Punching power then and now

diablo · 10-12-2003, 03:35 PM

I got in a conversation about the new game with a friend about punching power back in the 1950's (when I first started watching fights on television) and now. He wondered whether fights are stopped more quickly now because "chemical enhancement" of muscles (steroids, other hormones) has made serious injury more possible.

My first reaction was to say I didn't think so. I remember some pretty devastating punchers from the 50's (Marciano, Sugar Ray Robinson, e.g.) who weren't obviously musclemen, and I said that I thought punching power/effectiveness had a lot more to do with technique (skill, reflexes, getting the weight behind the punch etc.) than with sheer muscle power.

Anybody else have any ideas? Are today's fighters heavier punchers than those in the 50's? Does artificial enhancement make a difference?

Diablo

cubedrum · 10-12-2003, 04:36 PM

No. Absolutely not. The reasons behind power punches are about leverage and making contact at the "snap" point of the punch. The laws of physics haven't changed since the 50's.

Cube

DaTyrant · 10-12-2003, 04:46 PM

i agree wit cube

diablo · 10-12-2003, 04:53 PM

Thanks, Cube and DaTyrant.

I also stated that I thought the best fighters of the 50's and 60's (Sugar Ray Robinson, Muhammed Ali) were more skillful boxers than those today. I'm I just looking at the sport with the rose-colored glasses of my youth, or were the top fighters better tactically back then then now?

10-12-2003, 05:00 PM

On punching power - There's no doubt in my mind that heavyweights today have much more punching power than heavies in the 60's and earlier. Bigger muscles, even if they are steroid enhanced, DO make a difference. However, the effects are not as pronounced in the lower weight divisions.

On skill - Today's top boxers, ie Roy Jones, Hopkins, are just as good as the top boxers of any age. However, there were many more boxers with good skills in the 50's, 40's 30's and 20's because 1-top athletes could only make good money playing baseball or boxing - pro football and basketball were not big, and 2-boxers fought much more often, thereby enhancing their skills.

diablo · 10-12-2003, 05:06 PM

I can see your point, 60's fan--and of course, heavyweights today are much bigger on average than they used to be (heavier and taller). I pretty much said the same thing to my friend: the heavyweights today are bigger, and so probably would punch harder (although I haven't seen a present day heavyweight with the skills of a Joe Louis or a Muhammed Ali). But at the lower weight classes, I doubted that muscles in themselves made all that much difference. Take Diego Corrales, for example--really hard puncher in his division, but very lean in terms of Body Mass Index. I gather his power comes from leverage and timing.

jas80s · 10-12-2003, 05:27 PM

However Diablo, I would submit that Corrales is, in fact, a big 130 pounder. Even at the lower weight classes some guys are a little bigger and stronger, they just fight harder to get down to the lowest weight they can reach.

I also tend to believe that heavyweights hit a little harder today then in the past. I think there is a tendency to downgrade the bigger heavyweights of today by assuming that their technique is not as good. In fact, I believe many of the bigger heavyweights today have excellent technique and definitely throw their punches with proper leverage and snap. I agree that a big man throwing a "fundamentally flawed" punch will not hit as hard as a smaller man with good technique. However, that assumes that the big men today are fundamentally flawed. To my mind, the top heavyweights today hit harder. If one argues that heavyweights of the past had better technique and therefore hit harder I would have to say that I do not have a deep enough knowledge of the history of boxing to contradict that statement. On the other hand, if you subscribe to the theory that the technique amongst the great fighters of any era is pretty equal then there can be no question but that the bigger men will hit harder. I subscribe to the latter premise.

It's hard to imagine anyone ever hitting someone harder than Lewis hit Rahman in their second fight (I am sure you all remember the punch). These are great questions and I love reading the responses, but I would like to digress just a little and hear other recollections of the hardest single punches you guys have seen. I have already given one.....I have two others....First, Hearns right hand against Duran......Second, Marciano's right hand against Walcott. Can't wait for the game.

diablo · 10-12-2003, 05:52 PM

I'd agree--Corrales is big for his weight because he trains hard (which can't hurt his punching). Yes, a good big man will usually beat a good little man; and today's heavyweights carry more firepower (and sometimes use it effectively). My vote for the hardest punch I've seen? Marciono vs. Walcott.

