# Is Rampage P4P the hardest hitter in the UFC?



## Chipper (May 22, 2008)

I remember on that sports show they measured the power of his punch and it came up better than Mike Tyson's (not sure about the backing for that though) and the way Forrest spoke about Rampage's power he made it sound like he could knock down a house.

So who do you guys think is the hardest puncher pound 4 pound in the UFC?


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

I think so.

The show was sports science too, and page threw a waist height hook to the side of the bag, like smashing someone in the kidneys. I would have preferred them to measure a straight punch.


----------



## Charles Lee Ray (May 4, 2008)

I don't think so. I mean he doesn't have a very high one punch KO ratio in the UFC compared to a lot of other guy's.


----------



## raymardo (Jun 21, 2006)

Chipper said:


> I remember on that sports show they measured the power of his punch and it came up better than Mike Tyson's (not sure about the backing for that though) and the way Forrest spoke about Rampage's power he made it sound like he could knock down a house.
> 
> So who do you guys think is the hardest puncher pound 4 pound in the UFC?


Rampage hits harder than Tyson?
LMFAO


----------



## Chipper (May 22, 2008)

raymardo said:


> Rampage hits harder than Tyson?
> LMFAO


I didnt say that

but when it was measured it was harder than Tyson's


----------



## Mc19 (Jul 6, 2006)

Chipper said:


> I didnt say that
> 
> but when it was measured it was harder than Tyson's


find the link, i'm not saying you lying but thats ridiculous.


----------



## raymardo (Jun 21, 2006)

Chipper said:


> I didnt say that
> 
> but when it was measured it was harder than Tyson's


I know you didn't say it. I wasn't implying that; just commenting on what you posted 

All in all, I'd rather take a shot from Rampage than Tyson. Actually, I'd rather get hit by a Honda Civic rather than Tyson.


----------



## Arlovski_Fan (Apr 25, 2007)

Houston Alexander and Irvin I think possibly outdue Rampage with pure power. We won't know for sure until they fight though :dunno:


----------



## SimplyNate (May 27, 2007)

Forgot to mention that it's Tyson now and not in his prime lol. Just kidding I don't know. 

A few guys look like they hit pretty hard. The Sandman for example.


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)




----------



## thuggedout (Nov 18, 2007)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jzYMX_3K_xE


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

Heres a couple episodes from Fight Science on mma. I don't know if the punch is in there but there is Rampages slam and a punch of other stuff.

Rampage's Slam
http://youtube.com/watch?v=F1quQZh08cM

Bas, Couture, and Tito on Fight Science

http://www.mmascraps.com/2008/01/fight-science-mixed-martial-arts-full.html


----------



## mmawrestler (May 18, 2008)

ya hes deffinatlet up there, others would be sokadiu, anthony johnson, and melvin guiarde, lol do black guys hit harder than white guys?

ya on fight science rampage had 1700 lbs of pressure with one of his punches, two sumo wrestlers coliding had 1000 lbs of pressure


----------



## Zarlok (Jul 8, 2008)

Seen Pulver one hit people with huge ass gloves on, just one hit at like 145 pounds.

Liddell is a harder puncher than Rampage, too, at same weight.

Pulver would have to get my vote. I don't really see how anyone else can compare. Has punch KO rates higher than 95% of LHW and HWs.


----------



## Ebc_Kyle (Sep 24, 2006)

It's hard to know. People hit harder in a fight, then when they just go into a gym and punch a dummy.


----------



## Zarlok (Jul 8, 2008)

mmawrestler said:


> ya hes deffinatlet up there, others would be sokadiu, anthony johnson, and melvin guiarde, lol do black guys hit harder than white guys?


Soku may turn out to be the best P4P. But he hasn't fought enough IMO. Need a good 15-20 wins minimum. If we base everything on a couple fights Cung Le would be super godd almighty of all MMA.


As it is, none of these guys are as powerful per pound as Jens Pulver.

Melvin isn't even power. He's a swarmer.

Last I check, Pulver isn't black.


----------



## southpaw447 (Mar 21, 2007)

That uppercut looked pretty devastating and he didn't even look like he put his whole body into it.

He has big power, and to go out on a limb, probably more than Chuck


----------



## Cartheron (Sep 5, 2007)

Wand's right hand of doom. :thumbsup:


----------



## ManchaBJJ (Jul 7, 2008)

mmawrestler said:


> ya hes deffinatlet up there, others would be sokadiu, anthony johnson, and melvin guiarde, lol do black guys hit harder than white guys?


Black people usually have big asses and that's where they get most of their power lol. Did you see how big Rampage's legs were in that fight?

Once Brock takes a few years to develop his striking, he could be the hardest hitter. I mean he put Mir on his ass with just a stiff jab.


----------



## steveo412 (Sep 27, 2006)

The Sandman is said to have the hardest punches in LHW. Overall I think the hardest punch comes from Shane Carwin. The one punch in his last fight was just a straight right hand and it made my legs buckle just watching. Only one fight in the UFC so far though


----------



## spaulding91 (Sep 23, 2007)

hendersons right bomb


----------



## geoff0011 (May 27, 2007)

I love how people defend fighters claiming they have the hardest punch. How exactly are you determining this? There's a difference between throwing a hard shot, and connecting with a good shot. Just kinda funny. Leave it to the people who actually want to gather this information by using actual scientific means.


----------



## Zuke (Sep 22, 2006)

I love how no matter what piece of information is put up in a thread there are imediatley 20 people saying the opposite.


----------



## wukkadb (Jan 1, 2007)

Chuck hits way harder than Rampage IMO... so do a handful of other fighters. Since when is Rampage known for his punching power?


----------



## -GSP- (Dec 31, 2006)

I'd say so. Scientifically, a bigger fighter (205 pounds) would have much more devestating power in comparison to a lighter fighter (155 pounds) according to physics.

After saying that, if you look at the fighters at 205 or HW, who does hit harder than Rampage? I'm not quite convinced anyone does.


----------



## mratch19 (Nov 19, 2007)

i honestly dont believe anyone could out punch Mike Tyson in his prime. test or not put him in the ring and he could have KO'd a semi full of dead bodies.


----------



## Zarlok (Jul 8, 2008)

-GSP- said:


> I'd say so. Scientifically, a bigger fighter (205 pounds) would have much more devestating power in comparison to a lighter fighter (155 pounds) according to physics.
> 
> After saying that, if you look at the fighters at 205 or HW, who does hit harder than Rampage? I'm not quite convinced anyone does.


That's your own problem. Rampage throws nothing but hooking punches which are much easier to get force behind. A good striker will destroy someone who fights like that, even forrest an average striker made Rampage look like crap.

But sorry, Ramapge is nowhere near best P4P puncher.

1. Pulver
2. Henderson
3. ????? 

Irvin/Rua/Silva(W or A)

Irvin is probably the strognest puncher out the group, but if you talk about total power it gets complicated and these other guys are just as good.

1 and 2 re the only ones I'm sure about. Soku and Cung Le could change my mind, assuming Le ever comes to UFC of course.

I don't see anyone else changing this list. That is a current fighter.
I also don't see any "black trend" of powerful fighters.

Whole thread seems like some racist black guy trying to find something to cry himself to sleep at night now that Rampage is no longer champ.



mratch19 said:


> i honestly dont believe anyone could out punch Mike Tyson in his prime. test or not put him in the ring and he could have KO'd a semi full of dead bodies.


Tyson = most overrated boxer in history. Purposely avoided fighting many top fighters and was destroyed by a nobody while he was still in his prime. He was nothing but a media hype job.


----------



## The Dude Abides (Jul 8, 2008)

I think technicallly, he might be the best boxer. Love how he ducks and weaves and throws them combinations, don't know why he didn't do it more against Griffin. Because he landed every time. 

But for me, Chuck has the heaviest hands.


