Gameness and Size ????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

I agree, it all comes down to ability.

And, while I also agree size cannot "determine" ability, the FACT is a bigger fighter is less likely to have "high ability" than a smaller man.
More importantly, at the TOP of their game, a bigger fighter will NEVER have the same level of ability as the best smaller fighters :idea:

Further, even power-wise, it's the same thing, proportionally ... smaller fighters are better in this area also :idea:

FACT: Only 1 heavyweight Champion in the history of the game has been able to maintain a greater than 80% KO percentage;
By contrast, there are MULTIPLE other lighter weight Champions have maintain a greater than 80% KO percentage.

Every other GREAT heavyweight KO artist is in the 70th %, and even here there are only 5 who have done this;
Meanwhile I could roll out a mile-long list of lighter fighters who are in the 70th percentile KO % [Hagler, Ketchel, Foster, Julian Jackson (81%), McClellan (85%), etc.]

Again, there really is nothing to debate.

Heavyweight fighters really can't compare, in ANY stats, to the lighter weight fighters ... not # of punches thrown, not KO%, nothing.

Heavyweights are just big ... and a few of them are big and GOOD.
But as far as actual KO stats in relation to power goes ... they really pale in comparison, proportionally, to the most devastating smaller men.
Again, facts are facts, stats are stats.

As previously stated, denial isn't rebuttal; it is only denial.

Jack

Great Points Jack, and I think we can mostly agree.

On the other hand, in my opinion, we are comparing apples to oranges here. I don't think any human man can touch a dog in any way shape or form physically or pound for pound.

Furthermore if you look at, lets say the Wolf. Wolves can range in size from 50 to 110 lbs respectively. They can track prey for as far as 75 miles, and then have enough physical strength to take it down and eat it. Whether it be a deer, or with the help of the pack a bison.


No man is capable of that kind of endurance. And in the wild, as a wolf it is an advantage to have some size to you. You never see the small male leading the pack :exclamation:

So have we really tapped into what it really is to be a conditioned athlete as a dog? I don't think so...we have no idea how capable these little (no pun intended) bulldogs really are.

I wonder if it has more to do with the confinement of our little warriors that has all of their potential sort of pent up, or never truly utilized, especially when it comes to the larger (45+) dogs. :-?

S_B

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by S_B

Great Points Jack, and I think we can mostly agree.
On the other hand, in my opinion, we are comparing apples to oranges here. I don't think any human man can touch a dog in any way shape or form physically or pound for pound.
Furthermore if you look at, lets say the Wolf. Wolves can range in size from 50 to 110 lbs respectively. They can track prey for as far as 75 miles, and then have enough physical strength to take it down and eat it. Whether it be a deer, or with the help of the pack a bison.
No man is capable of that kind of endurance. And in the wild, as a wolf it is an advantage to have some size to you. You never see the small male leading the pack :exclamation:
So have we really tapped into what it really is to be a conditioned athlete as a dog? I don't think so...we have no idea how capable these little (no pun intended) bulldogs really are.
I wonder if it has more to do with the confinement of our little warriors that has all of their potential sort of pent up, or never truly utilized, especially when it comes to the larger (45+) dogs. :-?
S_B

---

I agree we mostly agree :lol:

But we're really not comparing "apples to oranges"; we're using the same principle of PROPORTION :idea:

We're not comparing men to dogs, ability-wise, with "each other" ... we're comparing men to dogs, each going against its own kind size-proportion-wise.

And, yes, the exact same principles apply: bigger dogs are slower, less athletic, have less moves, and are NOT as good (all-around-athletic-wise) as small-to-medium-sized dogs.

As with people, the small-to-medium-sized dogs are the most talented and produce the greatest amount of results (athletic records, etc.).

As with people, 90% of all the dogs that win 7, 8, 9x etc. ... that get all DOAs in under 1 hour, etc. ... will be less than 48 lb, and almost none more than 50 lb.

Baracuda would be like George Foreman ... way up there with 9 wins ... but NOT the most, by any means, and certainly he wasn't the most athletic Grand Champion ... when compared to other, smaller dogs.

