Gameness and Size ????

[No Quarter Kennel]

I was reading Mr. Fox' post about looking or a smaller dog. It comes up all the time, in my opinion, about both dogs and human combat athletes. The prominent attitude is that smaller dogs are gamer and smaller fighters are always "pound for pound" better fighters than larger, human fighters.

I don't know if I buy it or not. Are smaller dogs ABLE to be gamer b/c their bodies don't require as much caloric intake, oxygen intake and that, combined with the fact that their larger opponent "hits" so much harder and causes so much more damage, in comparison, is this why they are seemingly gamer?

Take a large fighter. His ability to do damage is greater. The UFC has never had a HW fighter get past 3 title defenses. Is it b/c the fighters in that division are less game, or is it b/c they face people who could end the fight in one strike, at any time?

Smaller fighters can go all day. Why? Some reason are obvious. Less oxygen required. The ability to stay "less hot" is greater b/c of physical factors. Their opponents cannot do the equivalent damage of larger fighters (we all know exceptions but that doesn't apply to the "rule")

I don't think in general, smaller fighters, canine or human, are any more game than larger fighters. It's just my opinion and I'm only throwing this out there for convo sake. So what are some of your thoughts?

[Officially Retired]

Interesting argument.

I don't actually believe smaller fighters are GAMER than larger fighters ... but I do believe they're quicker, slicker, overall more athletic fighters, for all the physiological reasons you hinted upon.

One thing I disagree with, though, is POWER. Smaller fighters can be JUST as devastating (pound-for-pound) as bigger fighters.

In fact MANY of the greatest KO punchers of all time are lightweight and below.

Same thing as there are plenty of 30 lb dogs that DOA their opponents in :10-:20 min. Devastating!

A lightweight maybe couldn't knock out a heavyweight ... but neither could a heavyweight put a dent in a gorilla or a grizzly bear.

But in their own division, many lightweight fighters are truly devastating.

Jack

[No Quarter Kennel]

I agree with that Jack, and probably wasn't as clear as I needed to me, but more specifically, an "average" HW can still KO a guy in his division whereas an "average" LW probably will not simply b/c of the strength being enough, regardless of the power.

I believe many dogmen and fight fans both confuse "busy" or speed and action for gameness.

[EGK]

I don't see how that could be confused for gameness. A cur will stay busy at times but that is what the scratch line is for. Many times ppl dont want to know themselves. Smaller dogs may be more agile but a dog in good shape big or small should be able to stretch it out. Long as their hearts in it is the judgement of gameness. That's long as some human doesn't throw them in on a bum keep, sick, or some BS.

[No Quarter Kennel]

I agree 100% EGK. I was talking how it seems to me, and I could be wrong, that most people associate smaller dogs with more gameness than larger dogs. I agree with what you say.

[FrostyPaws]

I don't know if most people associate size with gameness. I can't say as I've ever heard that particular sentiment with any of the guys I knew/know. You may have a larger number strictly due to smaller dogs being the majority of dogs?

[Officially Retired]

I agree with that Jack, and probably wasn't as clear as I needed to me, but more specifically, an "average" HW can still KO a guy in his division whereas an "average" LW probably will not simply b/c of the strength being enough, regardless of the power.

You said the same thing differently.

Lightweights have the same ratio or proportion of strength/power "to other lightweights" as heavyweights have "to other heavyweights."

On average lightweights punch other lightweights with at least as much power as heavyweights punch other heavyweights.

Just because most lightweights can't step up and hit a heavyweight with the same kind of authority, doesn't mean their punch isn't hard while punching other lightweights on down.

Again, Mike Tyson's strength/power as a heavyweight wouldn't help him much against a gorilla or a grizzly bear ... because, now, proportionally, Mike Tyson would be a harmless weakling compared to one of those
But against a human being his size Tyson was devastating. Well, the same thing is true with lightweights: they too can be devastating at their own weights.

Let me provide proof of what I am talking about:

Joe Louis had the highest KO % of any heavyweight Champion, and finished his heavyweight career with a 66-3 record (52 wins by KO) which is a 75% KO ratio as heavyweight Champion.

