BoxRec

mimmy123 wrote:http://www.documentingreality.com/forum ... ar-144577/

I knew it wouldnt be many years to wait for the next kid to emerge as the next 'big thing' to save the world of boxing.

rm1 wrote:over training a kid is the surest way to ruin any potential. So NO.

Sklar wrote:In answer to the question "Could this 5 year old kid be the next Mike Tyson?" the answer is a resounding "no". (on the basis that he's the age claimed and not younger) That child is never going to be a heavyweight boxer, even a relatively short one like Mike was. That kid will make 5'7" or 5'8" tops. He looks really good on the pads though, so if he sticks with it, he might be a good lightweight one day.

columbo wrote: How can you tell how tall he's going to end up at 5 though? lol

Multiple regression equations for predicting the adult height of boys and girls from height and bone age at ages 4 and upwards are presented. There is a separate equation for each half year of chronological age; and for pre- and postmenarcheal girls at ages 11 to 14. These are based on longitudinal data from 116 boys and 95 girls of the Harpenden Growth Study and the London group of the International Children's Centre longitudinal study. The bone age used is the revised version of the Tanner-Whitehouse standards, omitting the score for carpal bones (RUS age, TW 2 system). Boys aged 4 to 12 are predicted in 95% of instances to within plus or minus 7 cm of true height, and at ages 13 and 14 to within plus or minus 6 cm. Girls ages 4 to 11 are predicted to within plus or minus 6 cm; premenarcheal girls aged 12 and 13 to within plus or minus 5 and plus or minus 4 cm, respectively; and postmenarcheal girls aged 12 and 13 to within plus or minus 4 and plus or minus 3 cm, respectively. Prediction can be somewhat imporved by allowing for midparent height. One-third of the amount that midparent height differs from mean midparent height is added or subtracted. An alternative system of equations which are based on initial classification by bone age rather than chronological age is given. These have about the same accuracy as the equations based on initial classification by chronological age, but allowance for bone age retardation is less. It is not clear which system is preferable. The equations probably apply to girls complaining of tall stature and boys or girls complaining of shortness and needing reassurance as to normality. In clearly pathological children, such as those with endocrinopathies, they do not apply.

columbo wrote:

Sklar wrote:In answer to the question "Could this 5 year old kid be the next Mike Tyson?" the answer is a resounding "no". (on the basis that he's the age claimed and not younger) That child is never going to be a heavyweight boxer, even a relatively short one like Mike was. That kid will make 5'7" or 5'8" tops. He looks really good on the pads though, so if he sticks with it, he might be a good lightweight one day.

How can you tell how tall he's going to end up at 5 though? lol

Anzi wrote:

columbo wrote:

Sklar wrote:In answer to the question "Could this 5 year old kid be the next Mike Tyson?" the answer is a resounding "no". (on the basis that he's the age claimed and not younger) That child is never going to be a heavyweight boxer, even a relatively short one like Mike was. That kid will make 5'7" or 5'8" tops. He looks really good on the pads though, so if he sticks with it, he might be a good lightweight one day.

How can you tell how tall he's going to end up at 5 though? lol

Assumptions on here are par for the course lol.

Anzi wrote:

columbo wrote:

Sklar wrote:In answer to the question "Could this 5 year old kid be the next Mike Tyson?" the answer is a resounding "no". (on the basis that he's the age claimed and not younger) That child is never going to be a heavyweight boxer, even a relatively short one like Mike was. That kid will make 5'7" or 5'8" tops. He looks really good on the pads though, so if he sticks with it, he might be a good lightweight one day.

How can you tell how tall he's going to end up at 5 though? lol

Assumptions on here are par for the course lol.

ttornado wrote:

columbo wrote: How can you tell how tall he's going to end up at 5 though? lol

Biology, maths and whatnot!

Multiple regression equations for predicting the adult height of boys and girls from height and bone age at ages 4 and upwards are presented. There is a separate equation for each half year of chronological age; and for pre- and postmenarcheal girls at ages 11 to 14. These are based on longitudinal data from 116 boys and 95 girls of the Harpenden Growth Study and the London group of the International Children's Centre longitudinal study. The bone age used is the revised version of the Tanner-Whitehouse standards, omitting the score for carpal bones (RUS age, TW 2 system). Boys aged 4 to 12 are predicted in 95% of instances to within plus or minus 7 cm of true height, and at ages 13 and 14 to within plus or minus 6 cm. Girls ages 4 to 11 are predicted to within plus or minus 6 cm; premenarcheal girls aged 12 and 13 to within plus or minus 5 and plus or minus 4 cm, respectively; and postmenarcheal girls aged 12 and 13 to within plus or minus 4 and plus or minus 3 cm, respectively. Prediction can be somewhat imporved by allowing for midparent height. One-third of the amount that midparent height differs from mean midparent height is added or subtracted. An alternative system of equations which are based on initial classification by bone age rather than chronological age is given. These have about the same accuracy as the equations based on initial classification by chronological age, but allowance for bone age retardation is less. It is not clear which system is preferable. The equations probably apply to girls complaining of tall stature and boys or girls complaining of shortness and needing reassurance as to normality. In clearly pathological children, such as those with endocrinopathies, they do not apply.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1544488/

Riddick Blowe wrote:Fvcking joke how slowly the kid is being moved. He is clearly ready for Katsunari Takayama, but they keep matching him against fvking heavy bags and guys with pads.

danconnollyeire wrote:Yes, No, Maybe, I dunno... he's 5

crusader wrote:

mimmy123 wrote:http://www.documentingreality.com/forum ... ar-144577/

I knew it wouldnt be many years to wait for the next kid to emerge as the next 'big thing' to save the world of boxing.

Are you seriously suggesting that a 5 year old with presumably no or very limited competitive history is going to save boxing based on a short clip of him hitting the pads?

There are plenty of these 'super kids' out there. I'd be more impressed if they actually showed that ability in the ring rather than on pads or bags, not to mention that there are loads of other factors that may prevent them from becoming highly successful in the sport, such as competing interests and legal problems. Obviously these kids seems to be showing potential to be good boxers, but becoming an elite professional requires a lot more than looking great on the pads as a youngster.

By the way, the most successful of these YouTube sensations (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHEY8NGtuD0) that I know of is Ryuto Kyoguchi, who is now 11-0-1 as a pro and ranked 51st at featherweight by BoxRec. It should be interesting to see how many of these kids end up as the very successful pros people often claim they can be.

Riddick Blowe wrote:Fvcking joke how slowly the kid is being moved. He is clearly ready for Katsunari Takayama, but they keep matching him against fvking heavy bags and guys with pads.

Sklar wrote:In answer to the question "Could this 5 year old kid be the next Mike Tyson?" the answer is a resounding "no". (on the basis that he's the age claimed and not younger) That child is never going to be a heavyweight boxer, even a relatively short one like Mike was. That kid will make 5'7" or 5'8" tops. He looks really good on the pads though, so if he sticks with it, he might be a good lightweight one day.

SteveDow wrote:Great work on the pads but as others have said it's way to early to be predicting anything.