Punching power - analysis.

Choynski and Johnson were jailed for being in a mixed race fight which was illegal at the time but the jail itself - looking for a way to control their own inmates allowed them to box - this is where the rumours (later confirmed) started about Choynski training Johnson. Johnson said that Choynski hit the hardest of everyone ever p4p. I doubt that is true in a pure sense but perhaps he had this sense of positioning/timing that added a serious snap to his punches like, Roy jones, Naz, Tyson who when training/reflexes faded away.

Tyson for example had a vicious left hook which he used to great effect but both Morrison and Tua had more brute force behind it. Klitschko the younger has been rated as about an equal puncher to lewis by his trainer and superior to that of Tyson.. again a little exaggerated I feel but theres no doubting the great force behind the punch.

There are other boxers in the HW division who seem to be nothing more than power punchers with little all else - cant box cant move cant defend - sanders rahman etc

Seems to be a tough ask - but how would you go about distinguishing the puncher types and who would you put forward as an example for such a category?

If we are talking guys with punches and not a deal else to go with the mix would guess Tony Galento wouldn't be a bad shout. Often upheld as something of a comedy figure in the sport but as Windy has long argued that hook of his was something you really did not want to find yourself in the way of.

Jeffries said the same about Choynski, Shah.

As to the puncher types and examples, I believe it's easily accomplished when we remember that force = acceleration x mass, ( or something like that, anyway. ) A Ford Fiesta, having accelerated to twenty miles per hour, will likely hit you harder than an eighteen wheeler hitting you at five miles per hour.

It follows, then, that men like Fitzsimmons, McGovern, Ketchel & co., all the way through to Shavers, could hit like a mule because they could find the perfect distance, time a man coming in and hit with great acceleration.

It's a wee bit more complicated at heavyweight, of course, since we have men like Joe Louis or Jack Dempsey who were very much like the fighters above, but we also have men such as Jeffries, etc., through to, let's say, the Klitschkos, who had the mass to really hurt a man with slower punches.

Some, of course, ( Foreman or Liston, maybe? ) occupied the middle ground and had elements of each; good timing and judgement of distances combined with the ability to turn every ounce of their mass into their punches.

There was an excellent article about this at the IBRO website some time ago but, sadly, the link to it no longer works. It's a pity, since it's a fascinating subject.

On the subject of punchers this is what Fireman Jim Flynn had to say on the subject of the hardest he faced:

"If you ask me, I'll say that the hardest hitter I ever went up against was Sam Langford. I fought most of the top heavies of the last 20 years, Johnson amongst them, and I think Langford couold knock a fellow colder than any of them. It was like being hit by a baseball bat. He hit you so hard you didn't feel it. It was like taking ether, you just went to sleep"

Would be a braver man than I to suggest a guy of 5ft 7 could be the hardest hitter in the division history, but when one remembers Flynn fought many a great fighter, up to and including Dempsey his opinions should not be dismissed out of hand either.

Certainly agree that Flynn's testimony would be invaluable, and particularly so since he wasn't the sort to have an axe to grind. Harry Wills was also extremely complimentary about Langford's punching power.

All told, Ol' Sam was one heck of a fighter.

No problem windy - we shall make our own, you've given us a good start.

Mass punchers

Klitschkos
Jefferies
Lewis?

Acceleration punchers

Shavers
Fitzsimmons
Mcgovern
Ketchell

Middle Ground

Foreman
Liston

How would you categorize Ali/khan etc - terrifyingly quick but unable to generate that same kind of force even when sitting on their punches. That is a 50mph reliant robin hitting you which SHOULD do much more dmage than it does - or even calzaghe - who hits hard despite the slapper tag on him.

Watched a science documentary a few years ago that theorized that 200-220lbs was the optimum for punching power, heavier than that and the speed of the punch would be slower while below that and you haven't got the weight behind it.

Above all though technique is the all important thing which I think let Ali down and is letting Khan down now, for all their speed they punch with flawed technique thus not generating the power they should.

Body shape can also play a big part, Hamed got his power from his incredibly strong legs, fighting at featherweight he had the legs of a big lightweight, the biggest muscles in the body are all lower body so it's hugely important to use them.