----------



## WarHERO (Dec 31, 2006)

I don't think he is the hardest hitter. Chuck and Rampage are pretty much evenly matched, but we really don't know. Lets get plazz to get hit by every UFC fighter then tell us.


----------



## mratch19 (Nov 19, 2007)

Zarlok said:


> Tyson = most overrated boxer in history. Purposely avoided fighting many top fighters and was destroyed by a nobody while he was still in his prime. He was nothing but a media hype job.


hahahahah thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. His first loss came after 37 straight wins which was in 90, and he was out of his prime after 88 when he fired his trainer (his skills slowly plumited after that) and had so many problems outside the ring. other than that it was don king who ruined him. he's one of the greatest heavyweights of all time, to think otherwise u'd have to be dropped on your head as a baby. his raw talent for fighting will never be duplicated.


----------



## SimplyNate (May 27, 2007)

Strange that the sports science episode is on right now. Rampage's piece is after the commerical.


----------



## Mc19 (Jul 6, 2006)

mratch19 said:


> hahahahah thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. His first loss came after 37 straight wins which was in 90, and he was out of his prime after 88 when he fired his trainer (his skills slowly plumited after that) and had so many problems outside the ring. other than that it was don king who ruined him. he's one of the greatest heavyweights of all time, to think otherwise u'd have to be dropped on your head as a baby. his raw talent for fighting will never be duplicated.



best post in this thread, 100% agree.


----------



## browncow (Jun 14, 2008)

Zarlok said:


> Whole thread seems like some racist black guy trying to find something to cry himself to sleep at night now that Rampage is no longer champ.


Clearly. No one could possibly be a fan of Rampage unless they're black.:laugh:

As far as "P4P hardest hitter" goes... are we restricting this to punching?

If not, honourable mention goes to that high kick that Napao landed on Mirko. No amount of alcohol can erase that image from my mind.


----------



## Zarlok (Jul 8, 2008)

mratch19 said:


> hahahahah thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. His first loss came after 37 straight wins which was in 90, and he was out of his prime after 88 when he fired his trainer (his skills slowly plumited after that) and had so many problems outside the ring. other than that it was don king who ruined him. he's one of the greatest heavyweights of all time, to think otherwise u'd have to be dropped on your head as a baby. his raw talent for fighting will never be duplicated.


He is one of the worst heavy weights of all-time, not best.

He fought nothing but chumps and has-beens, puposely avoiding the best fighters.

A complete coward and media hype creation.


----------



## mratch19 (Nov 19, 2007)

Zarlok said:


> He is one of the worst heavy weights of all-time, not best.
> 
> He fought nothing but chumps and has-beens, puposely avoiding the best fighters.
> 
> A complete coward and media hype creation.


ok im sorry o holy one. i just cant beat the wannabe amazing rascist we got here.


----------



## Zarlok (Jul 8, 2008)

mratch19 said:


> ok im sorry o holy one. i just cant beat the wannabe amazing rascist we got here.


Learn how to spell, moron. Go back to worshiping nobodies.
Tired of racist blacks running around spouting garbage.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

Zarlok said:


> Learn how to spell, moron. Go back to worshiping nobodies.
> Tired of racist blacks running around spouting garbage.


I wonder why you have that little red dot next to your name with such great posts like this?


----------



## Zarlok (Jul 8, 2008)

mjbish23 said:


> I wonder why you have that little red dot next to your name with such great posts like this?


Whiny little babies don't like it when the truth gets told to them.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

Zarlok said:


> Whiny little babies don't like it when the truth gets told to them.


What truth would this be?

He hasn't said anything racist in this thread at all. He was actually defending Tyson and saying he is one of the best HW's ever but you were the one saying he sucked and was garbage. One could make an argument that you are in fact the racist one.

Just a little tip for you... when someone calls you an insult don't use the same one to insult them back. It doesn't show much intelligence.


----------



## Zarlok (Jul 8, 2008)

mjbish23 said:


> What truth would this be?


Any truth. Duh. Did you have a lead paint eating fetish as a child?


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

Zarlok said:


> Any truth. Duh. Did you have a lead paint eating fetish as a child?


Well I got sucked in so i'm just gonna stop this little argument with this...


----------



## cezwan (Dec 7, 2007)

getting back on topic..

i definitely think he is up there as 1 of the hardest p4p hitters in mma, just a question of seeing who else there that would be on, or close to hes hitting power..

cant think of any right now, maybe houston alexander?


----------



## Sterling (Dec 14, 2006)

no Liddell is


----------



## cezwan (Dec 7, 2007)

Sterling said:


> no Liddell is


liddel! i forgot about him. haha..

they should have like a competition where the contenders for the hardest hitter in mma all see who has the hardest hit..

that would be interesting..


----------



## jasonc84 (Nov 9, 2007)

I think Marcus Davis would land somewhere on the top 10 P4P hardest hitters no one has mentioned him yet, i've heard interviews of people saying he hits harder than heavyweights and has frequently dropped people with a jab. I think its hard to decide who is the hardest hitting fighter, only thing you can do is compare one punch KOs, Chuck has lots of those and put many people to sleep quickly. Rampage does appear to hit very hard no doubting that but its hard to say he is THE hardest hitting lhw IMO


----------



## SimplyNate (May 27, 2007)

They should it would be the NBA skills comp! Get trophies and money lol...yeah...right.


----------



## wallysworld191 (Mar 28, 2007)

hes definately up there, not many guys have the ablity to 1 punch people like he does. irvin definately isnt the hardest puncher neither is HA, they are just both big strong dudes who hit hard, but dont have the best technique rampage is just as big and strong and has much better technique.

and tyson hit hard but all he threw was upper cuts, hes also smaller than rampage (he walked around at 215 and is 5'9'')

i think you could definately make the arguement for rampage having the hardest punch in the ufc, chuck liddell is up there too


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

mratch19 said:


> hahahahah thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. His first loss came after 37 straight wins which was in 90, and he was out of his prime after 88 when he fired his trainer (his skills slowly plumited after that) and had so many problems outside the ring. other than that it was don king who ruined him. he's one of the greatest heavyweights of all time, to think otherwise u'd have to be dropped on your head as a baby. his raw talent for fighting will never be duplicated.


To be fair, Tyson was coddled when he was coming up as a pro (a little bit of that was due to some guys not wanting to fight him but he still had handpicked opponents). While he was a great fighter his resume isn't that great. Everything else about your post is spot on. Continue with the discussion.


----------



## cezwan (Dec 7, 2007)

SimplyNate said:


> They should it would be the NBA skills comp! Get trophies and money lol...yeah...right.


pretty sure i made no mention of trophies and money. just to see who hits the hardest. a good idea is to read someones post before making assumptions.


----------



## TICL (Apr 22, 2007)

No particular order some fighters could be 
Liddell- put anyone and everyone to sleep
Rampage- Lately has had some power
Frankling- WHAT? Getting no love after what he did to Quarry
Irvin- KO machine
BJ- for being so small hits like a hammer
Pulver- same thing
Thiago Alves- hits hard
Melvin Guillard-so damn fast so damn strong


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

No love for Hermes Franca?


----------



## wukkadb (Jan 1, 2007)

Damone said:


> No love for Hermes Franca?


Eh... I wouldn't say he hits that hard, he just throws fuckin huge hay-makers and gets lucky. And yes I'm still bitter that he beat Spencer Fisher


----------



## No_Mercy (Oct 17, 2006)

raymardo said:


> I know you didn't say it. I wasn't implying that; just commenting on what you posted
> 
> All in all, I'd rather take a shot from Rampage than Tyson. Actually, I'd rather get hit by a Honda Civic rather than Tyson.


Hahahahahahha...yah Tyson's fists are actually registered weapons apparently and for good reason. Ever watch his fights. When he throws a hook to the body he lifts the poor bastard in the air a couple of inches from the impact.


