Author(s)

André Mukala Nsengu Tshibangu

Department of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Kinshasa, Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo.

High level performance is influenced by the three somatotype components: endo- morphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy. Mesomorphy is the most important of the three for boxing practice. An increase in ectomorphy rating is always accompanied by a decrease in mesomorphy rating. Is thus a higher ectomorphy rating overtaxing and/or counterproductive for boxing performance? That is the basis of the present study and the results follow. Boxing could overtax the practitioner the least at the ectomorphy rating value of 2.5. With increasing and with decreasing rating values from 2.5, boxing could overtax even more the practitioner. At the ectomorphy rating of 2.5, boxing is counterproductive: one finds lowest percentages of KO victories and of all victories (KO and non-KO) pulled together; as well as highest percentages of non-KO losses and of all losses (KO and non-KO) pulled together. With boxers ec- tomorphy rating moving from 2.5 towards 0.1 or towards 5.1, there are: an increase in all victories (KO and non-KO) pulled together percentages and the consequent decrease in all losses (KO and non-KO) pulled together percentages; an increase in KO victories percentages and the consequent decrease in non-KO victories percentages; and a increase in KO losses percentages and the consequent decrease in non-KO losses percentages. With boxer ectomorphy ratings increasing from 0.1 to 5.1, percentages of draws go on decreasing. Taking into account ectomorphy ratings could thus help organizers select boxers so as to increase the probability of a given decision: KO victory by Mike Tyson, non-KO victory by Ken Buchanan, for instance.

Anthropometry, Boxing, Draws, Ectomorphy, Losses, Performance, Victories

Tshibangu, A. (2016) Boxing Performance of Most Boxers Is Directed by Their Ectomorphy Ratings towards Lowest Percentages of Victories and Highest Percentages of Losses. Advances in Physical Education, 6, 351-363. doi: 10.4236/ape.2016.64036.