|
Klitschko FTMFW!!!! (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lepanto |
dude...klitschko's reach was 6 inches more. lol
Now Rockin': Red Hot Chilli Peppers - By The Way a tribute to his brother's retirement. |
|
|
| Yan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
dude...klitschko's reach was 6 inches more. lol
Now Rockin': Red Hot Chilli Peppers - By The Way a tribute to his brother's retirement. |
Never mind. :wtf:
Haha. I was looking at the wrong boxer's stats for a moment. That's why I was wondering how they could be the same. My bad. Haha.
Either way, amazing fight. |
|
|
| Vlad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
dude...klitschko's reach was 6 inches more. lol
Now Rockin': Red Hot Chilli Peppers - By The Way a tribute to his brother's retirement. |
False.
Klitschko is 6 in. taller than Byrd - but the reach was the same. Both fighters had an arm length (from the pit to the end of the fist) of 26 in. On the other hand, the fact that Klitschko is taller and has such wide shoulders, it seems like he has a bigger reach. |
|
|
| Yan |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vlad
False.
Klitschko is 6 in. taller than Byrd - but the reach was the same. Both fighters had an arm length (from the pit to the end of the fist) of 26 in. On the other hand, the fact that Klitschko is taller and has such wide shoulders, it seems like he has a bigger reach. |
http://www.eastsideboxing.com/news.php?p=6480&more=1
Yay? Nay?
I dunno who to believe. x.x |
|
|
| Lepanto |
im right :)
byrd
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=004923
wlad
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=007035 |
|
|
| Vlad |
The "reach" or wingspan of a boxer is a misleading number to go by in calculating how far a persons punch will go because the second arm calculated in the punch is not a factor in determining how far one arm will go. Its all dependent on the width of the boxers shoulders and that individual arm that is doing the punching.
But of course Lepanto is going to come in and disagree and say im an idiot and that it makes no sense. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
because you never watch boxing and that only makes sense to you.
but ofcourse as i've said before, millions of people who have actively participated in the sport were all dumber than YOU. ;) |
|
|
| Vlad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
because you never watch boxing and that only makes sense to you.
but ofcourse as i've said before, millions of people who have actively participated in the sport were all dumber than YOU. ;) |
Ok Mr. Boxing pro... This is your only defense, you dont have an opinion of your own. Give me a physiological explanation that can defend your statement - other than, this is how it has been done for hundreds of years. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
stop thinking you're special and being so bitter. you're wrong. move on and live your life :o
you contridicted yourself when you said that the shoulders make a difference too. so therefore, they just measure the whole thing because you never know how much or how little of the shoulder he'll use. a guy with 80 inch reach but a 26 inch arm still has the advantage over a guy with the same arm but a smaller reach. ;) |
|
|
| Vlad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
stop thinking you're special and being so bitter. you're wrong. move on and live your life :o
you contridicted yourself when you said that the shoulders make a difference too. so therefore, they just measure the whole thing because you never know how much or how little of the shoulder he'll use. a guy with 80 inch reach but a 26 inch arm still has the advantage over a guy with the same arm but a smaller reach. ;) |
Obviously trainers take alot more specifics into consideration, but the general public shouldnt be swayed on the generalization of reach... take Mike Tyson for example, the guy was 5"10 (on a good day) and he had short arms and a short reach, but the guy was able to get into people and knock them out, but hes a special case. And yes I did say shoulder and thats why I say you include the shoulder (either half or whole) in the measurement, but you exclude the second arm because it is not involved in the reach of a punch thus I say Klitschko's reach is 55" (thats with the entire width of the shoulder) and Byrd's is 49", which is still 6" but its a more accurate measurement of the reach of a punch and that I can agree with. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| no one sits there and looks at the stats and figures out who to root for or bet money on ;). therefore no, once again it makes NO SENSE. those are just their stats. it doesn't display punching power, or blood preasure, or stamina all which would make the fight easier to predict. that's not the point of the official ringside stats. also the public isn't fooled or confused. people who actually watch boxing rather. :) |
|
|
| Vlad |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
no one sits there and looks at the stats and figures out who to root for or bet money on ;). therefore no, once again it makes NO SENSE. those are just their stats. it doesn't display punching power, or blood preasure, or stamina all which would make the fight easier to predict. that's not the point of the official ringside stats. also the public isn't fooled or confused. people who actually watch boxing rather. :) |
You just completely changed the subject into a completely different topic, fact of the matter is, you cant back up your "opinion" and I can. |
|
|
|
|