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

I think we need to make a distinction here.

Rampage hits harder...
Chuck hits better*...

*assuming it isn't a lazy body shot to rampage inside his range.


----------



## cplmac (Nov 14, 2007)

Chipper said:


> So who do you guys think is the hardest puncher pound 4 pound in the UFC?


Not Rampage. 

Pound for pound I'd probably go with someone like James Irvin or Thiago Alvez.


----------



## wukkadb (Jan 1, 2007)

Flak said:


> I think we need to make a distinction here.
> 
> Rampage hits harder...
> Chuck hits better*...


How do you figure? Chuck has like 10x as many knock outs as Rampage...


----------



## wallysworld191 (Mar 28, 2007)

actually they have the same number wuk....

and no way chuck hits better* he fuckin has some of the ugliest boxing/kick boxing in mma, it just so happens to work real well for him. rampage has real clean boxing.


----------



## wukkadb (Jan 1, 2007)

wallysworld191 said:


> actually they have the same number wuk....
> 
> and no way chuck hits better* he fuckin has some of the ugliest boxing/kick boxing in mma, it just so happens to work real well for him. rampage has real clean boxing.


Same number of TKO's... which is different. How many times has Rampage KOed someone with his hands?


----------



## dontazo (Feb 29, 2008)

yea i agreee chuck knows where to hit and he has an amazing ko power 
also my man irvin which will hopefully ko silva


----------



## SuzukS (Nov 11, 2006)

-GSP- said:


> After saying that, if you look at the fighters at 205 or HW, who does hit harder than Rampage? I'm not quite convinced anyone does.


I would have to say Liddell, and if the question is pound for pound, Wanderlei Silva would be right up there considering he is a real small Light Heavyweight who still manages to knock bigger men out.


----------



## SpecC (Nov 18, 2007)

jasonc84 said:


> I think Marcus Davis would land somewhere on the top 10 P4P hardest hitters no one has mentioned him yet, i've heard interviews of people saying he hits harder than heavyweights and has frequently dropped people with a jab. I think its hard to decide who is the hardest hitting fighter, only thing you can do is compare one punch KOs, Chuck has lots of those and put many people to sleep quickly. Rampage does appear to hit very hard no doubting that but its hard to say he is THE hardest hitting lhw IMO


Exactly what I was thinking. Marcus Davis throws dynamite at people!


----------



## doburg717 (Apr 25, 2008)

sokky ko;d a nog, for an impossible feat he gets no love
cro cop, he can come back
liddell
carwin
brock
emerson clearly winner tho


----------



## Celtic16 (Sep 9, 2007)

chucks knocked out 12 guys with a single punch or punches. Jackson has stopped 7 people with punching related moves. Personally I'd bring into question chucks chin. IMO he seems to lose power in his legs when he gets tagged cleanly enough under the chin. I think Chuck would hit harder than Rampage and Rampage's chin is better than Chucks..


----------



## leew11k (Nov 19, 2006)

has anyone mentioned randelman he has heavy hands hasnt knockedout as many as liddel and page and page said he is the hardest puncher hes faced he has some serious hand power


----------



## Bazza89 (Dec 31, 2006)

Celtic16 said:


> chucks knocked out 12 guys with a single punch or punches. Jackson has stopped 7 people with punching related moves. Personally I'd bring into question chucks chin. IMO he seems to lose power in his legs when he gets tagged cleanly enough under the chin. I think Chuck would hit harder than Rampage and Rampage's chin is better than Chucks..


Chucks actually got a pretty good chin.

I think Chuck hits harder than Rampage but it's pretty close IMO.


----------



## BazDaManUk (May 27, 2007)

I think rampage has more power than liddell but liddell always manages to hit the right places on the counter, and the most devestating punch is an unexpected one, which chuck has used many times in the past.


----------



## Chris32 (Sep 22, 2006)

Here's my list...

Anderson Silva - perfect technique and awesome power. Watch how he digs in and generates punching power all the way from his feet up.
Rampage - great technique and brute strength
Marcus Davis - pro boxer technique and great strength for his size
Chuck Liddel - his technique is built solely around generating power punches
Chris Leben - has good knockout power especially when he is rocked LOL

THere are more but those are the standouts to me...I'm surprised nobody is mentioning fighters out of K1 for example...Some of those mofo's are striking beasts...


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

wukkadb said:


> How do you figure? Chuck has like 10x as many knock outs as Rampage...


You missed my point.

KOs are dictated more by landing on the button rather than how hard you hit them there imo. You can have more KOs while not hitting quite as hard (although chuck has power, no question).

Chuck is better at finding that one shot to put a guy down....doesn't mean he hits harder though.


----------



## wukkadb (Jan 1, 2007)

Flak said:


> You missed my point.
> 
> KOs are dictated more by landing on the button rather than how hard you hit them there imo. You can have more KOs while not hitting quite as hard (although chuck has power, no question).
> 
> Chuck is better at finding that one shot to put a guy down....doesn't mean he hits harder though.


So, uh, how do you determine how hard someone hits?


----------



## cabby (Sep 15, 2006)

I think he has one of the hardest uppercuts in the UFC but hardest hitter as in hooks I would say WAND hits the hardest


----------



## GKY (Jun 3, 2007)

It has to be Sokky. I mean any time he connects with someones face with his hand they have went down. KO'ing Arona, Nakurama and A NOG is downright amazing.


----------



## Flak (Jul 1, 2007)

wukkadb said:


> So, uh, how do you determine how hard someone hits?


You can't. There's no real way to quantify it either way. 

Mate, this is MMAforum. Baseless speculation and conjecture, coupled with unshakable opinions are king here.


----------



## kc1983 (May 27, 2007)

There's no way to tell who hits the hardest just by watching the fights....but to me, the following fighters have proven KO power and heavy hands -

-Chuck
-Wand
-Hendo
-Fedor
-Mirko 
-McFedries
-Cote
-Gomi
-Pulver
-Rampage
-Houston
-Irvin


----------



## cdtcpl (Mar 9, 2007)

I think some people are confusing hard and most accurate. Liddel seems to find the sweet spot on someone and KO them, almost all of Rampages opponents look like someone took a baseball bat to their face. Wandy has made a few people look like they need surgery, but Hendo has just plain KO'ed people who weren't even rocked.

Hardest hitting I would have to give to Hendo or Rampage, almost all of their previous opponents comment on how hard they hit and how they feel every punch.

Edit: Anderson Silva would easily win for most accurate.


----------



## fullcontact (Sep 16, 2006)

Sokodujou has tremendous POWER in his punches. He knocked out two very skilled fighters very early in round 1. 

Rampage in my mind on of the best BOXER in mma, technically with pretty fluid combinations and precise counter punches. He completely outboxed and outslugged Chuck Liddell in their first fight and in the second fight punished him with a perfect counter hook.


----------



## SlaveTrade (Apr 27, 2007)

Some fighters that haven't been mentioned much but has really heavy hands would be Takanori Gomi and Yoshihiro Akiyama.


----------



## vader (Sep 16, 2007)

Chuck and Irvin I think hit harder than rampage. All are good strikers though.


----------



## Dana White (Mar 12, 2007)

ManchaBJJ said:


> Black people usually have big asses and that's where they get most of their power lol. .


What? :confused02: In that case my wife should be the hardest puncher on the planet. She has a GIANT ass.


----------



## southpaw447 (Mar 21, 2007)

SlaveTrade said:


> Some fighters that haven't been mentioned much but has really heavy hands would be Takanori Gomi and Yoshihiro Akiyama.


