorb impacts for protection.
4. Bigger bones does NOT automatically mean denser bones.My response to your 1st point is basically the same to this one.
Please let me know if you have more questions.
Not really
#1: So you agree with my first point, and I don’t contest that wrist size does have a correlation with our body structure , just to make it clear. What I was merely pointing out was that you CANNOT claim that Manny has bigger bones by citing a data that might be flawed. Citing the data wherein it shows Manny having an ‘8 wrist size without physically studying Manny yourself to see if the mass/muscles on Manny’s wrist might be the reason why he’s got an 8inch wrist and not actually his bones is a quite reckless IMO.
#2: There was actually a study that DISPROVES your theory, heres the link: http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/6/1012.full#FN2, according to the study;
“Frame size was more closely associated with TBF and FFM than with BMC and BMD. The association between frame size and body composition seems to be more structural than substantive. The relations between frame size and BMC and BMD are weak and apparently not related to body composition., so it disproves your point that having bigger bones mean that the marrows produce more red blood cells or any other minerals BMC, nor it makes the bones more dense (BMD), so that study alone disproves 2 of your notions; That having a bigger bone marrow means more red blood cells and that the bigger the bone is, the denser it is.
#3: Again you are way off regarding this, concussions affect the brain and not the skull thus the term “cerebral concussion”, the thickness or thinness of the skull/bones, has got nothing to do with it. When a fighter gets hit by a very powerful punch that’s beyond his muscles, and inner ear can handle, what happens is that the brain impacts the inner wall of the skull that causes the brain to temporarily “malfunction” causing the person to lose consciousness or be disoriented. I will reiterate that bone size or skull thickness has got nothing to do with it. You cited the use of helmets, but helmets are used to protect not just the head but the brain itself.
#4: Please read my response on the 2nd point.
by Richter Tan on Mar 17, 2011 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions
To make it clearer
Regarding the 3rd point, Whether you have a thick skull or not is irrelevant, since once a fighter is hit with a strong punch enough to KO him and the brain impacts the inner skull, the fighter will still get KOed and a possibility of a cerebral concussion regardless of his skull’s thickness, It’s simple human kinetics! How can the thickness of the skull protect the brain from smashing against the inner wall of the skull? or how can a thick skull prevent a KO or a cerebral concussion in the event of the brain colliding with the inner skull? UNLESS YOU TELL ME THICKER SKULLS ARE SOFTER.
by Richter Tan on Mar 17, 2011 10:53 AM EDT up reply actions
If you still think otherwise..
I’ll ask if you could do this experiment:
Make two metal balls approximately the same size as a human skull, the first one made of 1cm thick steel/metal, and the second one made of 5cm thick steel/metal.
Now put some solid jelly (that will act as the brain) inside the 2 metal balls, climb a ladder at least 10feet high, then drop both of the balls with the jelly inside (the impact to the ground will act as the punch). You’ll notice that the damage to the jelly due to the drop will be the same for both the 1cm thick metal ball and the 5cm thick metal ball.
Conclusion: Thickness of the skull is irrelevant, and it disproves your point that thickness of the skull will prevent a KO or a cerebral concussion from a punch.
by Richter Tan on Mar 17, 2011 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions
wait so u actually did this experiment? You made some metal balls in your garage forge (I can only assume you have one), put some solid jelly in there (what kind of jelly are we talking about here, the kind they use on mythbusters?), and dropped them off a ladder? Color me skeptical Dr. Tan.
But on a serious not, finding studies that disagree with the studies he used is not a definitive refutation of his argument. Perhaps if you found a robust body of recent literature disagreeing with his theory you could come to the conclusion he is definitely wrong. And take it easy with the belligerent tone, its hard to take you seriously when you WRITE THIS WAY.
Fun times
Fun experiment you described there, but unfortunately it does not represent a head shot. In your experiment when you drop the balls gravity will pull the metal balls down the moment you let go of them, while the jelly will get stuck to the upper part of the ball. The moment the ball impacts the ground the ball will stop movement first, causing the jelly to then crash against the inner part of the ball and in all likelyhood turning into goo. That’s what happens in a car accident, that’s why race car drivers use the HANS decive, to get protection from the whiplash that would send their brains smacking toward the inside part of the skull during a crash. The helmet they use for protection against direct impacts to the head.