Like George Foreman, Barracuda was just a great big, tough SLUG "with mouth" and "rugged durability" ... same as Big George was a great big SLUG "with punch" and "rugged durability" ... but in no way was either on a par athletically with other smaller, fighters. Nor did either have the all-time-greatest KO/finish percentages.

Jack

Jack, I knew you would have some stats, but I am not talking EXCEPTIONS. I have stated that a few times a believe. I was talking the WHOLE of the population.

I would love to see some stats on all the other fighters of these divisions without the top 10 or 20 BEST of that category.

HW fights typically end in KO - Why? B/c even those slow UNPOWER but strong fighters, can still drop a guy in his division. WHY? B/c he is strong.

In the lighter categories, I don't see this as much. Maybe I haven't seen enough fighters. But, the average of the Lighter Divisions is going to go the distance more often than the HW. Don't have facts for that, but it's an assumption on my part. Don't have the time to dig it up or I would. Now we can argue that there are less KO's in the Lighter Classes b/c there are more defensive skills and so on and I will agree, however, we have already classified a lot of HW fighters as slow and boring, so they aren't going to be as accurate either.

My bottom line is that the AVERAGE OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF LIGHTER FIGHTERS has less KO abilities than the AVERAGE OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF HW FIGHTERS. This is my argument, or what it's turned into after we stopped talking gameness....LOL!

I don't know this to be true, as it is based on my own viewing of fight sports and I have no evidence to back it. SO, if I'm wrong, I will live with that as I don't live in "D'Nile" valley.

Have a good one men.

Oh and Frosty, I see it like you do and my "crowd" doesn't either. Again, like this topic, I was talking in general terms. Like above here. There's a reason why the "Top 10 LB per LB" of any fight division includes mostly smaller guys. MOST, not all, nor good dogmen, associate small dogs with being more game. Again, my own experience. Not anything statistically proven or scientifically based. Just a discussion topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by No Quarter Kennel

Jack, I knew you would have some stats, but I am not talking EXCEPTIONS. I have stated that a few times a believe. I was talking the WHOLE of the population.

I would love to see some stats on all the other fighters of these divisions without the top 10 or 20 BEST of that category.

HW fights typically end in KO - Why? B/c even those slow UNPOWER but strong fighters, can still drop a guy in his division. WHY? B/c he is strong.

In the lighter categories, I don't see this as much. Maybe I haven't seen enough fighters. But, the average of the Lighter Divisions is going to go the distance more often than the HW. Don't have facts for that, but it's an assumption on my part. Don't have the time to dig it up or I would. Now we can argue that there are less KO's in the Lighter Classes b/c there are more defensive skills and so on and I will agree, however, we have already classified a lot of HW fighters as slow and boring, so they aren't going to be as accurate either.

My bottom line is that the AVERAGE OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF LIGHTER FIGHTERS has less KO abilities than the AVERAGE OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF HW FIGHTERS. This is my argument, or what it's turned into after we stopped talking gameness....LOL!

I don't know this to be true, as it is based on my own viewing of fight sports and I have no evidence to back it. SO, if I'm wrong, I will live with that as I don't live in "D'Nile" valley.

Have a good one men.

Oh and Frosty, I see it like you do and my "crowd" doesn't either. Again, like this topic, I was talking in general terms. Like above here. There's a reason why the "Top 10 LB per LB" of any fight division includes mostly smaller guys. MOST, not all, nor good dogmen, associate small dogs with being more game. Again, my own experience. Not anything statistically proven or scientifically based. Just a discussion topic.

---

TRANSLATION: "In spite of the fact I am wrong ... in spite of the fact I have NO statistics to back up my beliefs ... in spite of the fact ACTUAL STATISTICS prove lighter weight fighters have MORE KO's (and better percentages of KOs) than any of the heavyweights ... and in spite of the fact "the average" lighter weight fighters have perfectly good KO %s also ... I am going to keep believing what I believe."

That is basically what you just said.

In a nutshell, you just want to believe what you want to believe, in spite of the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

That's cool. It's your right to be wrong.

.

Jack, I had a lot typed here and man, I accidentally deleted it......DOH!
Even though you are one of the best written debate guys I've ever seen, ANYWHERE - I do love to discuss with you.

However, I'm not wrong on this one.

