Boxing: The Toughest Sport of All


Recommended Posts

Source

What's the toughest sport of all? Good question. Ranking different sports from toughest to easiest is very subjective -- not unlike ranking fighters on a pound-for-pound basis. It's also a good way to start a debate ... and sports fans love a good debate!

ESPN.com tried to answer when they assembled a panel of eight 'experts' - sports scientists, academicians, journalists and an athlete - to determine the most and least demanding sports. Each panelist ranked sixty sports on ten different categories/skills that go into athleticism:

ENDURANCE

STRENGTH

POWER

SPEED

AGILITY

FLEXIBILITY

NERVE

DURABILITY

HAND-EYE COORDINATION

ANALYTIC APTITUDE

The responses of the panelists were then totaled and averaged to arrive at a degree-of-difficulty number for each sport on a 1-to-100 scale. At the end of applying all that math and science to a question which can never be truly 'solved', guess what sport was deemed to be the toughest of all? You guessed it ... BOXING! Hard to argue with that conclusion as none of the other 59 sports on the list involve an opponent whose primary objective is to knock you unconscious . . .

More info and a chart

We sized them up. We measured them, top to bottom. We've done our own Tale of the Tape, and we've come to a surprising conclusion. Pound for pound, the toughest sport in the world is . . .

Boxing.

The Sweet Science.

That's the sport that demands the most from the athletes who compete in it. It's harder than football, harder than baseball, harder than basketball, harder than hockey or soccer or cycling or skiing or fishing or billiards or any other of the 60 sports we rated.

In Page 2's Ultimate Degree of Difficulty Grid, boxing scores higher than them all.

But don't take our word for it. Take the word of our panel of experts, a group made up of sports scientists from the United States Olympic Committee, of academicians who study the science of muscles and movement, of a star two-sport athlete, and of journalists who spend their professional lives watching athletes succeed and fail.

They're the ones who told us that boxing is the most demanding sport -- and that fishing is the least demanding sport.

We identified 10 categories, or skills, that go into athleticism, and then asked our eight panelists to assign a number from 1 to 10 to the demands each sport makes of each of those 10 skills. By totalling and averaging their responses, we arrived at a degree-of-difficulty number for each sport on a 1 to 100 scale. That number places the difficulty of performing each sport in context with the other sports we rated.

On the grid below, click on each sortable category to find out how our 60 sports rank in each skill. A glossary key is included at the bottom of the grid that explains each category.

So put on the gloves, get in the ring and let the roundhouse hooks begin.

I concur with the panel of judges that Boxing is thee most difficult sport. Whats cool is the grid in the second link. Check it out, fishing is the least most difficult sport lol.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/526728-boxing-the-toughest-sport-of-all/
Share on other sites

Grouping all martial arts under one hat in that survey is just ridiculous and some of those numbers just do not make sense. I agree boxing should be on top but in my mind there is no way football and basketball should rank higher than Judo for example and Judo should most definitely rank higher than Wrestling (all in my opinion of course).

I'd say UFC.

UFC fighters are winded in three rounds most of the time. Majority wise, look at the physiques between boxers and MMA dudes (not counting heavyweight boxing, pretty pathetic at the moment). Boxers are more chiseled and carry a ton of stamina. Plus, the pillow gloves allow a boxer (with a decent beard) to sustain more punishment over a longer period of time whereas in MMA you can score a quick knockout. Some things to ponder.

I would say that High Altitude mountaineering is much tougher, but i dont think they even took this into account. In boxing you couldnt suffer from Blood filling in your lungs and slowly killing you while frostbite knaws at your hands and feet.

Or while your climbing at FL270 (27,000ft) where it is hard to breathe even with oxygen......

Someone inform ESPN that boxing IS a martial art. They're making a distinction between boxing and martial arts, but they're not defining what "martial arts" is. Is it mixed martial arts? Is it all martial arts as practiced within their own discipline put into one group? If so how many and what other disciplines did they study? That fact that they're so vague makes me wonder.

I'm not going to take that "study" very seriously.

UFC fighters are winded in three rounds most of the time. Majority wise, look at the physiques between boxers and MMA dudes (not counting heavyweight boxing, pretty pathetic at the moment). Boxers are more chiseled and carry a ton of stamina. Plus, the pillow gloves allow a boxer (with a decent beard) to sustain more punishment over a longer period of time whereas in MMA you can score a quick knockout. Some things to ponder.

I really don't know what having a nice physique has to do with either sport because at that level it has nothing to do with stamina or strength. If you want to watch nice physiques there is the WWE.