Roberto Duran had the highest KO % of any lightweight Champion, and left his career at lightweight with a 62-1 record (55 by KO), which is an 87% KO ratio as lightweight Champion.

What made Duran so remarkable is that he moved all the way up to Super Middleweight, 5 weight divisions over his best division and still hurt people.
Sure, Duran's knockout ability was diminished at the bigger weight, but AT LIGHTWEIGHT, in his prime, Roberto Duran was pure poison.

You are simply wrong and you simply don't understand the concept of PROPORTION.

Plainly said, lightweight fighters hit just as hard (if not harder) proportionally as any other fighters. Again, back to dogs, tiny 31 lb dogs (like BB Red) are killing dogs THEIR SIZE just as decisively (if not more decisively) as bigger dogs do against dogs their size. Just because BB Red couldn't go up in weight and kill a 50 lber like that, doesn't mean she couldn't do it to a 31 lber, because by golly she did!

I could roll out a list of lightweight boxers that trump heavyweight fighters in KOs and KO percentages.
Same as I can roll out a list of little dogs whose ability to overpower and kill dogs their size is every bit as awesome as any big dog.

And the the little dogs fight at a faster rate too.

Jack

[No Quarter Kennel]

I wasn't talking about proportions. I do understand it. It is simple math. Like a 100lb man squatting 300 is a stronger PROPORTIONAL athlete than a 200lb man squatting 400. I get all of that.

What I am saying is that a average puncher in the HW division CAN KO another HW fighter when he hits him on the button simply b/c he is a large, strong man hitting a Skull Structure that is limited in it's abilities to take a punch.

I think your Duran example is a great awesome. It shows he lost POWER as he gained weight. WHY? B/c it wasn't his optimal weight in his prime as an athlete. He could still get it done, but I believe he was at his best when he was at his lightest.

All I was saying, is that even I, at 6'1", 240.8 (this morning - I need to drop some weight), can KO another large guy simply b/c I'm big. Meaning, an average or BELOW average (like me) can do that b/c of size and strength. In layman terms, b/c I am big. An average or below average SMALL fighter typically cannot do this b/c of the lack of size and strength, even compared to others his size. I doubt you'll agree with me on this, but it is true. Not including exceptions, but the general rule of a population. There is only so much ability the average skull has in its abilities to be KO'd or thwart off the KO.

This dumbass subject I started has gotten way off course, but it's a good discussion anyways.

All have a great weekend.

[Officially Retired]

I wasn't talking about proportions. I do understand it. It is simple math. Like a 100lb man squatting 300 is a stronger PROPORTIONAL athlete than a 200lb man squatting 400. I get all of that.

That is great. You do get it. Sort of.

That is pure strength you're talking, whereas hitting hard also has to do with speed, timing, and leverage ... and lightweights can have that as well (or better) than heavyweights

Unfortunately, you lose whatever grasp had as you keep going

What I am saying is that a average puncher in the HW division CAN KO another HW fighter when he hits him on the button simply b/c he is a large, strong man hitting a Skull Structure that is limited in it's abilities to take a punch.

What makes you think that "the average lightweight" can't KO another LW fighter?

Do you think there aren't KOs in the LW division? I don't understand why you keep talking as if you've not just read what I said above (or have never actually seen a fight).

Lighter weight fighters KO each other with impunity. All the time. But they also have moves, athleticism, etc.

Heavyweights are usually boring SLUGS to watch by comparison.

I think your Duran example is a great awesome. It shows he lost POWER as he gained weight. WHY? B/c it wasn't his optimal weight in his prime as an athlete. He could still get it done, but I believe he was at his best when he was at his lightest.

Of course he was at his best, at lightweight, because of the PROPORTION thing I was talking about. Having an extra 40 lb of FAT isn't the same thing as having an extra 40 lb of MAN.

Duran was an old, little guy trying to hit BIG guys, and only because he was so great at his proper division could he do so. At his proper division, he was simply poison.