Gomi hits like a mack truck, very hard hitter for his weight class. He dropped Ludwig with ease


----------



## thedude86 (Jun 22, 2007)

mratch19 said:


> hahahahah thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard. His first loss came after 37 straight wins which was in 90, and he was out of his prime after 88 when he fired his trainer (his skills slowly plumited after that) and had so many problems outside the ring. other than that it was don king who ruined him. he's one of the greatest heavyweights of all time, to think otherwise u'd have to be dropped on your head as a baby. his raw talent for fighting will never be duplicated.


Completely agree. The raw talanet that Tyson possessed from such a young age was unbelievable. He never reached his full potential in my mind. One of my favorite fighters of all time.

I think the Sandman is the hardest hitter in terms of sheer power, but Alexander and Sokkadju are up their too. Rampage is definatly up their too, I think he hits harder then Chuck Liddell, but Chuck is the more accurate puncher.


----------



## chilo (May 27, 2007)

have to say its a tie between page, wandy, alexander and irvin.

remember rampage vs wandy 2? that punch that wanderlie landed to set up the combo of knees that ended the fight? ugh man that was vicious.raise01:


----------



## SideWays40 (Feb 15, 2008)

Sports Science claimd that Rampage hit harder then a boxer does. Bas in an interview also said that he didnt like punching the punching bag because depending where you hit on the bag will sway the punching power alot. The whole bag isnt a sensor so you have to accuratley guess where the Sensor is and connect with it.


P.S. i also heard a rumor that when they measured a boxing guys punching power they used boxing gloves, while Rampage used UFC gloves.


I hope this cleared something up, i can understand if it didnt haha.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

That Sports Science thing was so flawed it really shouldn't even be used to determine anything.


----------



## kgilstrap (Dec 3, 2006)

P4P I'd definitely have to put drew mcfedries up there. The dude hits like a freight train, and the people at his gym wont spar with him because of it. I remember the sounds that he was making with his fists when he was hitting kampmann...still hurts me to think about it.


----------



## bigaza (Feb 10, 2007)

Charles Lee Ray said:


> I don't think so. I mean he doesn't have a very high one punch KO ratio in the UFC compared to a lot of other guy's.


that could just be that he didnt land that big punch thats all


----------



## Josh72 (Jun 8, 2008)

mmawrestler said:


> ya hes deffinatlet up there, others would be sokadiu, anthony johnson, and melvin guiarde, *lol do black guys hit harder than white guys?*
> 
> ya on fight science rampage had 1700 lbs of pressure with one of his punches, two sumo wrestlers coliding had 1000 lbs of pressure


You know, my science teachers, 2 years ago and this past year, told me that black people really are more explosive. Something like blacks muscles contract tighter or something, which makes them more explosive apparently. Hence all the blacks in the NBA and in track.


----------



## GodlyMoose (May 20, 2007)

I'm surprised by the lack Sokky. He knocked down Arona, made Nakamure derp like, and knocked out a Nogueira.

One person though who I think deserves a mention is Kid, I mean he's so small but has bullet fast atom bomb hands.


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

Josh72 said:


> You know, my science teachers, 2 years ago and this past year, told me that black people really are more explosive. Something like blacks muscles contract tighter or something, which makes them more explosive apparently. Hence all the blacks in the NBA and in track.


Caucasians tend to have more type 1 muscle fibers and less type II and blacks tend to have more type II and less type 1 fibers. Type II are faster, needed for sports like sprinting, explosive activities. Type 1 are slower and needed more for endurance type activities.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

Drogo said:


> Caucasians tend to have more type 1 muscle fibers and less type II and blacks tend to have more type II and less type 1 fibers. Type II are faster, needed for sports like sprinting, explosive activities. Type 1 are slower and needed more for endurance type activities.


Can you prove this with some type of scientific data? I've never heard this before and find it very hard to beleive since the only reason black people are black and white people are white is because in ancient times black people were settled more around the equator, which caused them to have darker pigments to protect against the suns rays. "White people" had left Africa and spread farther north into Europe where they needed to evolve to have lighter pigment to absorb more of the suns rays since they aren't as strong as at the equator.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

It's Kid Yamamoto..........and it's not close.


----------



## BrFighter07 (Jun 16, 2007)

no i think a few people hit harder than page like soky,cro cop, and others


----------



## JoshKnows46 (Jun 18, 2007)

Easily The hardest hitter, p4p in mma, has to be Kid Yamamoto. raise01:

In the UFC, I would say Drew Mcfedries, followed by 
Wanderlia Silva. 

:thumbsup:


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

mjbish23 said:


> Can you prove this with some type of scientific data? I've never heard this before and find it very hard to beleive since the only reason black people are black and white people are white is because in ancient times black people were settled more around the equator, which caused them to have darker pigments to protect against the suns rays. "White people" had left Africa and spread farther north into Europe where they needed to evolve to have lighter pigment to absorb more of the suns rays since they aren't as strong as at the equator.





> Additionally, some cross-sectional studies have found that, as a population, African-Americans have a greater density of 'fast-twitch' muscle fibers within the muscle bodies. This sort of muscular morphology would also lend to a 'leaner' muscle body (with less fat between the muscle cells).





> Anthropology teaches that blacks actually do have longer and stronger long bones in the body, ie femur, humerus etc. Therefore, there are more muscle fibres. The cause is most likely due to genetics and environmental factors.


There are a couple of books on this.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

MLS said:


> There are a couple of books on this.


The article you posted says African Americans, do they mean people whose ancestors originated from Africa or do they mean black people in general? Because if they mean people whose ancestors originated from Africa then I could kind of understand why they might have more fast twitch muscle fibers. It's seems kind of interesting though and I had never heard that before.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

If I remember right they did the study in the US but the people they did the study on were of African decent. It's been awhile since I looked over the study.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

MLS said:


> If I remember right they did the study in the US but the people they did the study on were of African decent. It's been awhile since I looked over the study.


That's pretty interesting. I wonder if the same holds true for people from other parts of the world like Jaimaica or the Dominican. I also want to know if Aborigines in Australia are like that too.


----------



## Dana White (Mar 12, 2007)

mjbish23 said:


> Can you prove this with some type of scientific data? I've never heard this before and find it very hard to beleive since the only reason black people are black and white people are white is because in ancient times black people were settled more around the equator, which caused them to have darker pigments to protect against the suns rays. "White people" had left Africa and spread farther north into Europe where they needed to evolve to have lighter pigment to absorb more of the suns rays since they aren't as strong as at the equator.


"THE TOWER OF BABEL" is the biblical answer for the race variations........


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

Dana White said:


> "THE TOWER OF BABEL" is the biblical answer for the race variations........


This statement is retarded and senseless but hey it's Dana White i'm talking to so I have to take it as the truth. Hey Dana have any inside stuff you can tell us? Was the Griffin/Rampage fight really rigged because you don't like black people and wanted to get rid of Jackson as champ? That's what I heard so I figure you can confirm it for us.


----------



## mratch19 (Nov 19, 2007)

african babies were not made they were built, built to be track and field stars, basketball players and football players.

no but seriously its kinda common sense if you ask me, black people are superior in that they always have nice juicy muscles.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

mratch19 said:


> african babies were not made they were built, built to be track and field stars, basketball players and football players.
> 
> no but seriously its kinda common sense if you ask me, black people are superior in that they always have nice juicy muscles.


I bet you like their nice juicy muscles :wink03:


----------



## mratch19 (Nov 19, 2007)

mjbish23 said:


> I bet you like their nice juicy muscles :wink03:


hahah no im just jealous it takes them 2 weeks to gain 20 pounds of muscle lol


----------



## kgilstrap (Dec 3, 2006)

Drogo said:


> Caucasians tend to have more type 1 muscle fibers and less type II and blacks tend to have more type II and less type 1 fibers. Type II are faster, needed for sports like sprinting, explosive activities. Type 1 are slower and needed more for endurance type activities.


This statement is incorrect and not backed by anything scientific, just ignroance if you ask me! Not all black people have bigger butts, or bigger noses, or faster muscle fibers, or any of that crap!