In fact, too much muscle will be a determent and you'll gas out faster. You need more oxygen to feed that "nice physique." I'll use Fedor Emelianenko [picture] as an example. Top MMA fighter in the world. He can arguably decimate any man from any close combat discipline (in an MMA setting of course) and he is by no means chiseled, or a "looker". If you think he's out of shape, he just went two rounds with a man (who's background was a kick-boxer mind you) who was outweighing him by 60 pounds and who was putting that weight on top of him for most of the fight.

Second, they're not referred to as UFC fighters. They're mixed martial arts fighters, and I wouldn't use the UFC as a barometer for MMA fighters because it is not the premier MMA organization. Not to discount the physical condition of UFC fighters.

Third, you're comparing the two as if they're the same. Boxing is a sport where you're constantly standing on your feet and are regulated to using your fists. MMA involves more than boxing. For one, there is grappling, which is a hell of a lot more tiring and requires more stamina than merely boxing. Try going for a shoot on someone several times in a match and see if you're still as fresh as if you were just boxing with them. Don't let their physiques fool you. Furthermore, in PFC they have 10 minute opening rounds, followed by two 5 minute rounds. That says more about their physical condition than I can explain.

Fourth, boxing gloves are heavy and bulky and thus detract from aim AND speed. MMA gloves are light and are worn only to offer minimal protection to the puncher, so they do not inhibit the punchers punching speed nor aim. This is why when someone gets hit in the right spot, they go down immediately. Moreover, to add to that point, with boxing gloves you can hit as hard as you want without fear of hurting your hand. Since MMA gloves provide minimal protection to the fighter, if you hit a hard spot like the forehead or elbow, you'll feel it. Also, since boxing gloves are much bigger they provide an unrealistic defense as you can block with them. With MMA gloves, punches are more inclined to slide through and penetrate a guard, as they would with a bare knuckle fight.

Boxing and MMA are both very tough sports and similar in that they're close combat striking sports. However, since it's a culmination of all martial arts, there are so many more variables that go into and thus a greater degree of difficulty. While in boxing you pretty much know your opponent is either going to hit you in the head or body with his fists, and he's going to do it standing up. I'd rank MMA above boxing in each of those categories.

EDIT: Fixed typo.

I really don't know what having a nice physique has to do with either sport because at that level it has nothing to do with stamina or strength. If you want to watch nice physiques there is the WWE.

Normally a lean build usually indicates that an athlete has trained well in preparation. What this has to do with a muscular WWE man is merely off the point. If you compared Sumo wrestling and running, whom would last longer and what do they both look like? This does not discount the fact that certain athletes genetics work against popular beliefs. Its few and far between though. Then you have making weight in boxing where fighters actually fight at dangerously lower weights than they normally would. This hasn't really hit MMA yet since they have large gaps in weight classes from what I'm accustomed to.

In fact, too much muscle will be a determent and you'll gas out faster. You need more oxygen to feed that "nice physique." I'll use Fedor Emelianenko [picture] as an example. Top MMA fighter in the world. He can arguably decimate any man from any close combat discipline (in an MMA setting of course) and he is by no means chiseled, or a "looker". If you think he's out of shape, he just went two rounds with a man (who's background was a kick-boxer mind you) who was outweighing him by 60 pounds and who was putting that weight on top of him for most of the fight.

Again, I never used the word muscular and there is no disagreement there but not in the sense that a fighter would lose stamina. Thats not entirely true. Except for heavyweight boxing, the reason you would not want to pack on muscle is for stiffness and the ability to block punches. Having large triceps hinders the ability to block body shots as you would not be able to pull your elbows flush to the body. Also, you just dont need triceps as much as biceps since a proper punch is pulled not pushed i.e. the snap.

Second, they're not referred to as UFC fighters. They're mixed martial arts fighters, and I wouldn't use the UFC as a barometer for MMA fighters because it is not the premier MMA organization. Not to discount the physical condition of UFC fighters.

Easy there touchy fella, UFC is a division with different rules but still fight with MMA discipline. The two terms get mixed all the time because of the UFCs introduction in the US. The person I quoted used UFC initially. If I addressed the subject originally it would have used the MMA moniker to avoid unneeded protest about a stupid word. I'm an experienced fan of MMA as with most contact combat sports but I'm not going to let the confusion bother me that much, its silly.