For boxing that analogy would only work if one fighter sticks his arm out and the other one goes running right into it.
If you want to try a home made/ mythbuster type of experiment at home try this very simple experiment that would be better representative of taking a punch (in a very rough manner, but clarifying the idea). Attach a 2ft by 2ft and 1/2in thick piece of wood to the floor so it is standing and firmly attached to the ground. Now hang a ball (or an egg for extra fun) so that the edge of the ball is standing just slightly off the center of the board. Now hit the board and see how far the ball gets pushed. Try hitting the board with varying amounts of force and you’ll see that the ball moves proportionally to the force used. Now replace the board and use a 1in thick board and repeat the process, you will see that the ball moves less when using about the same amount of force you used with the 1/2in thick board.
That's just wrong..
First, I’m quite pissed that you’re trying to defend you’re article when I know for a fact that you’re wrong, absolutely wrong, Not to sound condescending but you’re work as a scientist has got nothing to do with what you wrote in the article, and quite understandably, majority of the points you raised are all based by your own theory and defies all the studies I’ve gone through as a certified fitness professional, I take it as an insult not just for myself but for the rest who have gone through similar studies/trainings. I’ve been butting heads with you, since I am confident that I know more than what you know when it comes to this field. And what you have is rather “an article by a scientist” and not a “scientific article” and that what you wrote goes against what I’ve and the rest of those who studied human, sports and exercise physiology, and what doctors of human kinetics learned in school.
Of course I’m not expecting you to back down nor believe what I said, but I challenge badlefthook.com and Scott Christ to ask people who have actually studied this field, they can ask Doctors, Fitness Coaches and Trainers and I can guarantee everyone, that they will disagree with what you wrote, especially with the 4 points I raised. I’m not gonna rebut anymore of what you wrote since I’ve already said my piece, and we’ll just end up going round in circles, those who are reading this can make their choice whether they’d accept your “flawed” theory or not.
And BTW..
your experiment is not quite right, What you need to do is to attach the box of wood (with different thickness) into a pole with an egg or a ball hanging inside, then hit the box, you’ll see that the ball movement will be the same for both, regardless of the thickness of the wood. try it and see for yourself.
No need to get angry
I’m sorry if you got pissed, I tried to address all of your concerns in a polite manner even when you acted rude from your very first comment. In one of your comments you mentioned they should ask people who have studied human physiology and specifically referred to Alex Ariza. Well sorry to break it to you friend but I have studied not only human physiology but also physics, at the Bachelor’s, Master’s, and PhD level, so I’m quite confident of my knowledge in those fields. You claim my theory is flawed based on the 4 points you raised on your initial comment, yet in two of those points (1 and 4) you are arguing against things I never claimed. When asked for, I provided you with studies that support what I wrote and yet your response keeps being it is wrong because I know so. In science (regardless of the field), people come up with new ideas or new theories all the time, most of the time they do so based on some evidence from other studies (either their own or from someone else), some times it can literally be a random idea that came while they were in the shower (Eureka!). The way knowledge is gained in any particular field is by having enough studies actually proving or disproving such theory, until that happens, no one can say with any certaninty that things are a fact or a theory is flawed. In most cases you’ll find studies that contradict each other, and the way to solve the problem is not by yelling you are wrong or I know more than you do, but by comparing the studies and looking for differences in the methodology that might explain the different outcome. In most cases both outcomes are actually true or accurate and it is the different circumstances (which at first glance might not seem obvious) in each study what created the different or contradicting result. You are in your right to think my theory is flawed and even to think of me as an idiot if so you please. Like I mentioned before, this was not a formal study trying to advance any scientific field. I also was not trying to give a lecture on human physiology or physics. My ultimate goal was to bring attention to the fact that height alone should not be used as the only deciding factor to assess how big or small someone should be, and if I’ve managed to do that, well, then I’d say mission accomplished.
by leo_solis on Mar 18, 2011 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
and the way to solve the problem is not by yelling you are wrong or I know more than you do, but by comparing the studies and looking for differences in the methodology that might explain the different outcome.
ahh, very well said. basically he’s angry with you because he does not agree with your theory. talk about being rational.