Individual muscles are a mixture of 3 types of muscle fibers (type 1 and type 2a and b), but their proportions vary depending on the action of that muscle.

It must be remembered that skeletal muscles, although a mixture, can only have one type of muscle fiber within a motor unit. This is demonstrated if we look at contractions.

E.g. If a weak contraction is needed only the type 1 motor units will be activated. These fibers are used mainly for endurance activities.

If a stronger contraction is required the type 2a fibers will be activated or used to assist the type 1 fibers.

Maximal contractions facilitate the use of type 2b fibers which are always activated last. These fibers are used during ballistic activities but tire easily.

With advanced EMG techniques it is possible to look at which muscle fibers are recruited when performing an exercise/test.

The total number of skeletal muscle fibers has traditionally been thought not to change.

It is believed there are no sex or age differences in fiber distribution, however, relative fiber types vary considerably from muscle to muscle and person to person.

Sedentary men and women (as well as young children) have 45% type 2 and 55% type 1 fibers.

People at the higher end of any sport tend to demonstrate patterns of fiber distribution e.g. endurance athletes show a higher level of type 1 fibers.

Sprint athletes, on the other hand, require large numbers of type 2 b fibers.

Middle distance event athletes show approximately equal distribution of the 2 types. This is also often the case for power athletes such as throwers and jumpers.

It has been suggested that various types of exercise can induce changes in the fibers of a skeletal muscle.

It is thought that if you perform endurance type events for a sustained period of time, some of the type 2b fibers transform into type 2a fibers. However, this is argued about.

It may well be that the type 2b fibers show enhancements of the oxidative capacity after high intensity endurance training which brings them to a level at which they are able to perform oxidative metabolism as effectively as slow twitch fibers of untrained subjects. This would be brought about by an increase in mitochondrial size and number and the associated related changes not a change in fiber type.


----------



## Hett (Apr 30, 2007)

mratch19 said:


> black people are superior in that they always have nice juicy muscles.


This post makes me uncomfortable :confused05:


----------



## JoshKnows46 (Jun 18, 2007)

kgilstrap said:


> This statement is incorrect and not backed by anything scientific, just ignroance if you ask me! Not all black people have bigger butts, or bigger noses, or faster muscle fibers, or any of that crap!
> 
> Individual muscles are a mixture of 3 types of muscle fibers (type 1 and type 2a and b), but their proportions vary depending on the action of that muscle.
> 
> ...



you know alot of stuff....I don't know if you really know alot of stuff, or if you just writing alot of stuff down...anyway I'll give you a + Rep, becuase it looks smart, and probly took you along time to type, lol....good work.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

mjbish23 said:


> This statement is retarded and senseless but hey it's Dana White i'm talking to so I have to take it as the truth. Hey Dana have any inside stuff you can tell us? Was the Griffin/Rampage fight really rigged because you don't like black people and wanted to get rid of Jackson as champ? That's what I heard so I figure you can confirm it for us.


 Dana does shave his head...mmm now that you mention maybe the Tito fight was cancelled secretly to hide Dana's many neo nazi tatoos, that must be it.....


----------



## Hett (Apr 30, 2007)

JoshKnows46 said:


> you know alot of stuff....I don't know if you really know alot of stuff, or if you just writing alot of stuff down...anyway I'll give you a + Rep, becuase it looks smart, and probly took you along time to type, lol....good work.


Or he copy and pasted the whole thing from this website at the bottom????

http://www.isokinetics.net/advanced/musclefibertypes.htm



> Individual muscles are a mixture of 3 types of muscle fibers (type 1 and type 2a and b), but their proportions vary depending on the action of that muscle.
> 
> It must be remembered that skeletal muscles, although a mixture, can only have one type of muscle fiber within a motor unit. This is demonstrated if we look at contractions.
> 
> ...


----------



## mratch19 (Nov 19, 2007)

Hett said:


> Or he copy and pasted the whole thing from this website at the bottom????
> 
> http://www.isokinetics.net/advanced/musclefibertypes.htm


hahah repped


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

Toxic said:


> Dana does shave his head...mmm now that you mention maybe the Tito fight was cancelled secretly to hide Dana's many neo nazi tatoos, that must be it.....


It makes sense. Everything's finally coming out into the open.


----------



## JoshKnows46 (Jun 18, 2007)

Hett said:


> Or he copy and pasted the whole thing from this website at the bottom????
> 
> http://www.isokinetics.net/advanced/musclefibertypes.htm



Your almost as good as that pet detective ace venture...I'd give you a green dot, but it says i gots to pass it around, keep up teh good work.

I knew it all along though, that guy almost fooled me.


----------



## kgilstrap (Dec 3, 2006)

Hett said:


> Or he copy and pasted the whole thing from this website at the bottom????
> 
> http://www.isokinetics.net/advanced/musclefibertypes.htm


Ofcourse I copied it off another webpage, I'm not some genious on muscle fibers....what I am though is smart enough to research things when people post nonsense. The info I posted was on another 20+ webppages for everyones reading. I just can't stand people making claims of race that are compleely fictional. When Joe Rogan makes comments about black peple's butt's being bigger and therefore they are faster, he is joking! He's a comedian...he's not being serious!!!


----------



## Fedornumber1! (Jun 18, 2008)

kgilstrap said:


> This statement is incorrect and not backed by anything scientific, just ignroance if you ask me! Not all black people have bigger butts, or bigger noses, or faster muscle fibers, or any of that crap!
> 
> Individual muscles are a mixture of 3 types of muscle fibers (type 1 and type 2a and b), but their proportions vary depending on the action of that muscle.
> 
> ...


I googled what u tyed and Im pretty sure u copied and pasted that.


Black people generaly are more athletic but in a fight it doesnt always matter ifur a great athl;ete you have to have fight in you too.

Damn he beat me to it


----------



## Hett (Apr 30, 2007)

Fedornumber1! said:


> I googled what u tyed and Im pretty sure u copied and pasted that.


You don't say??


----------



## kgilstrap (Dec 3, 2006)

Yes, for the second time I am admitting I googled what this guy was saying to prove a point. I am not tryin to claim I am a genious on muscle fibers or trying to take credit for someone elses research. The fact is though, what I posted is factual, and what the other gentlemen posted had no scientific backing AT ALL!


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

kgilstrap said:


> Yes, for the second time I am admitting I googled what this guy was saying to prove a point. I am not tryin to claim I am a genious on muscle fibers or trying to take credit for someone elses research. The fact is though, what I posted is factual, and what the other gentlemen posted had no scientific backing AT ALL!


No, what I said has been demonstrated in numerous studies and if you had bothered to continue your googling you would have found some references easily. Trying looking for ALL relevant information and not just the information you WANT to find next time.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Drogo said:


> No, what I said has been demonstrated in numerous studies and if you had bothered to continue your googling you would have found some references easily. Trying looking for ALL relevant information and not just the information you WANT to find next time.


Why don't you post some of these studies or this relevant information then????


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Biologic Variation in Health and Illness: Race, Age, and Sex Differences By Theresa Overfield

http://books.google.com/books?id=CT...g=ACfU3U3MJvrpdxm7YYBqqQGWOtrXkST0uQ#PPA21,M1

You can look at the whole thing but muscle mass is explained on page 22.


----------



## BostonStrangler (Jul 12, 2008)

I think Pulver, Chuck, and Wandy hit a little harder.


----------



## Zarlok (Jul 8, 2008)

Fedornumber1! said:


> I googled what u tyed and Im pretty sure u copied and pasted that.
> 
> 
> Black people generaly are more athletic but in a fight it doesnt always matter ifur a great athl;ete you have to have fight in you too.


It really depends on what you consider "athletic". If you go on the racist ESPN version of reality, "athletic" begins and ends at either running fast or jumping high.

