The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Combat
 
Knockout: Avoid It!
 

FightinIrish26
Level

Join date: Feb 2005
Posts: 17139

xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:

I do, both examples are of fighters that were dominant and in their primes. How you can apply this concept to one pair, and not another defies logic. You either say

Ali > Foreman and Douglas > Tyson

or nothing, according to your logic. Applying this logic of yours to one set of fighters and not the other situation reeks of hypocrisy


Two great fighters in their primes fight, and the winner is declared the better fighter.

One supposed pushover defeats a young but already legendary champ in one of the biggest upsets in the history of sports and that's equal to the aforementioned situation?

You're fucking nuts.

That's like saying that the 1980 American hockey team game against the Soviets is equal to the Stanley Cup final in terms of fairness and circumstance.

I'm not arguing this anymore. You do not understand boxing and you don't understand logic. If you want to keep this bullshit up, at least start another thread so we don't fuck up this one any further.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

xXxJoKeRxXx
Level

Join date: Oct 2011
Posts: 315

FightinIrish26 wrote:
xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:

I do, both examples are of fighters that were dominant and in their primes. How you can apply this concept to one pair, and not another defies logic. You either say

Ali > Foreman and Douglas > Tyson

or nothing, according to your logic. Applying this logic of yours to one set of fighters and not the other situation reeks of hypocrisy


Two great fighters in their primes fight, and the winner is declared the better fighter.

One supposed pushover defeats a young but already legendary champ in one of the biggest upsets in the history of sports and that's equal to the aforementioned situation?

You're fucking nuts.

That's like saying that the 1980 American hockey team game against the Soviets is equal to the Stanley Cup final in terms of fairness and circumstance.

I'm not arguing this anymore. You do not understand boxing and you don't understand logic. If you want to keep this bullshit up, at least start another thread so we don't fuck up this one any further.



Well see this is where I question your knowledge of the facts here, and boxing in general. Foreman WAS heavily favored by all the boxing experts, no different than Tyson was. Douglas 'the pushover' as you call him actually got a title shot, so how much of a pushover could he be? Sure the division was relatively weak. Seems like your backtracking a little, seeing as the two situations are identical in situations, but you are refusing to admit it. How you can apply one set of standards to Foreman, and not to Tyson is beyond me, unless you are a diehard Ali and Tyson supporter, which would explain your reasoning here 100%.

I could care less about the miracle on ice, the Americans may have scored an upset, and the Soviets were the better team is what I"m thinking you are saying?? Which totally proves my point from the start lulz. anyway

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

FightinIrish26
Level

Join date: Feb 2005
Posts: 17139

xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:

Well see this is where I question your knowledge of the facts here, and boxing in general. Foreman WAS heavily favored by all the boxing experts, no different than Tyson was. Douglas 'the pushover' as you call him actually got a title shot, so how much of a pushover could he be? Sure the division was relatively weak. Seems like your backtracking a little, seeing as the two situations are identical in situations, but you are refusing to admit it. How you can apply one set of standards to Foreman, and not to Tyson is beyond me, unless you are a diehard Ali and Tyson supporter, which would explain your reasoning here 100%.


Douglas was a 42-1 underdog.

Ali was a 3-1 underdog.

Seriously dude? You're comparing Muhammad fucking Ali to Buster Douglas?

Hey you know what might settle this argument? If Ali and Foreman actually fought. Man, that would have been an awesome fight, and there would be no need to argue over who was a better fighter. Damn, I wish they had fought back then.

What a shame.

Oh....wait....

LuLzzzzz@!@!11111

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

xXxJoKeRxXx
Level

Join date: Oct 2011
Posts: 315

FightinIrish26 wrote:
xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:

Well see this is where I question your knowledge of the facts here, and boxing in general. Foreman WAS heavily favored by all the boxing experts, no different than Tyson was. Douglas 'the pushover' as you call him actually got a title shot, so how much of a pushover could he be? Sure the division was relatively weak. Seems like your backtracking a little, seeing as the two situations are identical in situations, but you are refusing to admit it. How you can apply one set of standards to Foreman, and not to Tyson is beyond me, unless you are a diehard Ali and Tyson supporter, which would explain your reasoning here 100%.


Douglas was a 42-1 underdog.

Ali was a 3-1 underdog.

Seriously dude? You're comparing Muhammad fucking Ali to Buster Douglas?

Hey you know what might settle this argument? If Ali and Foreman actually fought. Man, that would have been an awesome fight, and there would be no need to argue over who was a better fighter. Damn, I wish they had fought back then.

What a shame.

Oh....wait....

LuLzzzzz@!@!11111


What would be even funnier, is if Mike Tyson and Buster Douglas fought lol

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

xXxJoKeRxXx
Level

Join date: Oct 2011
Posts: 315

you obviously don't get the point at all, and you're logic is so backwards that I find it hard to believe that a boxing fan like yourself can't see it. Which is why I can only assume that you are an Ali/Tyson fan unwilling to face facts.

