Comments on: Boxing Stats – Reach Matters http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/ Mixed Martial Arts Rankings, Records, and Statistics Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:12:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Bulking up only helps grapplers and should be avoided if you are mainly a striker - Page 6 - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-84669 Bulking up only helps grapplers and should be avoided if you are mainly a striker - Page 6 - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:26:17 +0000 http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/#comment-84669 [...] 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 [...]

]]> By: Slim, lanky fighters make for the best strikers? - Page 9 - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-84346 Slim, lanky fighters make for the best strikers? - Page 9 - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums Sat, 14 Jan 2012 23:45:47 +0000 http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/#comment-84346 [...] 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 [...]

]]> By: Does Rampage outstrike JJ? - Page 23 - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-52333 Does Rampage outstrike JJ? - Page 23 - Sherdog Mixed Martial Arts Forums Thu, 21 Jul 2011 18:21:11 +0000 http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/#comment-52333 [...] [...] [...] [...]

]]> By: Twyg http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-5433 Twyg Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:46:05 +0000 http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/#comment-5433 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. 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.

]]> By: jcs http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-655 jcs Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:00:15 +0000 http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/#comment-655 This study suggest Billy KO1 Sock. Billy's got that long reach since he's 6'5. This study suggest Billy KO1 Sock. Billy’s got that long reach since he’s 6’5.

]]> By: Twyg http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-596 Twyg Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:14:19 +0000 http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/#comment-596 You have too much time on your hands. HAHA, Billy says hello. You have too much time on your hands. HAHA, Billy says hello.

]]> By: jcs http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-341 jcs Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:13:20 +0000 http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/#comment-341 Fingertip to Fingertip. I got this from the database used at BoxRec. I have access to its contents and researched it myself. Fingertip to Fingertip.

I got this from the database used at BoxRec. I have access to its contents and researched it myself.

]]> By: Vladimir Peric http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-340 Vladimir Peric Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:52:30 +0000 http://www.fightmatrix.com/2008/01/18/boxing-stats-reach-matters/#comment-340 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 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

]]>