Strangely enough, this same racist news group likes to call Tiger Woods the greatest athlete of all time. Huh?


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

TheNegation said:


> Why don't you post some of these studies or this relevant information then????


Because this is SUCH old news. 30 seconds on google and anyone can find this. Why is this surprising? There are going to be physical differences between races. Is there anyone out there who thinks that skin colour is going to be the ONLY physical difference? Of course not. There are other physical differences between races, that is undisputable. Some of them will beneficial, some won't, that is undisputable (google sickle cell anemia if you want another obvious example). 

People get sensitive about these types of observations because they are hysterically afraid of being labelled racist. Noting basic physiological variation among races isn't racist but you can see by the length of this thread how people mistakenly think it is.


----------



## kgilstrap (Dec 3, 2006)

Drogo said:


> Because this is SUCH old news. 30 seconds on google and anyone can find this. Why is this surprising? There are going to be physical differences between races. Is there anyone out there who thinks that skin colour is going to be the ONLY physical difference? Of course not. There are other physical differences between races, that is undisputable. Some of them will beneficial, some won't, that is undisputable (google sickle cell anemia if you want another obvious example).
> 
> People get sensitive about these types of observations because they are hysterically afraid of being labelled racist. Noting basic physiological variation among races isn't racist but you can see by the length of this thread how people mistakenly think it is.


The subject being debated from my post was about different types of muscle fibers, not muscle mass or sickle cell anemia. One individual posted about different races having different percentages of muscle fibers...I posted evidence that said this is not true, it matters on the individual and their training, not their race. Like the other individul said...why don't you post some of these resources up instead of asking us to do it for you if you are correct?


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

You do realize that by having more muscle mass allows you to have a greater number of muscle fibers?


----------



## kgilstrap (Dec 3, 2006)

MLS said:


> You do realize that by having more muscle mass allows you to have a greater number of muscle fibers?


You do realize the discussion was muscle fiber types and not the amount of muscle fibers?


----------



## BJJPenn (Jul 14, 2008)

I think it would be really cool if they from the UFC end had the players do some kind of test to see how forceful they are and add it to the tale of the tape info-box together with height, weight, reach etc.

I'm sure they could come up with a good way of measuring and putting an overall stat figure on it...


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

kgilstrap said:


> You do realize the discussion was muscle fiber types and not the amount of muscle fibers?


Taken from what you copied and pasted:



> The total number of skeletal muscle fibers has traditionally been thought not to change. It is believed there are no sex or age differences in fiber distribution, however, relative fiber types vary considerably from muscle to muscle and person to person.


Seems as though you didn't actually read what you posted as it talks about the number of muscle fibers and the type of fibers.


----------



## kgilstrap (Dec 3, 2006)

Believe me I did read what I posted, this is ridiculous. Did you read the post I was responding to in the first place? The conversation was in regards to race and muscle fiber types. The individual posted that different races have differnt percentages of muscle fibers. THIS IS NOT TRUE! Different parts of your body are made of different muscle fibers, however athletes that are in the same fields of athletics, regardless of race, show similiar percentages of muscle fiber types. So a marathon runner (for the most part) is going to have different percentages of muscle fibers than lets say a power lifter. This conversation is over, I posted the info from another webpage to educate people on an ignorant post, not try and debate the wrong side of a post because YOU DIDN'T READ WHAT I WAS REPLYING TO.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

So you don't admit what you posted did talk about the number of muscle fibers?

Please bring us a scientfic report on what you say if it is true. I can bring one that says you aren't.



> There is only one scientific report which measured skeletal muscle characteristics in a black and white population. Ama, et al. examined 23 black male African students from Cameroon, Senegal, Zaire, Ivory Coast, and Burundi and 23 male Caucasian students from Laval University in Canada. These were untrained sedentary individuals. They were matched for age, body weight, and body mass index (weight measured in kilos divided by the square of height in meters). *Muscle biopsies from the vastus lateralis muscle of the thigh revealed that the white subjects had 8% more Type I muscle fibers and 7% less Type IIa fibers than black subjects.* Enzymes involved in the phosphagenic and glycolytic metabolic pathways were 30-40% higher in black subjects. These metabolic pathways are the ones used during quick burst activities (i.e. sprint). These results are compatible with the idea that blacks, as a group, seem to be better endowed to perform well in sprint events. We are aware, however, that other factors besides muscle fiber type can contribute to excellence in the sprint. In a similar study, scientists compared the performance of 15 black men from Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Rwanda, Tchad, and Zaire and 17 white Canadians of French descent. They were matched for weight, height, body mass index, fat-free mass, and thigh volume. They did maximal isometric contractions of the knee extensors for 10, 30, and 90 seconds and found no statistically significant difference in maximal force or total work performed. However, there was a trend for blacks to exceed whites in peak power output (9% higher) although it was not statistically significant.


----------



## BJJPenn (Jul 14, 2008)

It's impossible to prove, but I think few if anyone in history has had as much power behind a punch as "Iron" Mike Tyson in 87.

Too bad he went downhill from there with his personal life and all...


----------



## kgilstrap (Dec 3, 2006)

First off I'm not going to deny your study, at least you went to the trouble to post one instead of just arguing blatently. However I still have a problem with labeling something like all blacks have more of a certain muscle fiber type. I did some research myself and was able to find some sites pertaining to studies and muscle fiber types and here is what I found which is why I have problem with lumping all blacks or all whites for that matter into the same category.


> While Kenyans and other East Africans hold more than 60% of the worlds top endurance times, athletes of West African ancestry, including most North American, British and Caribbean blacks, are among the world's worst distance runners.


So I have to say due to findings in studies like the one you posted lose merit because they just aren't specific enough to comparing all blacks or all whites. Genetics do play a role in muscle fiber types, but that doesn't lump all of a certain race together. Not all people are athletes regardless of their color...I hope I explained myself so that you can understand what I' saying.


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

kgilstrap said:


> The subject being debated from my post was about different types of muscle fibers, not muscle mass or sickle cell anemia. One individual posted about different races having different percentages of muscle fibers...I posted evidence that said this is not true, it matters on the individual and their training, not their race. Like the other individul said...why don't you post some of these resources up instead of asking us to do it for you if you are correct?


I posted about different percentages of muscle fibers and different races do have differing percentages. It varies from individual to individual based on other factors as well but race is one of the factors that affects it. Google "race and muscle fiber" and you'll find it easily enough. 

When you are asking "Show me the studies that show this difference" you are asking "Prove to me that there are physiological differences between races". Do you see why I shouldn't have to do that? It is trivially obvious that there are physiological differences and many of them. I'm not going to waste my time finding that evidence because it is widely available and easily found. Want some links proving the earth is round from me too? I think you can manage.


----------



## kgilstrap (Dec 3, 2006)

Drogo said:


> I posted about different percentages of muscle fibers and different races do have differing percentages. It varies from individual to individual based on other factors as well but race is one of the factors that affects it. Google "race and muscle fiber" and you'll find it easily enough.
> 
> When you are asking "Show me the studies that show this difference" you are asking "Prove to me that there are physiological differences between races". Do you see why I shouldn't have to do that? It is trivially obvious that there are physiological differences and many of them. I'm not going to waste my time finding that evidence because it is widely available and easily found. Want some links proving the earth is round from me too? I think you can manage.



The problem is that it hasn't been proven, all the studies defy each other. The reason for this being is I can pick out a man that is naturally very powerful and a good lifter who is from african decent and then i can take a man that is naturally thin and a good runner from african decent and they will have different percentages of muscle fibers. The problem with studies is that people go into them trying to prove a certain thing instead of just collecting the data completely at random. One of my teachers once told me that a good scientist goes into a study trying to prove themselves wrong, and I fail to belive most of these studies are doing that.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

kgilstrap:

The study I posted tested people from west, central, and east Africa and while I understand there are going to be some differences even between people of the same race, the averages is what studies like the one I posted look at.