Both Ali and Douglas were underdogs in the fight and won. Both Foreman and Tyson were going through their own drama whether it be the conditions in Africa, or Tyson's personal life. That's beside the point now.

Yet you still put more weight on the fact that Foreman lost to Ali who was only a 3-1 underdog as you yourself said, then that when Tyson lost to a 42-1 underdog?????

so now by your logic, Ali > Foreman, and Douglas >>> Tyson. Or you think that Douglas was somehow lucky, and there is no possibility that Ali was lucky or something like that. I don't get the theory behind your argument anymore....

Surely if Tyson lost to a way bigger underdog, his loss would have more impact than Foreman's loss no???

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

FightinIrish26
Level

Join date: Feb 2005
Posts: 17139

xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
you obviously don't get the point at all, and you're logic is so backwards that I find it hard to believe that a boxing fan like yourself can't see it. Which is why I can only assume that you are an Ali/Tyson fan unwilling to face facts.

Both Ali and Douglas were underdogs in the fight and won. Both Foreman and Tyson were going through their own drama whether it be the conditions in Africa, or Tyson's personal life. That's beside the point now.

Yet you still put more weight on the fact that Foreman lost to Ali who was only a 3-1 underdog as you yourself said, then that when Tyson lost to a 42-1 underdog?????

so now by your logic, Ali > Foreman, and Douglas >>> Tyson. Or you think that Douglas was somehow lucky, and there is no possibility that Ali was lucky or something like that. I don't get the theory behind your argument anymore....

Surely if Tyson lost to a way bigger underdog, his loss would have more impact than Foreman's loss no???


I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.

Adios.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

xXxJoKeRxXx
Level

Join date: Oct 2011
Posts: 315

FightinIrish26 wrote:
xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
you obviously don't get the point at all, and you're logic is so backwards that I find it hard to believe that a boxing fan like yourself can't see it. Which is why I can only assume that you are an Ali/Tyson fan unwilling to face facts.

Both Ali and Douglas were underdogs in the fight and won. Both Foreman and Tyson were going through their own drama whether it be the conditions in Africa, or Tyson's personal life. That's beside the point now.

Yet you still put more weight on the fact that Foreman lost to Ali who was only a 3-1 underdog as you yourself said, then that when Tyson lost to a 42-1 underdog?????

so now by your logic, Ali > Foreman, and Douglas >>> Tyson. Or you think that Douglas was somehow lucky, and there is no possibility that Ali was lucky or something like that. I don't get the theory behind your argument anymore....

Surely if Tyson lost to a way bigger underdog, his loss would have more impact than Foreman's loss no???


I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about.

Adios.


Am guessing that last line I posted was a hard one to swallow seeing as you're a Tyson fan lulz. Oh well. Adios....
xXxJoKeRxXx wrote:
Surely if Tyson lost to a way bigger underdog, his loss would have more impact than Foreman's loss no???

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

WyldFlower
Level

Join date: Jun 2007
Posts: 495

Gotta say I'm with Joker on this one.

Your can't sum up a guy's career, or a team's season, based on one fight, football match etc...

Unless you can point to any opponents that Ali floored that gave Foreman trouble?

Can you point to any? I can't be bothered checking wikipedia, but then we'd get more of a discussion ;)

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

FightinIrish26
Level

Join date: Feb 2005
Posts: 17139

WyldFlower wrote:
Gotta say I'm with Joker on this one.

Your can't sum up a guy's career, or a team's season, based on one fight, football match etc...

Unless you can point to any opponents that Ali floored that gave Foreman trouble?

Can you point to any? I can't be bothered checking wikipedia, but then we'd get more of a discussion ;)


Who's summing up a career? Ali beat Foreman, knocked his ass out. Foreman never clamored for a rematch.

Game's over. There's no argument.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Grimlorn
Level

Join date: Jul 2011
Posts: 473



God damn had to upload this to TNation to get this pic to post properly.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

FightinIrish26
Level

Join date: Feb 2005
Posts: 17139

Grimlorn wrote:


God damn had to upload this to TNation to get this pic to post properly.


hahaa. Fair enough. But all fighters say shit like that.

Ricky Hatton wanted Floyd again too.

The divide in skill was just as great between those two as it was between Foreman and Ali.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

WyldFlower
Level

Join date: Jun 2007
Posts: 495

Well you don't just judge a fighter based on one fight. That's just stupid.

Well i guess you do, so that's your call.

Well done!

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

FightinIrish26
Level

Join date: Feb 2005
Posts: 17139

WyldFlower wrote:
Well you don't just judge a fighter based on one fight. That's just stupid.

Well i guess you do, so that's your call.

Well done!