To make it clearer*2
You are correct that a concussion takes place when the brain hits the inner part of the skull as a result of an impact. However tell me, why is the brain impacting the inner skull? The reason is force pure and simple. When a force is applied to the head, that force gets translated from the impacting object, to the skull, and eventually to the brain. Again the inner ear has nothing to do with this, the neck muscles certainly act as a defense mechanism to deflect and absorb some of that force so that the brain remains in the same position relative to the skull during the impact as much as possible, but when this fails, the next line of defense is your skull. The whole purpose of the skull is not to give us our good looks, but to protect the brain, it will try to absorb some of that force to minimize the amount of force left to be transferred to the brain. There is a reason the thickest part of the skull is the frontal lobe (the forehead), and that is for protection against frontal impacts. If you think the skull thickness has nothing to do with providing protection to the brain, then all of the following are a complete waste of time: race car, football, hockey, baseball, military, and police helmets. Body armor, vehicle armor, steel-toe boots. The whole idea of all this things is to provide an extra layer of protection to absorb the force from an impact so that a less amount of force is transferred to the skull, and eventually to the brain.
Here we go again
#1:
I clearly stated that the data I used was limited and was collected from data available online. Like I mentioned in my response to another comment, I’m the first to admit this was not a formal study (If it were I’d first publish it in a science journal not a boxing website). What I clearly stated is that it is extremly common for boxing analysts and fans to always focus only on a fighter’s height when deciding who is bigger, and whether or not a fighter can or should go up in weight. I was merely trying to highlight that there is more to it than height. Especifically in the case of Mannny, just last week Floyd Sr. was again saying in an interview something along the lines of “this dwarf has a tiny frame, how can he punch as hard and take shots from bigger guys, you know why!”. I mentioned at the end of my writeup that the only way to know for certain would be with x-rays, but that at least based on what limited data I have available, I’d bet that he’d have a bigger frame (even if short) than most top welters. Is that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt like they say in courts, no, but what little evidence is availabe certainly suggest that it might be a possibility, yet no one seems to be aware of it. Regarding the 8in measurement being the result of his mass/muscles? I posted the average and standard deviations in one of my comments, and you’ll notice the spread of the data is relatively small (the entire range is 6in to 8in), so is just a 2in difference between the smallest feathwerweight and the biggest heavyweights, the reason why that range is so close is because your wrist has very little soft tissue around it (fat would be an issue in obese people but we are talking professional athletes here). Your wrist muscles are actually in your forearm (flex your wrist and see were the muscles bulges up). Only the insertion portion of the muscles (the thinnest part of them) actually runs within or alongside the wrist.
#2
I’m getting the feeling you just like arguing as loud as you can and don’t actually read whatever arguments are presented to you. If you had carefully read my previous response to you, you’d notice I pointed toward a paper in my response to driv. Which is the same one you are citing here. Had you read the entire paper and not just the abstract you would have found find these pieces of information:
“Frame size is commonly estimated by measuring externally the breadth of a bone or of sets of bones at the shoulders, hips, wrists, elbows, knees, and ankles. Distributions or summations of the values of these bony breadths are used to categorize individuals as having small, medium, or large frames or to calculate indexes of frame size "
“Measures of frame size are significantly and positively correlated with fat-free mass (FFM), body fatness, and bone mass and with body weight at all ages”
“In the men, biacromial and wrist breadths were significantly and positively associated with BMC and BMD.”
This study does nothing to prove or disprove that more bone marrow will produce RBC (they don’t even mention that). What bone mineral content and bone mineral density reflect is the strength of the bone, not how big the bone is. Like you mentioned it, a person can train to have stronger denser bones, not bigger ones. Again talking about athletes, if all things are equal (training, nutrition, life style), the guy with bigger bones has the edge over the smaller one.
You claim I said this"that the bigger the bone is, the denser it is" however if you read carefully what I said is “the bigger the wrist, the bigger the bone”, and then said “bigger and denser bones should mean more RBC”. Again assuming both fighters train equally to have their bones as dense as possible, the bone volume of the guy with a bigger frame would be bigger than the bone volume than the guy with smaller frame.
- Please read my response down below.
Response above
Ok, my response for your third point actually showed up higher than my response to your 1st two points, so look up instead of down.