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

kgilstrap said:


> First off I'm not going to deny your study, at least you went to the trouble to post one instead of just arguing blatently. However I still have a problem with labeling something like all blacks have more of a certain muscle fiber type.
> 
> So I have to say due to findings in studies like the one you posted lose merit because they just aren't specific enough to comparing all blacks or all whites. Genetics do play a role in muscle fiber types, but that doesn't lump all of a certain race together. Not all people are athletes regardless of their color...I hope I explained myself so that you can understand what I' saying.


Those studies are very specific and indisputable. Black people, in general, do have a different ratio of type I to type II fibers. You CAN compare all blacks and whites with the information from these studies. It doesn't mean that ALL black people have more or less of a certain type of fiber than ALL white people but over a large sample size the difference is significant and therefore something that is a fact. 

A good analogy would be height differences in men and women. Men are obviously, on average taller. Some women are, of course, taller than some men but you can still say "men are taller than women" and that is a correct generalization. Likewise you can say "blacks have a different ratio of muscle fibers to whites". 

The real question here is why is this something that is hard for you to accept? 

It seems so obvious to me that there are going to be many physical differences between races but you seem reluctant to believe that. People tend to avoid these kinds of facts because they're worried about appearing racist. Most of us are trained pretty hard to believe everyone is equal in everything and we are in everything important (in terms of respect, fundamental human rights, intelligence, etc.) but it should be a no brainer that pointing out physical differences between races isn't in any way racist.


----------



## kgilstrap (Dec 3, 2006)

MLS said:


> kgilstrap:
> 
> The study I posted tested people from west, central, and east Africa and while I understand there are going to be some differences even between people of the same race, the averages is what studies like the one I posted look at.


"23 black male African students from Cameroon, Senegal, Zaire, Ivory Coast, and Burundi and 23 male Caucasian students from Laval University in Canada"

Problems with your study:

Very small pool of participants first off, not nearly enough to come up with any type of statement like the one we are speaking of.

Yeah they took 23 Africans from differnt parts of the world and compared them all to caucasion students from one area (hmmm...I didn't know all caucasians came from Canada?)

They don't mention physical activities in your study of the participants to prove the randomization method.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

It's clear you have read one thing or have been told one thing and you only believe that. If you really want to learn something read this article:

http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.d...8766F8D3A3522B56CFA0.hydra?id=459790&pageNo=0

or this book, Biologic Variation in Health and Illness: Race, Age, and Sex Differences By Theresa Overfield


----------



## kgilstrap (Dec 3, 2006)

Drogo said:


> Those studies are very specific and indisputable.
> 
> The real question here is why is this something that is hard for you to accept?


 If they are so specific and so indisputable why are there many studies all proving each other wrong in relation to race?

The ONE indisputable fact is that GENETICS do play a role in your muscle fiber type, but not your race.

This is my final post on this topic, as I am tired of going back and forth, I think I have proven my point of view. To each his own.


----------



## Drogo (Nov 19, 2006)

kgilstrap said:


> If they are so specific and so indisputable why are there many studies all proving each other wrong in relation to race?
> 
> The ONE indisputable fact is that GENETICS do play a role in your muscle fiber type, but not your race.
> 
> This is my final post on this topic, as I am tired of going back and forth, I think I have proven my point of view. To each his own.


There are some studies proving each wrong in relation to race in SOME things because of poor experiments and because some people are racist and make things up. Ratio of muscle fiber is not one of those things that there is any conflict about. If you don't like this study there are plenty more demonstrating the same thing. 

The fact that you can't accept such a trivial observation is bizarre to say the least. What if I said:

Men are typically taller than women. Would you take my word for it? Why or why not?

Asians are typically shorter than caucasians. Would you take my word for it? Why or why not?

Black people have a different ratio of muscle fibers. Would you take my word for it? Obviously not even though the it should be clear why all 3 of those statements are equally believable. 

They are statements about physical differences, that is all, no more, no less. 

You have proven your point clearly, that you have such a deep rooted fear of appearing racist that you can't accept an obvious fact even when backed up by reputable scientific study. 

While you are busy on google try "naturalistic fallacy". You need to work on that.


----------



## Zarlok (Jul 8, 2008)

MLS said:


> It's clear you have read one thing or have been told one thing and you only believe that. If you really want to learn something read this article:
> 
> http://www.t-nation.com/readTopic.d...8766F8D3A3522B56CFA0.hydra?id=459790&pageNo=0
> 
> or this book, Biologic Variation in Health and Illness: Race, Age, and Sex Differences By Theresa Overfield


ROFLMAO. tnation? It looks like it was written by a bunch of racist cunts, not to mention largely ignorant racist cunts. But maybe I'm wrong, as I haven't bothered to read much of it, knowing essentially everything they might talk about in there.

There are definitely a variety of genetics-related things that on average you think would give west african blacks... Important note here WEST african blacks, an advantage in sports that involve short bursts of speed and hence jumping. East african blacks are almost polar physical opposites of west african blacks, these are the guys that do incredibly well in long endurance events.

However, in sports that require intelligence(like MMA, Boxing), they lose ground significantly, as thhey have a significantly lower IQ on average. Additionally, blacks have slower reflexes than whites, and whites slower refleces than asians. It really becomes quite a mess. The main point is that:

Whites will tend to do better in sports that focus on upper body strength that cordinates entire body movements, especially through the trunk of the body. eg. field events in olympics, quarterback in football, kickers in football, medium distance track events.

West african blacks will tend to do better on the most simple short burst of speed sports. eg. many football positions, same with basketball and sprinting short track events.

East african blacks will tend to do better on long endurance events.

And asians will generally do best on any sports that rely heavily on reflex speed.

Can't forget about intelligence Asian > White > Black. Probably really the great equalizer, especially for asians.

However, all of this is only on average, plenty of people are not within the average and ou have genetic freaks of any race that perform way outside the norma. And in fact, I think just about ever star sports player in anything tends to have been given a freaky set of genetics.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Zarlok said:


> ROFLMAO. tnation? It looks like it was written by a bunch of racist cunts, not to mention largely ignorant racist cunts. But maybe I'm wrong, as I haven't bothered to read much of it, knowing essentially everything they might talk about in there.


Seeing as how it was written by a doctor, what is your point? I can link if from another site if that makes you feel better.

http://www.arthurhu.com/99/05/raceath.txt


----------



## Zarlok (Jul 8, 2008)

MLS said:


> Seeing as how it was written by a doctor, what is your point? I can link if from another site if that makes you feel better.
> 
> http://www.arthurhu.com/99/05/raceath.txt


No, it wasn't. It was written by a racist crack head who
didn't bother listing all the advantages whites have over blacks. Most of the studies he even cites are garbage because they rely upon non-adults. Blacks go through puberty earlier than whites and asians, hence if you test a bunch of 15 year olds, a much larger portion of blacks will have gone through puberty than whites. It's called garbage in garbage out. Then the moron who supposedly has a PhD, which he doesn't, and works at a place he has no record of ever working (check my link below) goes ahead and says that blacks in one test had a 9% increase of something(I don't remember nor do I care) but that it was STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT. No way a scientist would have even included such a usless study, let alone try to make some bogus point regarding it.

http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/edugo...e=utsouthwesternEduFindFac&btnG.x=35&btnG.y=7

Edit. And search here as well:
http://www2.uta.edu/uta/findpeople.asp

The guy is a bullshitter.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

http://www.joseantoniophd.com/website/bio.php

He taught when he was still in school and now he isn't so why would he be listed under the faculty?

Eric Serrano, who has won Professor of the Year at OSU 2000-2001 Medical School, Attending of the Year at OSU 2001-2002 Medical School, Attending of the year at OSU 2001-2002 Family Practice would put hhis name on a book that Jose Antonio wrote as well if he was full of bs?