Third, you're comparing the two as if they're the same. Boxing is a sport where you're constantly standing on your feet and are regulated to using your fists. MMA involves more than boxing. For one, there is grappling, which is a hell of a lot more tiring and requires more stamina than merely boxing. Try going for a shoot on someone several times in a match and see if you're still as fresh as if you were just boxing with them. Don't let their physiques fool you. Furthermore, in PFC they have 10 minute opening rounds, followed by two 5 minute rounds. That says more about their physical condition than I can explain.

I never said they were the same, in fact wasn't my not treating them the same the reason you wrote such a defensive post?

Fourth, boxing gloves are heavy and bulky and thus detract from aim AND speed. MMA gloves are light and are worn only to offer minimal protection to the puncher, so they do not inhibit the punchers punching speed nor aim. This is why when someone gets hit in the right spot, they go down immediately. Moreover, to add to that point, with boxing gloves you can hit as hard as you want without fear of hurting your hand. Since MMA gloves provide minimal protection to the fighter, if you hit a hard spot like the forehead or elbow, you'll feel it. Also, since boxing gloves are much bigger they provide an unrealistic defense as you can block with them. With MMA gloves, punches are more inclined to slide through and penetrate a guard, as they would with a bare knuckle fight.

Sorry but this is where you are just wrong. Boxing gloves are not used to protect your hands, they are used to protect fighters and prolong boxing matches. There is a real controversy over this due to the deaths of boxers. Accepting so many blows has caused many internal head injuries. The good thing about MMA is that you can only take so many bare knuckle cracks and you're out. Limiting the amount of punishment you need to endure. Solely on this fact alone makes boxing a tougher sport.

I don't think there is any MMA fighter in the world that could hit as fast as Manny Paquiao wearing 12 ounce 'pillows'. The speed detraction is nill.

Boxing and MMA are both very tough sports and similar in that they're close combat striking sports. However, since it's a culmination of all martial arts, there are so many more variables that go into and thus a greater degree of difficulty. While in boxing you pretty much know your opponent is either going to hit you in the head or body with his fists, and he's going to do it standing up. I'd rank MMA above boxing in each of those categories.

EDIT: Fixed typo.