BIGGEST FLAW IN YOUR ARGUMENT: You apply statistics of ALL WEIGHT DIVISIONS OF FIGHTERS AGAINST the HW division only.

The problem with this is that it is a very limited and controlled population and I believe I've stated many times that I was speaking GENERALLY about the ENTIRE population. Never even broke it down into classes, but my general point of discussion has been that most folks, in my opinion, associate gameness more with lighter weight fighters than heavy wt fighters. I think they do this b/c lighter fighters have less KO finishes than heavier fighters therefore their fights/matches last longer therefore, most people associating time of fight with gameness generally assume these fighters are more game.

Since we are speaking in general terms of smaller is gamer and larger is not (not my opinion - just the topic), and this is a comparison of two extremes, then your statistics should be more specific to the lightest division and the heaviest divisions only. Not ALL divisions compared to only one. This is skewed no matter how you look at it. You can't have ALL divisions compared to ONE division. It won't work. Let's apply the same stats on a sliding scale and compare the 120-130lbrs to the 132-145lbrs and the 146-165'rs and so on and so forth. That would be much more accurate than applying all the data of all of those classes to ONLY one class or division. Wouldn't you agree?

For example - your own research of average fight time b/t dogs is awesome. I love it and it is awesome b/c it's a GENERAL application to an entire population. You didn't go out and do research on 42-44lb ONLY dogs who were proven to be ONLY game or ONLY devastating killers. You collected data on a large population. You did not collect and apply date to reasoning from ONLY the top 10 of the two previous categories I just stated either. You deducted reasoning from the data collected on the entire population. Now if we did that with the HW fighters - ALL OF THEM AND NOT JUST THE TOP 10 and compared that to the Lightest Weight Class of Fighters and ALL OF THEM NOT JUST THE TOP 10 or any other statistical category that supports what we want to prove, then you would find something altogether different.

I have been consistent in my stance that I have applied my thinking or opinion based on the TOTAL population of categories. Not CATEGORIES of a population.

Not here to prove anyone wrong or prove myself right, but I won't change what I believe when your facts don't apply to my argument. I'm sure you'll show me the err of my way and label me wrong.

It's all good!

I will tell you what good sir: YOU do the research.

I am not going to waste anymore time compiling statistics for you, since you discount FACTS and just "repeat what you said" previously.

YOU are the one who said "lighter weights" don't have the power ... and all of the people I listed were lighter weights.
Now you're wanting to be selective and only look at 1 division. Fine, we can do that too, except this time YOU do the work.

YOU get up off your own ass ... and YOU go to Boxing Records.com ... and YOU make a list of every Heavyweight Champion who has ever lived ... and YOU add up the statistics.

Then YOU add-up all the lightweights ... or Middleweights ... or Bantamweights (whatever) ... and YOU produce the stats that back up your own beliefs.

Or, when you find that the general results are THE SAME ... or, dare I say, MORE FAVORABLE to the lighter weight classes ... that THE CONCEPT OF PROPORTION **DOES EXIST** ... then you can sit down and admit you're wrong ;)

Jack

PS: But we both know you don't have it in you to actually do your own work, and your own research ... it's a lot easier just to "make claims" baselessly :lol:

Didn't mean any offense - was just shootin the bull so to speak.

Sorry

I am not offended, good sir, just frustrated is all.

I thought I had a slam-dunk case :lol:

I will actually do the research myself ... by the weekend ... but don't have time now :)

Jack

I think this debate has gone off topic. And to compare weight divisions of human boxers to that of animal athletes is really pointless.

The athletic ability between the two doesn't match up....not p4p and damn sure not in the gameness department.

Smaller dogs tend to be classified as more game, because #1, there are more that compete there, and #2 because like NQ stated, more go the distance.

I don't think size has anything to do with gameness. I think it does play a role in the ability department, and it does p4p as well, maybe not 100% of the time. There will always be the exception.

I'll give an example of Pit Bulls pulling weight. Many years ago I competed in weight pull. I had a 40 lb female and a 61 lb male. My female would pull 100x her body weight consistently everytime, and sometimes more. The male would average 84% most times, but occasionally he'd pull more.

She was game bred he wasn't, but I think that would be a good measure of these dogs p4p if things were equaled, such as dogs being used being game bred and the stats being drawn from the exact same track.