Ali, Khan - its speed and accumulation.

Same for Martinez. He has very, very fast hands - and its something you forget unless you go back and watch him regularly - is quite how fast his punches are.

Hence that left that put Williams to sleep - was a very, very,very quick exploitation of a technical limitation.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Watched a science documentary a few years ago that theorized that 200-220lbs was the optimum for punching power, heavier than that and the speed of the punch would be slower while below that and you haven't got the weight behind it.

Above all though technique is the all important thing which I think let Ali down and is letting Khan down now, for all their speed they punch with flawed technique thus not generating the power they should.

Body shape can also play a big part, Hamed got his power from his incredibly strong legs, fighting at featherweight he had the legs of a big lightweight, the biggest muscles in the body are all lower body so it's hugely important to use them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv2leT3cBOU - Eubanks adjustment to technique

How about mayweather? Technique, speed, grown into mass , strength, timing and an expert at judging distance yet his knockouts come through skill and outboxing the opponent rather than brute force like SRR - all the tools and he generated force enough to smash granite.

Mayweather should be a big puncher, more so than Pacquiao which is the very strange thing but he's not the type of fighter who goes looking for a knockout, seems happy enough cruising to decision wins.

Punch power comes from timing and the swivel from the hips, transferred through the side of the body through to the shoulders and arms and then punching through the area that is hit. Speed is another factor but not a prime factor.

Mayweather looks like he might be cautious of damaging his hands, so doesn't lay into his opponent with punches quite as full blooded as, say, the one Pacman KO'd Hatton with. Purely conjecture on my part but makes sense.

Yeah, i found that strange - even though he doesnt go looking for the knockout - is there anyone who hits cleaner than mayweather? I'd imagine he'd hae a few more knockouts - especially since he has chosen a slightly more forward and flatter footed stance to impose himself on the other fighter. Does he have problems with his hands?

Oxy I was watching Louis decking braddock earlier and punching his jab out of the way before decking him with his right - I imagine having a clear path to the face gives you an opportunity to throw a straighter rather than a slightly rounded punch and therefore cleaner - just the same as that lazy right hand of Williams which seems to drop and rise up again to defensive position at its own leisure - nice clean path for the punch.

Az - what about sanders? he doesnt even use a technique - he just swings from where he is standing and he hits bloody hard.

ShahenshahG wrote:Yeah, i found that strange - even though he doesnt go looking for the knockout - is there anyone who hits cleaner than mayweather? I'd imagine he'd hae a few more knockouts - especially since he has chosen a slightly more forward and flatter footed stance to impose himself on the other fighter. Does he have problems with his hands?

Oxy I was watching Louis decking braddock earlier and punching his jab out of the way before decking him with his right - I imagine having a clear path to the face gives you an opportunity to throw a straighter rather than a slightly rounded punch and therefore cleaner - just the same as that lazy right hand of Williams which seems to drop and rise up again to defensive position at its own leisure - nice clean path for the punch.

Az - what about sanders? he doesnt even use a technique - he just swings from where he is standing and he hits bloody hard.

He had a fair few KOs at SFW and LW. The higher up he goes his KO percentage has decreased. That should say something. Bob Foster was considered a devestating but his punches didb't make Frazier blink and there was only a 20lb difference.

Mayweather like Calzaghe and Malignaggi has big problems with his hands, used to wear winning gloves to try and protect his hands as much as possible, remember he broke his hand badly against Carlos Hernandez resulting in him touching down.

Az - what about sanders? he doesnt even use a technique - he just swings from where he is standing and he hits bloody hard

Biltong.

i'm going to try that stuff but seriously he throws running forward, leaning back - fall forward, off his toes - anywhere and everywhere - yet he hits very very hard you can tell by the impact. Is strength a seperate part of the equation or does it come under mass. I think you might enjoy it - he hit vitali with it in 04 and nearly knocked him down. I know you dont rate vitali but for anyone to hit so hard that they can knock around 240 pounds of heavyweight without technique, balance or great speed is mind boggling.