All I was saying, is that even I, at 6'1", 240.8 (this morning - I need to drop some weight), can KO another large guy simply b/c I'm big. Meaning, an average or BELOW average (like me) can do that b/c of size and strength. In layman terms, b/c I am big.

I will say this, again, for the third time, so that maybe it will sink in

Yes, you are big and strong for a man ... but compared to a 350-lb SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THE CONGO JUNGLE you are a fragile weakling and couldn't put a dent in one: you'd be torn to pieces. Also, even when compared to THE BEST big men out there, you couldn't KO a single one of them. So, AGAIN, despite how big you THINK you are ... based on the same theory of PROPORTION ... your punch does not carry any more proportional power as anyone else's, of any size.

An average or below average SMALL fighter typically cannot do this b/c of the lack of size and strength, even compared to others his size. I doubt you'll agree with me on this, but it is true. Not including exceptions, but the general rule of a population. There is only so much ability the average skull has in its abilities to be KO'd or thwart off the KO.

I don't know what planet you're on, or what shortage is going on upstairs, but YOU ARE JUST WRONG ... "the average" small fighter can KO "the average" small fighter with the same kind (if not more) authority as the average big guy can KO the average big guy.

Here are the KO percentages of THE TOP 6 hardest-hitting heavyweights of all time:

George Foreman 76-5 (68 by KO) which is 84%
Mike Tyson: 50-6 (44 by KO) which is 79%
Ernie Shavers: 74-14 (68 by) which is 77%
Joe Louis: 66-3 record (52 by KO) which is 75%
Jack Dempsey: 55-6 (45 by KO) which is 74%
Sonny Liston: 50-4 (39 by KO) which is 72%

I was actually wrong before: FOREMAN had the greatest KO percentage of any Champion. (Shavers was devastating, but never Champion). Now then, AGAIN, these are the hardest-hitting men who have ever lived ... at the "biggest" division it is possible for a human being to hold. Are you with me? Now then, let's compare these men to the POWER of lighter-weight fighters (middleweight on down)

Carlos Zarate BW: 66-4 (63 by KO), which is 90%
Aaron Pryor JW: 39-1 (35 by KO) which is 87.5%
Roberto Duran LW: 62-1 (55 by KO), which is 87%
Thomas Hearns WW 32-1 (28 by KO) which is 85%
Julio Cesar Chavez JLW: 55-0 (45 by KO) which is 82%
John Mugabi MW: 42-7 record (39 by KO) which is 79%

Now then, ALL of these lighter fighters have a GREATER KO% than any heavyweight who has ever lived, except George Foreman ... and 3 of these men beat him too.

I cut Chavez' record off at Junior Lightweight, Duran's off at lightweight, and Hearns at Welterweight (before they stepped up in weight).

So, I am sorry bud, but you simply don't know what you're talking about. You keep picturing a light guy hitting a heavyweight. You keep NOT understanding that EVERYTHING (skull size, bone density, etc.) is proportionally smaller in lightweights too ... so they can KO each other with as much (arguably MORE) authority than the big guys. There are the stats right there for all to be seen.

There is absolutely nothing to debate about it. Denial isn't rebuttal, it is only denial

You can't show me ANY heavyweight with a greater KO% than the greatest of the lighter-weight fighters

The lighter-weight fighters BLOW AWAY the heavier-weight fighters, in just about every category, pound-for-pound. And they blow them away in speed, moves, and athleticism too (# of punches thrown, etc.)

This dumbass subject I started has gotten way off course, but it's a good discussion anyways.
All have a great weekend.

It is a good discussion, no doubt about it.

Cheers,

Jack

[S_B]

The bottom line, in as simple terms as one can get....it all boils down to ability.


Size can NOT determine ability, you either have it or you don't. And more often than not, when you get significant size, ability decreases.

That doesn't mean there isn't exceptions to the rule. I have seen very fast, very agile larger fighters with finish.

My personal preference would be right in the middle of small and large.

Great topic NQ, we do not all have to agree, how interesting would that be?

S_B