Jim Trunzo · 10-12-2003, 08:41 PM

Bigger muscles don't mean more power. I think that the true hitters of the past hit every bit as hard and not more and I think it's because of how they trained. I think that that power comes from a variety of planes and I think the old training methods were more conducive to a wider range of motion.

Power comes from strength, of course, but I believe that strength comes in third, behind speed and crispness of punching. All the strength in the world means little if you can't land the punch. I doubt if anyone on this board hasn't heard that the punch that kills you is the one you can SEE coming.

I'm sure the Klitschko's are physically stronger than Joe Louis or Jack Dempsey, if it would come to who can put up more weight; but neither of them can hit as hard (in boxing terms) as Louis or Dempsey because neither of those giants have the snap and the speed behind their punches.

Tyson was so devastating, not just because he was physically strong but because he hit so quickly and in combinations.

Are there exceptions? Sure, George Foreman comes to mind. However, in general, I'm not ready to sell out the old timers just because they weren't cut in all the right places.

PittPanther · 10-12-2003, 08:51 PM

I couldn't agree more. Guys back then were "cockstrong" if you will. Please let me explain:

Years ago I worked as a mover and we would work on 3 man crews, blah, blah, blah, but some of the older guys would be able to lift so dam much weight on their shoulders it would astound you. Granted, they didn't look like much, most had tavern tumors and the crack of their ass was always showing, but if you needed 1 guy to grab an antique hutch on his back and carry up it up three flights of stairs they would do it.

If I think back to some of the great hitters of the past they would hold their own against anyone from today. Muscles mean nothing when it comes to punching power. Hells bells, way back when most of these guys around Pittsburgh who fought would work in the mill all day and then fight for fun. Let's see some of these modern guys work a twelve hour shift and then fight.

10-12-2003, 10:46 PM

I don't want to belabor the point, but suppose you have two great fighters, a 125 pound featherweight and a 175 lightheavyweight, with approximately the same skill levels. If they ever fought each other, no one would give the 125 pounder a chance because of the 50 pound weight difference (and strength difference).

Isn't the same principle at work when you compare a 200 pound heavy (or a 185 pound Marciano) with a 245 pound in shape Lennox Lewis? The 45 to 60 pound weight difference means just as much in this weight range, assuming the fighters are of equal ability.

I respect Jim's opinion but I just don't see the logic behind it.

When TBCB comes out, I'm sure I'll go through the heavies and start changing their punching power ratings, with all due respect to Jim and OOTP.

BrocktonBlockBuster · 10-12-2003, 11:46 PM

Jim is right on the money about this. Speed of the mass in motion must be taken into account.

Cap · 10-13-2003, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 60'sfan
When TBCB comes out, I'm sure I'll go through the heavies and start changing their punching power ratings, with all due respect to Jim and OOTP.

You can do that if you want, it'll be your game. But I think it's almost the same as wanting to increase the batting average or slugging percentage of modern ballplayers because you just "know" that they are better than the old timers.

Just look at the lifestyles of most of the modern heavyweights. Half of them come into a ring looking like they just left the buffet table. There were plenty of big heavyweights in the old days, and many were taught to throw a punch by the same guys who taught champions. Buddy Baer and George Godfrey were just as big as anybody around today, they both hit hard, but were no more devastating bangers than guys smaller than them.

There seems to be a trend in all sports today (listen to ex-jock sportscasters) to downplay the accomplishments of old time athletes. In baseball and boxing, there were many HOFers who could compete with the best today.

We can debate this all over again til we're blue in the face. When I get my copy of TBCB, I'll turn all the modern heavyweights into the big-bellied nancy boys I "know" they really are.

Cap

diablo · 10-13-2003, 10:27 AM

Blockbluster, this makes sense because of simple physics--energy equals mass times velocity, squared. It's the velocity that's squared. By my calculations, assuming that two heavyweights weigh 200 and 250 pounds and that the 200 pounder punches 25% faster than the heavier one, the 200 pounder's punches will have 20% more force (energy).

