Body Shape - How much does it matter?

No...I dont mean on a woman. Although im a chubby chaser myself

On fighters

So many different examples but:

David Haye would come in looking totally ripped and athletic

Frank Bruno was a weights freak would come in looking like a bodybuilder

Joe Calzaghe never did any weights and used to come in looking like a long distance runner

Lennox often carried a few extra pounds later on

I know the easy answer is 'whatever your comfortable with' but in all honesty...was Dereck Chisora really comfortable coming in the shape he did against Fury?

Enzo Maccarinelli came in with man boobs against David Haye and now he had all his ribs showing in his recent fight at Light-heavyweight

Is there a 'too flabby' or 'too skinny' or 'too much muscle' or 'not enough muscle' or is it all down to the fighter?

Your thoughts as always are welcome


Regards

Steffan

Just weighed myself. Im just under 11 stone. Thats with my beer gut. I reckon if I get in training lost another stone and build up some muscle I can get a fight with Khan at Light Welter

I know how to beat him

All I need now is someone to spar with. Jab Machine give us a bell buddy

i'm 6ft 2 and weight about 87kgs. i did weigh 95 before xmas but i have been working out a lot.

I can say that at 87kgs i feel a lot faster and even stronger. the extra speed has given my punches and kicks (martial arts) extra power. I also find it easier to evade opponents and to catch opponents.

the better shape you are in the better.

When I first started watching boxing years ago, I always assumed the more muscular/ stronger/ fitter looking guy would win, but as we know that's certainly not the case. I've seen ripped guys fade away after a few rounds and obese fighters still going strong in the 12th.

Physique can certainly hide underlying fitness, or lack of it, but I think every fighter has a duty to go into the ring looking in peak condition.

One of my main criticisms of the HW division is the fact that so many of them look obese. For the casual viewer that does the sport no favours, although I guess in the era of the massive heavyweights like the K_Bros, it's the only way some of these guys can (supposedly) compete at that level. However two fat biffers against each other doesn't highlight the gulf in class between an out of shape fighter and an in shape one.

Body shape has an obvious effect on the style of boxer- the likes of Frazier, Marciano etc could have never been jab and move merchants, and the talll skinny guys usually make less effective infighters, but more subtle differences in body shape can also have an effect- comparing the physic of Mike Tyson and David Tua makes a good example- both were relatively short, short armed about equal height and weight, but Tyson had a much more tapered body, whereas Tua was much thicker than the waist, and carried more of his weight in lower torso and legs. Not suprisingly Tyson was much faster on his feet than Tua. it was also said of a young Joe Frazier that he carried to much weight in his legs to be successful- though he proved that not to be the case.
I can't remember who said it (possibly Manny Stewart) that McClellan had the perfect body shape of boxing- broad shoulders and torso that tapered down to narrow waist and hips , and relatively thin legs-something to do with the mechanics of twisting at the waist leading to a faster twisting at the shoulder and therefore faster punch- comparable to a golfer - Tiger woods also has a big shoulder to wasit ratio that helps with the leverage generated in his swing. Apparently.

its just genetics - some people simply will simply look slightly 'softer' than other people.

look at jean pascal against someone like joe calzaghe.
calzaghe is much faster, much fitter, but never went into the ring looking ripped.

plus big muscles dont make a big puncher.

IF the person has been training as they should (that is a big IF) you can never assume anything about a boxer by looking at their body shape.

naz was one of the biggest p4p punchers ever - his body type meant that he would never be ripped. its life - and by the same rule - some people are naturally more gifted than others - some dont build up as much lactic acid (lance armstrong apparently has a very low amount of lactic acid build up when racing)

some people have tighter condenced fast twitch fibres in their muscles - meaning explosive power. look at usain bolt. the man was a born sprinter.

It really does boil down to genetics and natural talent. Body shape appears to have little relevance in most weight categories (with the exception of the heavyweight division at present).

Mike Tyson, of relatively average height, was built explosively so was able to dispose of many of his opponents with relative ease. However, his body type would mean nothing without the natural agression/ mentality he had.

Prince Nazeem is another very good example- he was only 5ft 3in, and did not look ripped in the slightest. However, he dispatched most of his opponents (who were around 5ft 7in tall with bulging muscles) with relative ease.

Natural talent, instincts and ability usually prevails. Obviously, you need some degree of fitness to become a prize fighter.

A lot also comes down to weight distribution, Hamed being a very good example of this, he had incredibly strong legs especially for a featherweight then you have someone like Williams who is tall but lacking in any real muscle.

Each fighter is different really.