ShahenshahG wrote:i'm going to try that stuff but seriously he throws running forward, leaning back - fall forward, off his toes - anywhere and everywhere - yet he hits very very hard you can tell by the impact. Is strength a seperate part of the equation or does it come under mass. I think you might enjoy it - he hit vitali with it in 04 and nearly knocked him down. I know you dont rate vitali but for anyone to hit so hard that they can knock around 240 pounds of heavyweight without technique, balance or great speed is mind boggling.

It could be that at the time of hitting, every facet comes into play. There isn't one way of hitting the perfect punch. Some boxers can flatten someone moving backwards.

I do rate VK as a boxer. I rate Wlad higher. Just dont like the Halo people place on his head and how he likes to wear it.

Don't think we'll ever know where punching power comes from, it's very primal and is very rarely taught.

azania wrote:Punch power comes from timing and the swivel from the hips, transferred through the side of the body through to the shoulders and arms and then punching through the area that is hit. Speed is another factor but not a prime factor.

Of course it's a prime factor. Unless, of course, you can convincingly re write the laws of physics to prove otherwise.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Punch power comes from timing and the swivel from the hips, transferred through the side of the body through to the shoulders and arms and then punching through the area that is hit. Speed is another factor but not a prime factor.

Of course it's a prime factor. Unless, of course, you can convincingly re write the laws of physics to prove otherwise.

Not exactly Mr Windmill. Ali was probably the fastest HW in history. But I wouldn't put his punch power near Shavers who was decidely slower. Ditto Maidana and Khan. I'd say that timing is a more important factor than speed although speed is important.

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Punch power comes from timing and the swivel from the hips, transferred through the side of the body through to the shoulders and arms and then punching through the area that is hit. Speed is another factor but not a prime factor.

Of course it's a prime factor. Unless, of course, you can convincingly re write the laws of physics to prove otherwise.

Not exactly Mr Windmill. Ali was probably the fastest HW in history. But I wouldn't put his punch power near Shavers who was decidely slower. Ditto Maidana and Khan. I'd say that timing is a more important factor than speed although speed is important.

Because Ali didn't turn his mass into his shots. Similarly, Valuev isn't a big hitter because he lacks the speed / acceleration element.

To be a genuinely big hitter requires both, and each is equally important.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:Punch power comes from timing and the swivel from the hips, transferred through the side of the body through to the shoulders and arms and then punching through the area that is hit. Speed is another factor but not a prime factor.

Of course it's a prime factor. Unless, of course, you can convincingly re write the laws of physics to prove otherwise.

Not exactly Mr Windmill. Ali was probably the fastest HW in history. But I wouldn't put his punch power near Shavers who was decidely slower. Ditto Maidana and Khan. I'd say that timing is a more important factor than speed although speed is important.

Because Ali didn't turn his mass into his shots. Similarly, Valuev isn't a big hitter because he lacks the speed / acceleration element.

To be a genuinely big hitter requires both, and each is equally important.

OK, SRL was a speedster but punch power was not his main thing. Valuev isn't a big hitter because he was, to be polite, useless.

You really are incapable of admitting you are wrong aren't you?

Force is a push or a pull exerted by an energy in motion. Since Newton's laws of motion are based on the concept of force, the force is measured in Newtons (N).

Force (f) = mass (m) x acceleration (a)

where: acceleration formula is the change in velocity (v) over a period of time (t).

So what is velocity? Velocity is a vectored physical quantity which defines the rate of change of position of the mass over a period of time. So you can calculate the instantaneous velocity with the below formula:

Velocity (v) = ∆ (Distance) / ∆ (Time) = ∆ d / ∆ t

Hence, the average force formula is: Force (f) = m x a = m x v / t = m x (∆d / ∆t)


Source :

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/force-formula-for-force.html

Guess you know better, eh?

Over to you then, Isaac.

I've said above that speed is a factor. But I dont believe its the main factor otherwise the fastest boxers would also be the biggest hitters.

I always look at Hearns and Holmes as similar fighters (Hearns worked the body more), but P4P Hearns was the bigger hitter even though after they had stopped jamming, they both planted their feet and threw the right cross. Also Pipino Cuevas was not the fastest WW, but a devestating puncher.