Also, the heavier the fighter the less important a weight disadvantage is. To use PittPanther's example, a 125-pounder giving away 50 pounds is fighting against someone who weighs 40% more than he does; a 200 pounder giving up 50 pounds is at
a 25% disadvantage.

dempsonny · 10-13-2003, 03:00 PM

Diablo,
Would a 400 Lb HW have an advantage over a 320 Lb HW. Dempsey tore apart much bigger HW's. I've seen HW's that were cut get eaten up by HW's that looked like they never saw a pair of barbells. Big biceps doesn't translate into punching power. Primo Carnera was a big muscular speciman. Max Baer hit twice as hard. Fighters of the past fought more often therefore they were much more skilled as a whole. Today fighters go 15-0 against tomato cans and then they're on TV. Believe me this is not the era of the great HW. You would have to go back to early 70's before you mention all time greats in that division.

gus

diablo · 10-13-2003, 03:27 PM

Dempsonny,

I think we agree! (1) I don't see how a 320 lb HW could get any speed on a punch, much less a 400 lb one. (2) I agree that this is not an era of great heavyweights--partly because the promoters and the public seem to believe that big muscles do equal power. However, there are a few exceptions (BIG heavyweights who also have speed and accuracy, and therefore power): George Foreman, maybe Lennox Lewis in his prime (I say "maybe" on Lewis because in my opinion the quality of opposition he faced was much lower than that faced by Foreman).

nyccorey · 10-19-2003, 03:18 PM

Boxing as with any sport evolves....Athletes are bigger and somewhat smater..but not so much more talented and there is what makes the difference......

Specific trainning for each sport has raised to a new level...

Trainning techniques in Boxing have also evolved....Fighters have diet specialists...strength coaches...in the past they had rather crude methods ...

Fighters now I think are gifted with the knowledge of past mistakes and trappings of their later day heros....

As far as stoppage back then and now....that I think has a few factors...Our Socitey is now more so-called "civilized"...

Marciano would have not gone undefeated, not becuase of lack of talent but because he would of been stopped by most referees and ringside Doctors today.

I believe a Joe Louis short right hand to the chin however would still crumble a Lennix Lewis...the differnce would be how would Joe handle the offense of some of these bigger fellas...

Boxers are bigger....but I feel that they are not as talented as most of the pros back then....those who are talented today howverer have a definite edge!

10-19-2003, 09:47 PM

An interesting development.

I strongly believe that many of today's heavies are much bigger and stronger than those of the 1970's and earlier because they have been taking steroids.

Now I read that Barry Bonds has been subpoenaed to testify about steroid use. For years, Bonds has been getting drugs from a Victor Conte, the president of Balco Laboratories. Balco's top clients are being subponeaed to testify about using a drug supplied by Balco, tetrahydrogestrinone (THG). In a recent issue of Muscle and Fitness magazine, Bonds has said that he is "shocked" about what Conte has been able to do for him.

Bonds holds the major league record for home runs in one season, 76 (I think). Until he was about 30, the most he ever hit was about 35. When Bonds was 30, he was about 210, and a fast runner. Now, in his late 30's, Bonds looks like he's about 240, but all muscle. He doesn't run much anymore.

Barry Bonds was able to increase his strength dramatically due to the drugs he was taking. The same thing is true with todays heavyweights. They are much bigger and stronger now than ever before - due to drugs.

My hope is that boxing will strictly enforce a "no drugs" policy, and the heavies will get back to a normal size.

alluciano · 10-21-2003, 05:05 AM

The increase in home runs is not all from strength increase. Its proven that you hit more hrs as you get older and have more experience. Obvious he did get much bigger later but the increase in HRs is farely normal.

KING GIZMO · 10-21-2003, 01:01 PM

Being heavier can only be an advantage if you use your full body weight behind your punches. If you're 50 lbs heavier than me and you only use arm punches then that extra weight will give you no advantage. Futhermore, there have been many slim looking fighters with devastating knockout punches, such as, Naseem hamed (I Know he got totally out skilled by Barrera but he is still regarded has the hardest hitting Featherweight because he used his full body weight behind his punches). So to conclude, having extra body mass can be beneficial if you use it to your advantage.