If the MMA were truly recognized in the ESPN rankings as a separate sport it should rank higher than being lumped into a category with Karate imo. What MMA is working through right now is getting a dominant style as was the transformation in boxing years and years ago. Which is actually what caused matches to get boring if you get what I'm saying (not including corruptness). MMA has a little ways to go, and Ill be following along watching the transformation.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • AMD RX 9070 GRE AI, Blender benchmarks vs 9070 XT, 7800XT, Nvidia RTX 5070, 4070 by Sayan Sen Earlier this week, we shared the first part of our review of AMD's new RX 9070 GRE. It was about the gaming performance of the GPU, and we gave it an 8 out of 10. As a follow-up, similar to how we did with the 9070 XT and non-XT, we are doing a dedicated productivity review for the RX 9070 GRE as well, where we compare it against the 9070 XT, 9070, 7800 XT, as well as Nvidia's 5070 and 4070. This will include AI, rendering, compute, and more benchmarks. AI performance, especially, is a very important metric in today's world, and AMD also promised big improvements thanks to its underlying architectural improvements. We will be pitching it against the data we already have for the RX 9070, and RX 9070 XT, but also the Nvidia 5070 FE, MSI GeForce RTX 4070 VENTUS 2X 12G, and Gigabyte Radeon RX 7800 XT GAMING OC 16G as they are in a similar price class, but also because we do not have a comparable 5060 Ti card lying around here that we can compare it against. Before we get underway, this is a collaboration between Sayan Sen and Steven Parker, who lent me his test bed. Also, there was no editorial input from AMD. First up, the specs of the RX 9070, 9070 XT, and 9070 GRE, which were given to us by AMD: Radeon RX 9070 GRE Radeon RX 9070 Radeon RX 9070 XT Boost Clock: Game Clock: up to 2.79GHz up to 2.20GHz up to 2.52GHz up to 2.07GHz up to 2.97GHz up to 2.40GHz Stream Processors 3,072 (48 CU) 3,584 (56 CU) 4,096 (64 CU) Ray Accelerator 48 56 64 AI Accelerator 96 112 128 ROPs 96 128 Texture Mapping Units 192 224 256 Memory 12 GB GDDR6, 18Gbps Clock, 192-bit Bus 432 GB/s 16 GB GDDR6, 20Gbps Clock, 256-bit Bus Effective Memory Bandwidth: 640 GB/s Infinity Cache 48 MB (3rd Gen) 64 MB (3rd Gen) Card Bus PCI-E 5.0 X16 Output 2x HDMI 2.1b 2x DisplayPort 2.1a Power consumption 220W 304W Recommended PSU 650W 750W Slot width 2x 3x Price (SEP) $549 $599 As you can see from the specs above, it is less than the standard RX 9070 in every way that counts, except for slightly higher Boost and Game clock speed. Design Moving on, the RX 9070 GRE we were given is an XFX Swift triple-fan, dual-slot design with two 8-pin connectors. At 30cm (self-measured), it will fit in most systems easily. There is no RGB either. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE by XFX from all angles. Test system Our test system consists of the following: Lian Li O11 Dynamic Mini V2 Flow (Amazon|Newegg) ASUS Z890 ProArt Creator WiFi (Amazon|Newegg) Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus (Amazon|Newegg) Thermal Grizzly KryoSheet - 44x37 (Amazon|Newegg) 2x 16GB G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB (7200 MT/s in XMP) (Amazon|Newegg) Sabrent Rocket4 Plus 2TB SSD (Amazon) Windows 11 25H2 (Build 26200.8246) AMD shared a press driver based on the recently released Adrenaline 26.5.2 that we were required to use. We now move on to our benchmarks. First up, we have Geekbench AI running on ONNX. For some reason, the 9070 GRE does exceptionally well here in both half-precision (FP16) and single-precision (FP32). It manages to beat the RTX 5070 and RX 9070 non-XT, and is only behind the 9070 XT. Since Geekbench runs in short bursts instead of continuously hammering the graphics card, it seems the GRE's faster boost clocks are helping here. Next up, we move to the UL Procyon AI test suite, starting with the image generation benchmark. We chose the Stable Diffusion XL FP16 test since it is the most intense workload available on Procyon. The Nvidia cards do very well here, as even the 4070 out-muscles AMD's best fairy easily. The positive thing about the GRE is that it gets quite close to the 9070 non-XT in this test; this indicates that the VRAM does not play a very big role here, as SD XL relies on float16 (FP16). So this is something to keep in mind again. If you wish to work with float32 AI workloads, graphics cards with larger than 12 GB buffers would likely emerge as victors. Regardless, the gains are still massive on AMD's 9000 series compared to the 7000 series. Following image generation, we move to the text generation benchmark. This is one test where the 9070 GRE struggled, quite a lot. It seems that the 12 GB VRAM and lower memory bandwidth of the new Radeon 9070 GRE are hurting it quite a bit; the split is massive, especially in a test like Llama2, which packs 13 billion parameters. As such, in all the tests, the 9070 GRE is the slowest of the lot. Next, we tried Blender, and here the AMD GPUs were beaten by Nvidia. Rendering is something the Green team has always had a lead over the Red side, and it has not changed so far. On the positive side, though, the 9070 GRE shows significantly better results than the 7800 XT, which means AMD is on the right path. Catching up to Nvidia, though, will require a lot more effort. And we hope HIP and ROCm can keep improving. Wrapping up AI testing, we measured OpenCL throughput in the Geekbench compute benchmark. The RX 9070 GRE alongside the 9070 did not fare well here at all, even falling behind the 7800 XT. Interestingly, even the RTX 5070 could not beat the 4070 on OpenCL, so perhaps this suggests that OpenCL optimization may not have been a priority for either AMD or Nvidia in the modern era. Conclusion We reached the end of our productivity performance review of the 9070 GRE, and we have to say it's a mixed bag. Unlike the 9070 and 9070 XT, the GRE excels in some areas while losing ground fairly easily in others. Similar to how it happened in gaming, any time the card's memory subsystem gets hammered, it tends to fall behind the others. This was the case with text generation, wherein we saw the VRAM sometimes hit its maximum available 12 GB of usage with larger model sizes. So what do we make of the RX 9070 as a productivity hardware? It can certainly be used, but you have to know it has its limitations. For those looking for a GPU that can deal with more, AMD recently unveiled the Radeon AI PRO R9700, which is essentially a 32 GB refresh of the 9070 XT with some additional workstation-based optimizations. On a similar note, the new Ryzen AI Halo platform is something you can consider if you want to set up a local AI processing station. Considering everything, we rate AMD's Radeon RX 9070 GRE a 7.5 out of 10 for its productivity performance. Price is less of a factor for those looking at productivity cases compared to those considering the GPU for gaming, and as such, we felt it did quite decently on many occasions and can be handy if you need a 12 GB GPU and, for some reason, don't want to get Nvidia. Purchase links: RX 9070 / XT / GRE (Amazon US) As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Does anyone here know if these updates are integrated into the UUP dump isos?