This is simple, simple logic, and it's why boxing is a great sport.

When you want to know who's the better fighter, the fighters fight each other. If it ends in a knockout, there's rarely, rarely ever a reason to think twice about the results.

Foreman was convincingly knocked out. That dude could not fight late into a fight, he depended entirely on his power to end them quickly.

Even when he knocked out Moorer, as I recall, he took a fucking beating and then one punch changed it.

Ali was a much better fighter. Nobody questions that.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

WyldFlower
Level

Join date: Jun 2007
Posts: 495

I don't know man... end of the day it's a matter of opinion and you see things one way and others see it another way. Like Joker made the point of him mistakingly taking the fight in Zaire, and u know Ali won a tactical victory, which i guess he fell for, unlucky. That's one way of looking at the fight, but then i'm not boxing afficianado (sp).

Funny you say that "Ali was a much better fighter, nobody questions that" - CLEARLY people do question it ;)

I'm finishing up an article on Brock Lesnar in light of his retirement from the sport, and I'm getting to that bit of him losing to Mir in their first fight. IMO Lesnar is a faaaaaaar superior fighter to Mir. But he made a tactical mistake in his first fight and got caught in a submission in a fight he was dominating. Did not make that mistake second time.

I guess that takes us back to the whole Buster Douglas/Tyson argument Joker was making (hoenstly, dont understand why you're making that "head-to-head" trumps everything with the Ali/Foreman encounter but not with the Douglas/Tyson encounter).

Overall i think Foreman has a much better record than Ali, IMO, and who knows what would have happened in a second encounter.

But that's just MY opinion and how i assess fighers. Obviously you have a different system.

x

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

FightinIrish26
Level

Join date: Feb 2005
Posts: 17139

WyldFlower wrote:

Funny you say that "Ali was a much better fighter, nobody questions that" - CLEARLY people do question it ;)


Clearly two people on a bodybuilding forum question it. People who know boxing do not. Ever.


I'm finishing up an article on Brock Lesnar in light of his retirement from the sport, and I'm getting to that bit of him losing to Mir in their first fight. IMO Lesnar is a faaaaaaar superior fighter to Mir. But he made a tactical mistake in his first fight and got caught in a submission in a fight he was dominating. Did not make that mistake second time.


Foreman knew one way to fight. He came up against a fighter who was much stronger and had a much better chin than he thought, and who was much faster to boot.

Foreman was a pretty shitty boxer. He threw wide, looping punches and oftentimes rushed in totally off balance. However, he was a tremendous puncher and that made up for a lot.

Ali, however, is probably the greatest heavyweight "boxer" - in terms of being a large man who purely boxed as opposed to using some other style - that he was the perfect foil for Foreman.

A boxer only loses to a puncher for two reasons: either he doesn't have enough power to keep the guy off him, or he gets tired/drawn into a brawl. That's it.

See SRL vs. Duran I compared to SRL vs. Duran II.

Ali was so smart technically - much like Floyd Mayweather - and had no desire to put himself in a position where Foreman's attributes (fearsome power) would benefit him. He was too smart then and he'd be too smart in the second fight.


I guess that takes us back to the whole Buster Douglas/Tyson argument Joker was making (hoenstly, dont understand why you're making that "head-to-head" trumps everything with the Ali/Foreman encounter but not with the Douglas/Tyson encounter).


Because you're talking about two guys who are in the Top 25 heavyweight fighters of all time fighting each other, versus one top 50 heavyweight against a nobody.

Tyson had just split with Rooney, lost his discpline, and was doing boatloads of blow before the fight - while Douglas was a shitty journeyman who happened to fight the fight of his life.

Every fight must be taken into account separately. Ali was a bit older, had had a big layoff, etc. so Foreman, if anyone, had the advantage, and still couldn't do it.

By your stated logic, Chuck Wepner was nearly as good as Ali. Which is just as ridiculous as saying Douglas was as good as Tyson.


Overall i think Foreman has a much better record than Ali, IMO, and who knows what would have happened in a second encounter.

But that's just MY opinion and how i assess fighers. Obviously you have a different system.

x


Are you kidding? Ali was won 56-5 with 37 knockouts. Three of those losses were in the last three years of his career, and the last two - Berbick and Holmes - were when EVERYONE knew he should have retired. If he was smarter, he'd have retired with 2 losses.

Foreman was 76-5 with 68 knockouts. Three of his losses came in the last years of his career, which lasted longer than Ali's did. So he to could have retired with 2 losses if he had quit when he initially did. More knockouts, more fights, sure, but there are a shitload of tomato cans in there, 20-14 fighters looking for a payday - and he literally fought every month at one point.

Their records, in my eyes, are fairly equal. But Ali whooped him when they fought each other - not a controversial split decision, not a bullshit call, not a points robbery - an eighth round knockout where Foreman couldn't even get into the last quarter of the fight.