10-12-2003, 03:35 PM	#1
diablo Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: El Paso, TX Posts: 43	Punching power then and now I got in a conversation about the new game with a friend about punching power back in the 1950's (when I first started watching fights on television) and now. He wondered whether fights are stopped more quickly now because "chemical enhancement" of muscles (steroids, other hormones) has made serious injury more possible. My first reaction was to say I didn't think so. I remember some pretty devastating punchers from the 50's (Marciano, Sugar Ray Robinson, e.g.) who weren't obviously musclemen, and I said that I thought punching power/effectiveness had a lot more to do with technique (skill, reflexes, getting the weight behind the punch etc.) than with sheer muscle power. Anybody else have any ideas? Are today's fighters heavier punchers than those in the 50's? Does artificial enhancement make a difference? Diablo

10-12-2003, 04:36 PM	#2
cubedrum All Star Reserve Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 952	No. Absolutely not. The reasons behind power punches are about leverage and making contact at the "snap" point of the punch. The laws of physics haven't changed since the 50's. Cube __________________ "If you build a man a fire, he stays warm for one day. If you set a man on fire, he stays warm for the rest of his life" - Edgar Frog

10-12-2003, 04:53 PM	#4
diablo Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: El Paso, TX Posts: 43	Thanks, Cube and DaTyrant. I also stated that I thought the best fighters of the 50's and 60's (Sugar Ray Robinson, Muhammed Ali) were more skillful boxers than those today. I'm I just looking at the sport with the rose-colored glasses of my youth, or were the top fighters better tactically back then then now? __________________ Diablo

10-12-2003, 05:06 PM	#6
diablo Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: El Paso, TX Posts: 43	I can see your point, 60's fan--and of course, heavyweights today are much bigger on average than they used to be (heavier and taller). I pretty much said the same thing to my friend: the heavyweights today are bigger, and so probably would punch harder (although I haven't seen a present day heavyweight with the skills of a Joe Louis or a Muhammed Ali). But at the lower weight classes, I doubted that muscles in themselves made all that much difference. Take Diego Corrales, for example--really hard puncher in his division, but very lean in terms of Body Mass Index. I gather his power comes from leverage and timing. __________________ Diablo

10-12-2003, 05:52 PM	#8
diablo Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: El Paso, TX Posts: 43	I'd agree--Corrales is big for his weight because he trains hard (which can't hurt his punching). Yes, a good big man will usually beat a good little man; and today's heavyweights carry more firepower (and sometimes use it effectively). My vote for the hardest punch I've seen? Marciono vs. Walcott. __________________ Diablo

10-12-2003, 04:46 PM	#3
DaTyrant Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Lauderdale Posts: 27	i agree wit cube

10-12-2003, 05:00 PM	#5
60'sfan Guest Posts: n/a	On punching power - There's no doubt in my mind that heavyweights today have much more punching power than heavies in the 60's and earlier. Bigger muscles, even if they are steroid enhanced, DO make a difference. However, the effects are not as pronounced in the lower weight divisions. On skill - Today's top boxers, ie Roy Jones, Hopkins, are just as good as the top boxers of any age. However, there were many more boxers with good skills in the 50's, 40's 30's and 20's because 1-top athletes could only make good money playing baseball or boxing - pro football and basketball were not big, and 2-boxers fought much more often, thereby enhancing their skills.

10-12-2003, 05:27 PM	#7
jas80s Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Feb 2003 Posts: 249	However Diablo, I would submit that Corrales is, in fact, a big 130 pounder. Even at the lower weight classes some guys are a little bigger and stronger, they just fight harder to get down to the lowest weight they can reach. I also tend to believe that heavyweights hit a little harder today then in the past. I think there is a tendency to downgrade the bigger heavyweights of today by assuming that their technique is not as good. In fact, I believe many of the bigger heavyweights today have excellent technique and definitely throw their punches with proper leverage and snap. I agree that a big man throwing a "fundamentally flawed" punch will not hit as hard as a smaller man with good technique. However, that assumes that the big men today are fundamentally flawed. To my mind, the top heavyweights today hit harder. If one argues that heavyweights of the past had better technique and therefore hit harder I would have to say that I do not have a deep enough knowledge of the history of boxing to contradict that statement. On the other hand, if you subscribe to the theory that the technique amongst the great fighters of any era is pretty equal then there can be no question but that the bigger men will hit harder. I subscribe to the latter premise. It's hard to imagine anyone ever hitting someone harder than Lewis hit Rahman in their second fight (I am sure you all remember the punch). These are great questions and I love reading the responses, but I would like to digress just a little and hear other recollections of the hardest single punches you guys have seen. I have already given one.....I have two others....First, Hearns right hand against Duran......Second, Marciano's right hand against Walcott. Can't wait for the game.