Fantastic piece
As someone who studied sports science at college, it’s refreshing to read a peice about boxing. A rare beast. Well done
Sorry for the delay everyone
Hello everyone, I appologize for not responding sooner. When I checked the site yesterday evening and saw all the comments I registerd to start answering some of the questions that have come up and to my surprise there was a 24hr waiting period, so I’ve felt like a hockey player on the penalty box ever since, trying to get on the action but unable to. I’ll try to address all the concerns some of you have raised and I’m glad you found this interesting.
Ask the trainers
Those who studied human physiology specifically those who has a degree in Sports and Exercise physiology can attest to the fact, that the author’s ideas regarding the 4 points I raised are severely flawed, Conditioning coaches like ALEX ARIZA will also contradict what the “scientist author” wrote, Doctors who studied human kinetics will also disagree with him.
Seriously Alex Ariza? Sports and Exercise, like that degree that all the high-level college athletes get? So leo responded to every single claim you made in a completely rational sense and you come back blathering? Dude bring some evidence or continue to be the village idiot. Your choice.
"The bell that tolls for all in boxing belongs to a cash register."
-Bob Verdi
by Waldo Rastel on Mar 17, 2011 2:33 AM EDT up reply actions
Read my reply
I’ve posted my reply to Mr. Solis, just read it.
by Richter Tan on Mar 17, 2011 10:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Enjoyed the article very much
Refreshing and likely valid viewpoint, well supported (in my non-scientest opinion). Think Rock Marciano. Thickest- looking frame you could ever hope to see (those legs), 49-0.
There is no safety in numbers, or in anything else--James Thurber, 1939
Applaud to solis not just for the article, but for “graceful” reception of feedback, and objective responses. I’m taking notes as we speak. Solis is a saint! Great article.
"According to all the laws of aerodynamics the bumble-bee should not fly, but the bumble-bee does not know this and so flies anyway."
Anybody know how wrist size is measured?
I’m trying to measure mine but don’t know exactly where to measure. :)
For instance, looking at the back of my left hand, on the left side of my wrist, there is a bony protrusion (a bump) on the end of my ulna, just below where my hand starts. Just to make it clear that it’s a normal anatomical feature and not swelling or a tumor or anything like that, looking at the back of my right hand, the same sort of bump is on the right side of my right wrist.
Wen you measure your wrist, do you include the bump, or do you measure just above the bump, closer to the hand, in the recess between that bump and your hand?
I hope this helps
The bony protusion you mention is part of the ulna (it’s called the ulnar styloid), everyone has one. Lets say you want to measure your right wrist, so having your hand flat and extended feel with your left index finger the tip of this bump, now using your thumb from your left hand feel along your radius (towards the hand) and you’ll notice there is a bump in there too (much smaller though, visually it is hard to see in a lot of people), you should measure along this two spots. Ideally you should use a caliper (much better resolution) and obtain the breadth of the wrist, however usually a regulat tape measure is used to obtain the circumference (which is what is reported for boxers and what they measure when you buy a new watch).
Great article!!
Something I have never considered; good stuff!
Great article
Very interesting analysis and makes a lot of sense. Any chance you’d have the wrist size of MMA fighter Shane Carwin? I believe he has the biggest hands in the UFC with XXXXL gloves. This would explain his concussive power. Remember that punch he knocked out Gabriel Gonzaga with? That was just a short 4-5 inch punch which didn’t look to have a lot of velocity on it but it knocked Gonzaga out cold.
What really fooled Nazeem!
Hi Leo!
The second time I read your article in its entirety, I noticed your conversation with Sentimental which ran as follows;
leo!
still spewing your unsubstantiated fancies? kidding, of course. great work. i wonder if, all things being equal, when two fighters are rehydrating post-weigh-in, does the fighter with more bone mass "suffer" less while rehydrating because of less reliance on muscle mass? i don’t understand this stuff very well so maybe that makes no sense, but i’ve always wondered about rehydration process, given the really aggressive weight cutting that takes place. again, great work.
by Sentimental on Mar 16, 2011 10:41 AM EDT
Hey long time no see pal!
