Subscribe
Twitter - @Fight_Matrix
Its been a while since I’ve posted about boxing, but just recently, I did an analysis based on reach measurements. I researched all the way back to the beginnings of boxing, to determine whether or not the boxer with the longer reach won much more often.
I discovered that a boxer with any reach advantage at all won 57.1% of the time (excluding draws). At two inches or more, this went up to 58.4%. It progressively increased all the way up to 64.6% at 8 inches or more. At 10 inches or more, the number actually dropped, but I attribute this to the small subset, and because some “freak” match-ups may contaminate the results.
Some say its not the size that matters, but these results suggest more than a negligible difference. They suggest size DOES matter. You might’ve suspected such results with regards to height, but did you expect it with regards to reach alone?
Posted on January 18, 2008 by jcs
[...] results with regards to height, but did you expect it with regards to reach alone?" source – Fight Matrix | Boxing Stats – Reach Matters the ones you mentioned were obviously the few [...]
[...] results with regards to height, but did you expect it with regards to reach alone?" source – Fight Matrix | Boxing Stats – Reach Matters those were obviously the few [...]
[...] Its been a while since I’ve posted about boxing, but just recently, I did an analysis based on reach measurements. I researched all the way back to the beginnings of boxing, to determine whether or not the boxer with the longer reach won much more often. I discovered that a boxer with any reach advantage at all won 57.1% of the time (excluding draws). At two inches or more, this went up to 58.4%. It progressively increased all the way up to 64.6% at 8 inches or more. At 10 inches or more, the number actually dropped, but I attribute this to the small subset, and because some “freak” match-ups may contaminate the results. Some say its not the size that matters, but these results suggest more than a negligible difference. They suggest size DOES matter. You might’ve suspected such results with regards to height, but did you expect it with regards to reach alone? source – Fight Matrix | Boxing Stats – Reach Matters [...]
[...] Its been a while since I’ve posted about boxing, but just recently, I did an analysis based on reach measurements. I researched all the way back to the beginnings of boxing, to determine whether or not the boxer with the longer reach won much more often. I discovered that a boxer with any reach advantage at all won 57.1% of the time (excluding draws). At two inches or more, this went up to 58.4%. It progressively increased all the way up to 64.6% at 8 inches or more. At 10 inches or more, the number actually dropped, but I attribute this to the small subset, and because some “freak” match-ups may contaminate the results. Some say its not the size that matters, but these results suggest more than a negligible difference. They suggest size DOES matter. You might’ve suspected such results with regards to height, but did you expect it with regards to reach alone? source – Fight Matrix | Boxing Stats – Reach Matters [...]
[...] [...]
sock KO 1, billy lies about his size, I do not. I just saw that there was a forum on your site so I added a much needed post on it.
This study suggest Billy KO1 Sock. Billy’s got that long reach since he’s 6’5.
You have too much time on your hands. HAHA, Billy says hello.
Fingertip to Fingertip.
I got this from the database used at BoxRec. I have access to its contents and researched it myself.
Hi.
Can you please wrote where you pickup this statistic. And, what is more interesting in this statistic, is reach measured from fingertip to fingertip, or from armpit to fist (or knuckle)?.
thanx, Vlado