I'm sure that Iowa University would also name an award in Chris Street's name if he full of bs like you say. I'm also sure he could be certified by the National Strength and Conditioning Association as well.


----------



## SimplyNate (May 27, 2007)

Lets see here. It's MLS's word over yours... hmm such a tough call.


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

This whole talk about "race" is retarded as doctors and anthropologists have both condoned the use of the word because technically there is only one race, the human race. Variations in skin color, body type, and looks are all due to adaptations to geographical locations. An example would be East African Blacks and Aborigines. Both live in wide open desert/savannah like climates. These climates are very hot and if you look at their skin color both groups are very dark. They are also both very tall and skinny because it helps to dissipate heat. A counter example to this would be people of Siberian descent. The climate they live in is very cold and you will notice they are much shorter and more stout. This is because being short and stout helps to conserve body heat and the body actually works like a furnace for them and allows them to retain body heat so that less is lost.


----------



## Zarlok (Jul 8, 2008)

MLS said:


> http://www.joseantoniophd.com/website/bio.php
> 
> He taught when he was still in school and now he isn't so why would he be listed under the faculty?


I notice you did not answer my other questions.

Why is his doctoral disseration not on his website, where he lists all his publications? Why is there no record of him being awarded his doctorate from the medical school? Why is there no record of him being faculty at the other college? Faculty records are usually kept PERMANENT for easy reference in to other universities. Why are there no publications from him AT ALL from ANY TEXAS UNIVERSITY?

He doesn't even understand what statical significance means. How could someone with a PhD in a biological science not know basic statistics? He apparently doesn't know that blacks go through puberty earlier, which completely refutes almost every adolescent study he looks at, he would know this if he were to actually study this shit. And why does he not understand Dr. Hunter's "washed out" comment, as his interpretation completely incorrect. Dr. Hunter meant that controlling for all those factors mentioned in the article made the difference in performance between blacks and whites STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.

This guy clealry smells and looks like a fraud, a really, really huge moron at best.

I also think its funny he says that blacks have less fat, on average, oh really? Maybe canadian caucasians versus African immigrants, but not "home brewed" blacks. Apples versus oranges:

http://obesity1.tempdomainname.com/subs/fastfacts/obesity_youth.shtml

Gee, they look low in fat to me. Blacks seem to have about twice as high rates for obesity and a good 50% higher rate in being overweight. You can bet your bottom dollar differences that large are easily going to qualify as signifcant.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Zarlok said:


> I notice you did not answer my other questions.
> 
> Why is his doctoral disseration not on his website? Why is there no record of him being awarded his doctorate from the medical school? Why is there no record of him being faculty at the other college? Faculty records are usually kept PERMANENT for easy reference in to other universities.


Plenty of doctors don't have their doctoral disseration on their websites. Do you know every schools policy on the record keeping? My dad is a doctor and taught at in college yet he isn't listed at his college's facualty.



> He doesn't understand what statical significance means. How could someone with a PhD in a biological science not know what statistics means? He apparently doesn't know that blacks go through puberty earlier, which completely refutes almost every adolescent study he looks at, he would know this if he were to actually study this shit. And why does he not understand Dr. Hunter's "washed out" comment, as his interpretation completely incorrect. Dr. Hunter meant that controlling for all those factors mentioned in the article made the difference in performance between blacks and whites STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT.


So he doesn't state they develop earlier?



> I also think its funny he says that blacks have less fat, on average, oh really? Maybe canadian caucasians versus African immigrants, but not "home brewed" blacks. Apples versus oranges:
> 
> http://obesity1.tempdomainname.com/subs/fastfacts/obesity_youth.shtml
> 
> Gee, they look low in fat to me.


So all black are in America? There is a reason for that and it maybe this thing called poverty. On average blacks are in poverty and can't afford the best food so the food they eat is fatty and makes them fat. This would not be because of genes. On the "home brewed" comment, if they are testing people of african decent, would the best place to get people not be Africa? You can keep discussing this with yourself if you like, the only thing you can say is that you disagree or that you can't find things. The info is all out there and I put it in one of my posts how, one guy had an award named after him at IU and so on. So feel free to discuss this with yourself becasue no one else will.


----------



## Zarlok (Jul 8, 2008)

Pretty cowardly. You know you have lost and the guy is a fraud. Run, run away from your fraud. People with a doctorate are required to write a dissertaion. I can search for any disseration EVER MADE BY ANYONE IN THE UNTIED STATES. There isn't one for this guy. And there is no study ever published by this from one of the two Texas campuses he was supposedly at.


If he had gotten an MD, he would not be required to issue a doctoral dissertation. This guy claims to have a Ph.D, however.



MLS said:


> So he doesn't state they develop earlier?
> 
> 
> .


So???? So you think comparing someone who has not gone through puberty versus someone that has is a good idea to gauge if there is going to be any athletic pootential difference between them??? Just duh, dude. Duh.

Edit: Oh, and it gets better. According to hsi own website that you supplied, he claims he got his degree in "Ph.D. Skeletal Muscle Physiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas TX"

Well, they don't have any doctoral studies in physiology whatsoever, let alone specifically on skeletal muscles":

Look yourself.

http://www.utsouthwestern.edu/graduateschool/programs.html

Total fraud.


----------



## IronMan (May 15, 2006)

Rampage was not, and never has been, the most powerful striker in the sport.

If you are going to give that honor to anyone, give it to one of the guys who routinely destroys his opponent's face.

Personally, I would call Mirko the holder of that award a little over a year ago. Now I would give that award to Anderson Silva. And I have a hard time seeing how it could be given to anyone else.



Zarlok said:


> ROFLMAO. tnation? It looks like it was written by a bunch of racist cunts, not to mention largely ignorant racist cunts. But maybe I'm wrong, as I haven't bothered to read much of it, knowing essentially everything they might talk about in there.
> 
> There are definitely a variety of genetics-related things that on average you think would give west african blacks... Important note here WEST african blacks, an advantage in sports that involve short bursts of speed and hence jumping. East african blacks are almost polar physical opposites of west african blacks, these are the guys that do incredibly well in long endurance events.
> 
> ...


I'm forced to ask:

Are you completely stupid?

It seems that everyone who tries to make this argument falls into the bizarre idiocy of black people being better athletes than white people (in America) *because they are black.*

Any idiot who pays attention can observe this phenomenon. Every sport that has made its way into the innercity has been dominated by black athletes within one or two generations. This is true for boxing, baseball, basketball and football, and I'd be lying if the thought about it happening in MMA hadn't crossed my mind.

The truth is, though, that this development occurred not as the result of *slavery* (yes, the big "s-word" that so many white Americans are afraid of). African slaves were bed to be physically superior athletes so that they could perform at a higher level. That's a fairly easy observation to make and it's very well documented.

The truth is, if you look at the athleticism of actual Africans, as opposed to African Americans, they are built much more lightly, much smaller and much weaker in terms of bulk muscle. (while malnutrition may be a contributing factor, the genetics play a larger roll, from what I can tell)

You're "West African vs East African" argument is one of the most bizarre things I have ever seen.

A "West African" (in fact, no "African") has ever won a gold medal in a sprinting event, in the history of the Olympic games. So if there's any physical superiority there, it's not visible from a competitive standpoint.

The stupidity of that point aside:

The athletes we are talking about are the best competitors in our species (that being the collective human species) and as a result of that they are more often the exceptions than the rule.

If you honestly believe that they will fall into regional steriotypes then you don't either don't understand what the regional steriotypes are, or you don't understand what it means to be a professional athlete.


----------



## NikosCC (May 16, 2007)

Closing this thread before it gets too out of hand.
THREAD CLOSED!!!


----------