What more does he have to do?

Foreman is a great fighter, no doubt. Ali is a legend though... and that's why. He beat all the guys who everyone said he couldn't beat, and he did it convincingly.

The same thing would have happened probably 7 out of 10 times, too, because the age old saying in boxing is "Styles make fights." And it's true. Absolutely something to live by if you get into the sport.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

WyldFlower
Level

Join date: Jun 2007
Posts: 495

lol, oright dude.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

FightinIrish26
Level

Join date: Feb 2005
Posts: 17139

WyldFlower wrote:
lol, oright dude.


No disrespect intended man. Boxing's my game though haha. I have argued about these things many times... and I had a lot of free time yesterday.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

GrassHopper1337
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 21

"2. Always keep your
-Chin Down
-Jaw Clenched
-Hands Up
-Eyes on the Opponent
-Feet Moving "

You are awesome bro. A+++ on this

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

58buggs
Level

Join date: May 2007
Posts: 125

What I didn't find here was the training of the legs. In 1989, Thomas "the hitman" Hearns vs Sugar Ray Leonard fight was on and it would be a tremendous fight. What is unique about that fight and why training the legs comes into play. When in 1981 against Leonard, and in 1985 against Hagler, Hearns stated that his legs went and it was a big disappointment.

While training for the match against Leonard in 1989, Hearns put a lot of emphasis on his legs. If you go back and view the fight, Hearns one. Legs are need to be worked and worked again. To me the legs are the one muscle group that can take the over training and come back for more. You lose your legs, you lose the fight and KO'd.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Ignant
Level

Join date: Feb 2012
Posts: 15

Not a bad post, although I don't really agree with the don't have too low body fat part. The only way i could see fat preventing a knockout would be preventing a tko via body blow. And even then, youd need a lot to make a difference. What is your source/reason for saying that? Where did you hear it from?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

justinpalmz
Level 1

Join date: Aug 2012
Posts: 42

Body fat wouldn't have anything to do with getting knocked out. Maybe from a body shot, yes. Too the head? No. If you get hit in the right spot, you are going down. I don't care how fat, tough, fast, etc you are. If you get hit on the button, you are going down.

Great post though. All helpful tips on how to avoid getting knocked out.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

R L
Level

Join date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4

Mancador wrote:
I organized all the information contained in the thread "Against Knockout" that has a big and valuable amount of information about Knockouts and how to avoid it. Hopefully this will help.

http://tnation.tmuscle.com/...56&pageNo=0


What is a knockout?

Is when the head rotates sharply causing the brain to bounce inside the skull. This trauma to the brain stimulates a big number of neurotransmitters to fire at the same time, overloading the Central Nervous System and sending it into a temporary state of paralysis.

There are three degrees manifestations of this trauma:

- The typical knockout that results in loss of consciousness, and no memory about what just happened.

- The "flash", which is a rapid loss of consciousness.

- The Stunning, when consciousness is maintained despite distorted proprioception, visual fields and auditory processing.


Other ways of getting Knockedout?

Getting hit in the Carotid Sinus (or Carotid Bulb), a Pressure Valve located on the side of the neck which senses blood pressure. When you get hit there the body thinks that the blood pressure is critically high and shuts down.


What are the most vulnerable points?

The sides of the Chin and where the Jaw is attached to the skull are the most vulnerable points.



What to do.

1. You cant strengthen your chin. You are born with Steel Jaws or you are f*ckd, and better have good defense skills to compensate.

2. Always keep your
-Chin Down
-Jaw Clenched
-Hands Up
-Eyes on the Opponent
-Feet Moving

3. Watch the blows. Never get caught unaware. Most knockout punches are the ones you dont see coming.

4. Strengthening the Neck muscles can be of some help but should not be a priority.

5. Improve your footwork.

6. Work your Upper body movements.

7. Lack of hydration when cutting weight can be an aggravating factor. With less fluids inside the skull the brain hits the wall harder.

8. Avoid having extremely low body fat because it is not only prejudicial to the brain but also to all internal organs since fat has a cushioning effect.

9. Have good conditioning. This can be decisive.

10. You can train your jaw by chewing thick Gum or using a device that uses weights to force you keep your jaws clenched.

11. Dont be punch shy. If you freak out and freeze when receiving blows you are f*cked. Having a sparring partner can really help with this one.


As you can see once again the ultimate factor is genetics but there is plenty you can do.


Thanks to everyone who contributed in the original thread + wikipedia.




Good stuff, thanks.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ProteinPitstop
Level

Join date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3

kaisermetal wrote:
Never noticed that, so you can K.O. someone with a sequence of jabs?


Watch Kell Brook's last fight, Jab K.O!

Anderson Silva vs Forrest Griffin, walking backward jab K.O!

It's definatley possible but there are many factors.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report