    • Motrix Next 3.9.4 by Razvan Serea Motrix Next is a modern, open-source cross-platform download manager built as the official next-generation successor to the original Motrix project. It has been completely rewritten using Tauri 2, Vue 3, TypeScript, and Rust, while still relying on the powerful Aria2 download engine for high-speed multi-protocol transfers. The app supports HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, BitTorrent, ED2K and magnet links, offering advanced features like multi-connection acceleration, task scheduling, bandwidth control, and batch download management. With a significantly reduced install size (around 20MB), it focuses on being lightweight, fast, and resource-efficient compared to traditional Electron-based download tools. Designed for Windows, macOS, and Linux, Motrix Next delivers a clean, modern UI inspired by Material Design 3 principles, with smooth animations and a minimal workflow. It improves usability through better download organization, system tray integration, and enhanced torrent handling including selective file downloads and tracker management. Motrix Next features: Multi-protocol downloads — HTTP, FTP, BitTorrent, Magnet, .torrent, ED2K, and Metalink tasks BitTorrent — Selective file download, DHT, peer exchange, encryption controls, metadata caching, GeoIP peer flags, and tracker probing Browser extension integration — Embedded Extension API with independent authentication, download confirmation, smart auto-submit, filename hints, referer/cookie forwarding, and real-time controls (Chrome Web Store · Edge Add-ons) Safe filename handling — Content-Disposition, RFC 2047, non-UTF-8, percent-encoded, and extensionless URL resolution with path traversal sanitization Download organization — Favorite and recent folders, optional file-type categorization, stale-record cleanup, and completed history backed by SQLite Concurrent downloads — Independent controls for active tasks, HTTP connections per server, segments per file, and BT peer limits Speed control — Global and per-task upload/download limits with day-of-week and time-of-day scheduling System integration — Tray operation, optional tray speed display, macOS Dock badge/progress, protocol handlers for magnet://, thunder://, and motrixnext:// Lightweight mode — Destroys the WebView on minimize-to-tray while Rust keeps the engine, task monitor, notifications, history, and extension routing alive Notifications and power options — Native task start/complete/failure notifications, keep-awake during downloads, and optional shutdown after completion Network controls — Scoped proxy support for downloads, app updates, and tracker updates, plus system proxy detection Auto-update channels — Stable, Beta, and Latest Across Channels policies with separate download and install phases Diagnostics — Structured logs, exportable diagnostic ZIPs, database integrity checks, automatic DB rebuild, and Linux GPU rendering fallback Personalization — Light/dark/system theme, 10 color schemes, 26 languages, and first-launch system language detection Motrix Next 3.9.4 changelog: Motrix Next 3.9.4 promotes the 3.9.4 beta cycle to stable. This release refreshes bundled engine binaries, improves task detail readability and copy actions, expands link handling for magnet and ED2K workflows, polishes responsive navigation and text wrapping, updates browser extension documentation, and refines network preference controls. New Features Task Detail copy actions — Added copyable values for task metadata and reusable render functions for long text fields. Magnet and ED2K lifecycle support — Added task lifecycle handling for magnet and ED2K links. History cleanup for deleted tasks — Deleted tasks can now remove matching history records. User-Agent management — Added user-agent management and improved related network preference controls. Browser extension documentation — Added the Firefox Add-ons link for the Motrix Next extension. Improvements Engine binaries — Updated bundled binaries for supported architectures. Task Detail readability — Long task names, URLs, tracker values, and copyable metadata now render more clearly. Deletion messaging — Refined localized task deletion text for clarity and consistency. Text wrapping — Improved URI input wrapping and task name multiline display. Navigation layout — Improved sub-navigation responsiveness. Disk allocation default — Changed the default file allocation method to trunc. Proxy controls — Improved proxy button styling in network preferences. Download: Motrix Next 64-bit | ARM64 | macOS ~20.0 MB (Open Source) Links: Website | macOS / Linux | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NVIDIA officially supports Ubuntu, as linked above with the GeForce NOW Hands on I did in collaboration with Paul Hill.
    • TO be clear I am not running linux today, however I keep thinking about it. And I want to make sure there are minimal obstacles if I decide to make that switch in the coming months.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      Mark Spruce earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Collaborator
      conkir earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      479
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      244
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      72
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      66
    5. 5
      +Edouard
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!