Sent, it’s been a while. The question you pose is an interesting one, I’d say that it would probably be the other way around. If you assume everything is the same except the ratio of bone-muscle mass, and both fighters dehydrate and then rehydrate the same exact percentage of weight for the fight, the guy with bigger bones actually had to lose more water in proportion to his soft tissue mass compared to the other guy, therefore I’d expect him to be weaker. That’s why I mentioned in my write up, the added stamina would only apply if the fighter cuts weight safely (meaning actually reducing muscle mass and fat) in preparation for a fight, as opposed to just dehydrating the day before. To put it in simpler terms, if a fighter cuts actual muscle before a fight lets say he ends up with 80lbs (random number) of muscle, so come fight night, he has 80lbs of muscle at full strenght. If instead he decided to come in at 85lbs of muscle and cut weight (to 80lbs) by dehydrating and then rehydrating, he’d have 85lbs of muscle but would be operating at less than 100%. So there is the trade off.
by leo_solis on Mar 17, 2011 12:34 AM EDT
This banter which I missed the first time prompted me to comment on your article which I found really fascinating and generally acceptable except the second half which correlates the weight of a boxer against his height and wrist size.
I noticed when you used the equation w = -469.47 + (7.523 x Height) + (14.874 x wrist),
that you were getting lower numbers than expected, and too high in some cases like Margarito (176.45). The weights of Pac vs Marga on fight night were actually listed as 148 and 165 respectively. Mayweather is widely believed to rehydrate 5 – 10 lbs in his last 2 fights. (Of course Floyd won’t allow showing his weights on fight night and rejects such weigh-ins.)
The large inconsistent values(sometimes low and at times too high) are due partly in assigning the same statistical samples derived from the general population, which do not consider whether, people are fat, thin or muscular. Boxers are generally muscular (but lean) and the difference may not show significantly in wrist measurements since it only varies slightly with fat or thin bodies.
But a more telling argument against this method is that boxers can chose in what weight to compete comes fight night and that brings us back to the rehydration techniques that most fighters who want to gain weight advantage by fighting in lighter divisions
For this reason, while the weight correlation may be helpful for trainers to consider the best fighting weight of their boxers, most will tend to ignore this method and concentrate on the modern techniques of weight conditioning fighters.
To bring light on what Sentimental and you have discussed on rehydration, I cite excerpts from a study I made on the subject with the title "Manny Pacquiao vs Henry Armstrong; Tale of the Tapes." The You Tube vblog (now deleted) refers to an article,
"How to Cut and Make Weight" by Martin Rooney, MHS, PT, CSCS, NASM.
(Note: The same article is likewise referenced in my Edit of Wikipedia’s definition of Catchweight.) In the video I mentioned, I made the following conclusions that may tend to disagree if not further enlighten portions of your own study.
"With modern weight and conditioning techniques, fighters are able to cut weight by 10 to 20 lbs for a "day before" weigh-in and recover most of it comes fight time without ill effects to their performance" – Martin Rooney, MHS, PT, CSCS, NASM
Weight and Conditioning Expert
1. Manny Pacquiao weighed from 144 to 149 at fight night since Pac-Morales 3 and which prompted Nazeem Richardson to comment, " Manny Pacquiao is a big dude. What’s amazing is how he can cut weight to 130" – but still come as a Welter at fight night.
2. And to reply on Sentimental’s query on whether a fighter with bigger bones will benefit more from weight cutting + rehydration, my answer is, yes. According to Martin Rooney and as the term dehydration implies, a fighter is not supposed to lose muscle while weight cutting. It has to be all water and wastes in the bowels to be able to recover the same in 24 hours.
Manny Pacquiao is not only gifted with bigger bones (indicated by his wrist size) but is one of the best practitioners of modern weight conditioning in the lower weight divisions.
And these fooled the analysts and Nazeem all these years.
Thanks for the input
Thank you very much your input and for the link to Mr. Rooney’s page, he provides some very intersting information. Something that caught my attention in there is his comment about how cutting weight and then rehydrating to be heavier on fight night gives a mental edge to the fighter (which is something that the fighters in the study I referred to also mentioned), which I completely agree. What I find a find a bit funny (I’m trying to think of a better word but had little sleep last night so my mind is not at its sharpest right now) about this, is that this mental edge is based on the belief that if you cut weight the day before and then rehydrate the day after you’ll be bigger than your opponent, thus potentially having the physical edge. Yet, it seems to me that almost everyone does this, so to me it is like say a middleweight suffering to make the welter limit to have an edge on fight night over a true welter, only to find his opponent is also a middleweight who went through the same mental process.