It appears that in boxing, some things defy science or cant be explained by science as we know it.

Look at the right that Foreman KO'd Moorer with. To me it didn't look like the hardest punch he threw that night, but the effects are there for all to see. Everything was perfect even though the punch travelled a short distance.

azania wrote:even though the punch travelled a short distance.

Which entirely fits Newton's formula, and the part about acceleration being the position of mass over distance and time. Jack Dempsey was a murderous puncher because he knew how to turn all his mass into a punch and he instinctively generated tremendous acceleration over short distances.

As one historian described it, a visible shudder went through his opponents when he landed his short hooks. For visual proof watch the Firpo fight.

PS. What you actually said is that speed "isn't a prime factor."

It is.

Nobody claimed it was the most important factor, but Newton's Laws of Motion declare it to be an equal and, therefore, prime factor.

Sorry Az but you 100% wrong without any shadow of a doubt and the fact you're posting on here proves you are not a genius in the mould of Isaac Newton.

HumanWindmill wrote:

azania wrote:even though the punch travelled a short distance.

Which entirely fits Newton's formula, and the part about acceleration being the position of mass over distance and time. Jack Dempsey was a murderous puncher because he knew how to turn all his mass into a punch and he instinctively generated tremendous acceleration over short distances.

As one historian described it, a visible shudder went through his opponents when he landed his short hooks. For visual proof watch the Firpo fight.

PS. What you actually said is that speed "isn't a prime factor."

It is.

Nobody claimed it was the most important factor, but Newton's Laws of Motion declare it to be an equal and, therefore, prime factor.

But Foreman at his peak wasn't the fastest HW around. But how does Tyson fit into that equation. Exceptionally fast handspeed but although a very hard puncher, no way near as hard as Foreman or Shavers who did not have his speed?

Speed is a very important factor no doubt. But I would put timing as a more important factor. Case in point being Rocky. Very slow foot and hand speed but an exceptionally hard puncher. Some boxers are simply heavy handed who seem to defy logic.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Sorry Az but you 100% wrong without any shadow of a doubt and the fact you're posting on here proves you are not a genius in the mould of Isaac Newton.

Maybe you're on par with Newton then. In thaty case, please explain how Tyson, a faster boxer, who planted his feet when punching did not have the same punch power as a slower, equally weighted puncher like Shavers.

You are making the fundamental errors of mechanics here, mass and weight are two very different things, Shavers and Tyson don't punch with 220lbs of mass it would be far less than that. Acceleration and speed are also two very different things, the acceleration at the point the punch connects combined with the mass behind it determines the force of a punch not the speed and not the weight of the fighter.

My point in all this is that punch power is not an exact science.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You are making the fundamental errors of mechanics here, mass and weight are two very different things, Shavers and Tyson don't punch with 220lbs of mass it would be far less than that. Acceleration and speed are also two very different things, the acceleration at the point the punch connects combined with the mass behind it determines the force of a punch not the speed and not the weight of the fighter.

I'd say that Tyson acceleration was higher than Shavers. Faster than Rocky also, but I'd argue that Shavers and Rocky were harder punchers than Tyson.

It actually would be an exact science, it is through access to a particular fighter taking into account body shape when punching theoretically possible to calculate the force with which a fighter punches.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It actually would be an exact science, it is through access to a particular fighter taking into account body shape when punching theoretically possible to calculate the force with which a fighter punches.

It is an exact science to calculate the force each fighter punches. I believe they did that with Enzo Mac. But the question is why some fighters punch harder that others. I'll use the Tyson/Rocky/Shavers/Foreman conundrum.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:You are making the fundamental errors of mechanics here, mass and weight are two very different things, Shavers and Tyson don't punch with 220lbs of mass it would be far less than that. Acceleration and speed are also two very different things, the acceleration at the point the punch connects combined with the mass behind it determines the force of a punch not the speed and not the weight of the fighter.

I'd say that Tyson acceleration was higher than Shavers. Faster than Rocky also, but I'd argue that Shavers and Rocky were harder punchers than Tyson.