10-12-2003, 08:41 PM	#9
Jim Trunzo OOTP Developments Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leechburg, PA Posts: 739	Bigger muscles don't mean more power. I think that the true hitters of the past hit every bit as hard and not more and I think it's because of how they trained. I think that that power comes from a variety of planes and I think the old training methods were more conducive to a wider range of motion. Power comes from strength, of course, but I believe that strength comes in third, behind speed and crispness of punching. All the strength in the world means little if you can't land the punch. I doubt if anyone on this board hasn't heard that the punch that kills you is the one you can SEE coming. I'm sure the Klitschko's are physically stronger than Joe Louis or Jack Dempsey, if it would come to who can put up more weight; but neither of them can hit as hard (in boxing terms) as Louis or Dempsey because neither of those giants have the snap and the speed behind their punches. Tyson was so devastating, not just because he was physically strong but because he hit so quickly and in combinations. Are there exceptions? Sure, George Foreman comes to mind. However, in general, I'm not ready to sell out the old timers just because they weren't cut in all the right places.

10-12-2003, 08:51 PM	#10
PittPanther All Star Starter Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Pittsburgh Posts: 1,235	I couldn't agree more. Guys back then were "cockstrong" if you will. Please let me explain: Years ago I worked as a mover and we would work on 3 man crews, blah, blah, blah, but some of the older guys would be able to lift so dam much weight on their shoulders it would astound you. Granted, they didn't look like much, most had tavern tumors and the crack of their ass was always showing, but if you needed 1 guy to grab an antique hutch on his back and carry up it up three flights of stairs they would do it. If I think back to some of the great hitters of the past they would hold their own against anyone from today. Muscles mean nothing when it comes to punching power. Hells bells, way back when most of these guys around Pittsburgh who fought would work in the mill all day and then fight for fun. Let's see some of these modern guys work a twelve hour shift and then fight. __________________ Commitment Teamwork Pride Hail to Pitt!

10-12-2003, 10:46 PM	#11
60'sfan Guest Posts: n/a	I don't want to belabor the point, but suppose you have two great fighters, a 125 pound featherweight and a 175 lightheavyweight, with approximately the same skill levels. If they ever fought each other, no one would give the 125 pounder a chance because of the 50 pound weight difference (and strength difference). Isn't the same principle at work when you compare a 200 pound heavy (or a 185 pound Marciano) with a 245 pound in shape Lennox Lewis? The 45 to 60 pound weight difference means just as much in this weight range, assuming the fighters are of equal ability. I respect Jim's opinion but I just don't see the logic behind it. When TBCB comes out, I'm sure I'll go through the heavies and start changing their punching power ratings, with all due respect to Jim and OOTP. Last edited by 60'sfan; 10-13-2003 at 08:59 AM.

10-12-2003, 11:46 PM	#12
BrocktonBlockBuster Minors (Triple A) Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 298	Jim is right on the money about this. Speed of the mass in motion must be taken into account.

10-13-2003, 10:27 AM	#14
diablo Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: El Paso, TX Posts: 43	Blockbluster, this makes sense because of simple physics--energy equals mass times velocity, squared. It's the velocity that's squared. By my calculations, assuming that two heavyweights weigh 200 and 250 pounds and that the 200 pounder punches 25% faster than the heavier one, the 200 pounder's punches will have 20% more force (energy). Also, the heavier the fighter the less important a weight disadvantage is. To use PittPanther's example, a 125-pounder giving away 50 pounds is fighting against someone who weighs 40% more than he does; a 200 pounder giving up 50 pounds is at a 25% disadvantage. __________________ Diablo

10-13-2003, 03:00 PM	#15
dempsonny Major Leagues Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: long island, n.y. Posts: 325	Diablo, Would a 400 Lb HW have an advantage over a 320 Lb HW. Dempsey tore apart much bigger HW's. I've seen HW's that were cut get eaten up by HW's that looked like they never saw a pair of barbells. Big biceps doesn't translate into punching power. Primo Carnera was a big muscular speciman. Max Baer hit twice as hard. Fighters of the past fought more often therefore they were much more skilled as a whole. Today fighters go 15-0 against tomato cans and then they're on TV. Believe me this is not the era of the great HW. You would have to go back to early 70's before you mention all time greats in that division. gus __________________ A house without a dog is not a home.

