By Bob Smith: There has been a tremendous amount of scientific and technical development since the turn of the last century (by this I mean 1900), but unfortunately very little of it has penetrated the boxing world, or even sports in general.
Very real, key, critical factors in a boxers success or failure are treated in the most general of terms “fast hands” “a good chin” “good stamina” a “hard puncher” and so forth, and at best comparisons are made anecdotally.
For instance, an example would be an interview with Shane Mosley, in which he is asked the question: “Who hits harder, Mayweather or Pacquiao?” Obviously, he answered Pacquiao, and incidentally he did mention that after being hit with some powerful Pacquiao punches he literally lost track of both time and rounds in the boxing match.
ESPN sport science videos do a good job of introducing some scientific calculations and measurements into the realm of sports. Some very interesting and exciting examples are: which kick has the most pounds per square inch from different martial arts styles – Tae Kwon Do, Karate, Kickboxing, or Capoiera (a Brazilian martial arts form that integrates dance, music, and martial arts in a “game”.) Other ones discuss the vertical leap, wing span, or speed of famous basketball players. Others compare the achievements of elite athletes to otherwise non-comparable processes – for instance, the bull rush of Ray Lewis can be shown to carry more impact than that of a battering ram administered by a veteran swat team leader.
Given all of the data available, why aren’t these figures available to the general public regarding famous boxers? The fact that Gennady Golovkin can punch harder than the average heavyweight is scientifically demonstrable, so why not include this, either in promotions, or through, as has been suggested, live sensors in a match. And regarding fast hands, among current boxers, it would likely be Nonito Donaire or Amir Khan, this too is measurable, both in terms of single punches or combinations. Endurance tests also could be developed – Floyd Mayweather is the best conditioned athlete in the sport, and often spars 15 minute rounds. This too would be demonstrable with even simple calculations of heart rate and lactic acid build up after scientifically controlled tests. Of course, it is not good to recommend testing a chin, but arguably Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. has the best chin pound for (overweight) pound in boxing.
One counterargument would be that promoters avoid it because fans would find it boring. Yet, in most countries illiteracy has been eradicated, and judging by the way even middle school kids pore over baseball or football or basketball stats, it might well enrich the sport and attract a wider audience. Also, perhaps it is not done because it would diminish the role of hype, but isn’t it true that scientifically verifiable facts might well make a fight more interesting – for example, between a fighter with “fast hands” versus one with a “good chin” or one who is a “hard puncher.” Why the bias against controlled experimentation and comparability?
Perhaps it could be argued that what matters most is in the ring and the given and take that occurs there. But these quantitative factors are important, even if they may well be overshadowed in a match by psychological factors, the natural given and take of a match, or other factors. Interestingly, while the PSI – or pounds for square inch – of a boxer may be measured, such factors as speed, angles, and being at an unexpected time and place are much more difficult to measure. Arguably, a punch from Manny Pacquiao is all the more devastating because of this, and a slower, more predictable punch would be much easier to handle for most boxers.
This has something I’ve been thinking about for some time, and am just now getting down to writing an article about it. Why then is boxing dogmatically mired in the pre-scientific age, when with instant communication, universal literacy, and the wide variety of ways to measure physics calculations are so readily available?
This could have important public health implications also for boxers – for instance, if studies could show that a certain amount of PSI taken at a given time will necessarily lead to negative consequences or brain injuries, boxers could be required to wear headgear, as is mandated in Olympic and other amateur boxing, or the sport could be banned altogether. At the same time perhaps it is the case that headgear would end up being a net negative, because it would allow boxers to absorb more blows and sustain more lasting damage whereas without it they would have been knocked out and the match stopped.
But in any case, it is important to do what is best for public health, and just as gladiatorial combat is now banned, as is all of the other games the ancient Romans would discuss that took place in stadiums, perhaps boxing would be modified from its present form or banned altogether for boxer safety. Alternatively, the arguments for banning boxing could be dis-proven – the point is that evidence itself should not be avoided for any reason – marketing money, being a sports fan, ignorance, whether individual or widespread, and so on.
Comments are closed.