The initial acceleration could and probably is higher but at the point of impact i'm unsure, it still doesn't take into account how much mass there is behind the punch which is determined by the body make up of a fighter.

azania wrote:

Imperial Ghosty wrote:It actually would be an exact science, it is through access to a particular fighter taking into account body shape when punching theoretically possible to calculate the force with which a fighter punches.

It is an exact science to calculate the force each fighter punches. I believe they did that with Enzo Mac. But the question is why some fighters punch harder that others. I'll use the Tyson/Rocky/Shavers/Foreman conundrum.

The force with which a fighter punches is the 'hardness'.

So I said earlier that speed was an important factor, but not THE most important. Your alanysis seems to be in agreement with what I said. Is that correct. Bear in mind that my knowledge of physics starts and ends with wiring a plus (with instructions).

Speed is an irrelevance in this, a heavier and faster object can have less force behind it than a lighter and slower object.

In it's most simple form as Windy has already pointed out, force is mass times the acceleration, the issue with that is the fact a person throwing a punch isn't using dead weight so calculating the mass is easier done in reverse.

OK, well Shavers punched with greater force but had less acceleration and equal mass.

As I said, its not an exact science. Perhaps God given given ability comes into play.

That is actually incorrect, you don't know the mass with which he punched nor do you know the acceleration, two fighters who weigh the same and punch with the same velocity don't necessarily and probably don't punch with the same acceleration or mass.

Talent is an application of the science behind it.

I'm not going to get into the science behind it, but what I was told when I did boxing is that punch power comes from the transference of weight from the calf thru to the hips, shoulder and the punch thru when it connects. I also know that Tyson was the same weight as Shavers, faster, aggressive but Shavers had the bigger punch. Perhaps Shavers was one of those freaks of nature.

Tyson being the same weight as Shavers doesn't mean a thing.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Tyson being the same weight as Shavers doesn't mean a thing.

Maybe so. But still doesn't explain how shavers seems to buck conventional science. And Rocky also. I'm old school. I'll just say they were heavy handed.

No offence Az but you seem to basing these assumptions on absolutely nothing, I would wager you haven't got a clue how much mass a boxer can get behind a punch so have no basis to say they buck conventional science. It can be explained scientifically, it isn't some unnatural force we're talking about.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:No offence Az but you seem to basing these assumptions on absolutely nothing, I would wager you haven't got a clue how much mass a boxer can get behind a punch so have no basis to say they buck conventional science. It can be explained scientifically, it isn't some unnatural force we're talking about.

No offence taken and if you wagered you would win. I'm simply trying to get my head around what seems to be the conventional scientific idea that seems to turn logic upside down.

The simple nature of theoretical mechanics is what makes the practical side so complicated. Force is measured in straight lines, so simply put what is the influence of a force on a body in a particular direction. Theoretically sounds easy but a boxer punching doesn't punch in straight lines so you have to try and calculate all the small forces going in different directions to then try and calculate the net force going in one direction.

In short something that sounds easy to calculate is bloody difficult.

In short, there are factors we cant accurate calculate but we can assume. Therefore not an exact science.

Anyway, I cant take more of this science. If everything can be explained away it would take away some of the mystique.

You can accurately calculate it but it is very difficult.

I think Part of Shavers power came from his long arms. Long armed guys often seem to generate alot of power. 80 inches for a 6 foot nothing guy is pretty long.

Although I don't know the exact measurement, didn't Langford, Saddler, Liston and Hamed all have pretty long reach too?

I've also noticed big punchers usually have extremely muscley backs. Look at Fitzsimmons, Ruddock, Hearns, Shavers, Dempsey and Cleveland Williams. Fitzsimmons and Hearns both had stalk legs, but had massive power. Whereas other guys had tree trunk legs and that's where they got their power. So I'm definitely of the opinion that there is no exact science, no perfect build. It just is.

Hamed may have had long arms (he did) but so did Barry McGuigan. I wouldn't say Barry was Hamed's equal in punch power.

But Hamed didn't have the huge back. Barry did. Hamed had massive thighs and calves. Barry had skinny legs,

Just goes to show. There is no one size fits all and no prototype imo. As you say, it just is.