10-13-2003, 03:27 PM	#16
diablo Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: El Paso, TX Posts: 43	Dempsonny, I think we agree! (1) I don't see how a 320 lb HW could get any speed on a punch, much less a 400 lb one. (2) I agree that this is not an era of great heavyweights--partly because the promoters and the public seem to believe that big muscles do equal power. However, there are a few exceptions (BIG heavyweights who also have speed and accuracy, and therefore power): George Foreman, maybe Lennox Lewis in his prime (I say "maybe" on Lewis because in my opinion the quality of opposition he faced was much lower than that faced by Foreman). __________________ Diablo

10-19-2003, 03:18 PM	#17
nyccorey Bat Boy Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 12	Power Punching.... Boxing as with any sport evolves....Athletes are bigger and somewhat smater..but not so much more talented and there is what makes the difference...... Specific trainning for each sport has raised to a new level... Trainning techniques in Boxing have also evolved....Fighters have diet specialists...strength coaches...in the past they had rather crude methods ... Fighters now I think are gifted with the knowledge of past mistakes and trappings of their later day heros.... As far as stoppage back then and now....that I think has a few factors...Our Socitey is now more so-called "civilized"... Marciano would have not gone undefeated, not becuase of lack of talent but because he would of been stopped by most referees and ringside Doctors today. I believe a Joe Louis short right hand to the chin however would still crumble a Lennix Lewis...the differnce would be how would Joe handle the offense of some of these bigger fellas... Boxers are bigger....but I feel that they are not as talented as most of the pros back then....those who are talented today howverer have a definite edge! Last edited by nyccorey; 10-19-2003 at 03:23 PM.

10-19-2003, 09:47 PM	#18
60'sfan Guest Posts: n/a	An interesting development. I strongly believe that many of today's heavies are much bigger and stronger than those of the 1970's and earlier because they have been taking steroids. Now I read that Barry Bonds has been subpoenaed to testify about steroid use. For years, Bonds has been getting drugs from a Victor Conte, the president of Balco Laboratories. Balco's top clients are being subponeaed to testify about using a drug supplied by Balco, tetrahydrogestrinone (THG). In a recent issue of Muscle and Fitness magazine, Bonds has said that he is "shocked" about what Conte has been able to do for him. Bonds holds the major league record for home runs in one season, 76 (I think). Until he was about 30, the most he ever hit was about 35. When Bonds was 30, he was about 210, and a fast runner. Now, in his late 30's, Bonds looks like he's about 240, but all muscle. He doesn't run much anymore. Barry Bonds was able to increase his strength dramatically due to the drugs he was taking. The same thing is true with todays heavyweights. They are much bigger and stronger now than ever before - due to drugs. My hope is that boxing will strictly enforce a "no drugs" policy, and the heavies will get back to a normal size.

10-21-2003, 05:05 AM	#19
alluciano Bat Boy Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 4	The increase in home runs is not all from strength increase. Its proven that you hit more hrs as you get older and have more experience. Obvious he did get much bigger later but the increase in HRs is farely normal.

10-21-2003, 01:01 PM	#20
KING GIZMO Minors (Rookie Ball) Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Birmingham, UK Posts: 46	Being heavier can only be an advantage if you use your full body weight behind your punches. If you're 50 lbs heavier than me and you only use arm punches then that extra weight will give you no advantage. Futhermore, there have been many slim looking fighters with devastating knockout punches, such as, Naseem hamed (I Know he got totally out skilled by Barrera but he is still regarded has the hardest hitting Featherweight because he used his full body weight behind his punches). So to conclude, having extra body mass can be beneficial if you use it to your advantage.