Regarding my response to Sentimental, I agree that a fighter should not cut muscle weight while weight cutting, in fact, I’d say that would be extremely hard to do, as getting rid of muscle mass is a very slow process that would not be possible to do in a manner of days before a fight. In the hypothetical scenario I presented to Sentimental at the end what I suggested is: option A to come in at your preferred weight and don’t cut weight (similar to what Manny does now a days) thus my example of 80lbs of muscle at 100% strenght, or option B, come in heavier (say 85lbs), cut weight by dehydrating and then recuperate that weight overnight with fluids and food, so you are again at 85lbs but at less than 100% (assuming a decrease in performance based on the results from the study I cited, which I admit might not always be the case).
Sentimental’s question to me (at least the way I understood it) was that if both fighters weigh the same, and both cut the same amount of weight through dehydration, and then both rehydrate the same, who would be more affected? Here is how I saw it in numbers(using random numbers):
weight of both fighters: 200lbs
Fighter A (big bone guy): soft tissue/bone weight proportion: 160/40 lbs
Fighter B (smaller bone guy): 170/30 lbs
Both fighters are expected to lose say 10lbs by dehydrating and then regain them again by rehydrating. Since water will be lost from the soft tissue only.
Fighter A had to lose and then regain 10lbs out of 160 or 1/16 of his soft tissue weight.
Fighter B had to lose and then regain 10lbs out of 170 or 1/17 of his soft tissue weight.
So again assuming both fighters become affected in the same way by losing and then regaining the weight, the guy that had to dehydrate and rehydrate more in proportion to his available water would be weaker in my opinion.
I hope that clarifies the rationale I used to answer Sentimental’s question.
A point of clarification on Mart Rooney article
When M Rooney stated "In the athlete’s mind, they are then heavier for the actual fight, and have the potential to be stronger than their opponent (as long as they don’t do the exact same thing)"; he meant real weight advantage which can only be negated if the opponent has undergone the same weight cutting + rehydration procedure.
Example 1. In Pac-Morales 2, Manny and Erik both weighed in at 129lbs. Manny was 144 and Erik was 139 at fight night. They both cut weight and rehyrated but Manny had a 5 lb advantage while his speed was enough to catch and KO Morales in the 3rd round.
Example 2: We all know by now Manny is most comfortable (speed + power) at 148. It is also known that Margarito’s walking weight is 170 to 175 lbs. Margo can easily make 154 at weigh-in and rehydrate to 170 without significantly getting slower than he already is. A 22 lbs weight advantage would be too much, hence the 150 catchweight (which resulted to a 165-148 = 17 lb weight adv for Margo) was negotiated and agreed.
You were right in assessing a fighter with larger bones may suffer more of dehydration under ideal conditions of all things being equal. This don’t happen most of the time though, since most fighters who cut weight weigh higher than at weigh-in (about 12 lbs. higher) and decides during rehydration in what weight to come in the ring (balance between speed or power)
It’s been a pleasure discussing with you these topics not normally seen in most forums and I look forward to more of such exchanges of information.
Pleasure is all mine
Thank you for the clarification on Mr Rooney’s comment, somehow I missed the part in the brackets the first time I read it.
It is a very interesting topic that unfortunately can play a big part in how a fight plays out (for better or worse). I see it as a way to bend the rules so a fighter can get an edge, in essence is a way to get around the whole point of having weight classes (although still keeping it whithin certain limits). In my personal preference I’d rather have the weigh in the day of the fight like in the old days so that fighters are truly fighting at the weight class they are supposed to. Ideally fighters would come to the fight following the option A I mentioned above (being at that weight without the need to dehydrate), of course that’s not going to happen, since it did not in the past which is why we have the current system, but oh well, they may say I’m a dreamer, I just hope I’m not the only one.
Welcome to the club, Leo
You’re not the only one. We believe that same day weigh-ins is the only way a Pacquiao vs Martinez can be realized as we have IMAGINEd it to happen
Manny Pacquiao (147) vs Sergio Martinez (160) at 154 lbs. Same Day weigh-ins.
Reminiscent of Henry Armstrong (147) vs Lew Jenkins (135) at 140 lbs.
The Glory more than the Money. After the fight, depending on how the system is received well by the fans, same day weigh-ins may be re-instituted in Boxing, sooner than later.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bad Left Hook
Related FanShots on Bad Left Hook
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
