Supersudo,
I think it matters a lot more for the draw-down than the build up, but the main factors for 100% stocks is that you need to be 100% sure you can handle BIG drops and not get scared and cash out. The other factor on draw-down is being able to pull back on your spending in the early years (1st decade) during real crash-type drops to get the huge benefits of 100% stocks later on. VERY tough for lots of people, and they don't want/can't do it.
If you want the most $ from day one and want to count on that, plus modest raises year after year, 100% stocks is probably not for you.
I'm 100% stocks, right on the borderline of FIRE, and don't expect to follow a generic 4% rule 'cuz it doesn't mix well with 100% stocks.
If the market drops a lot, I'll cut back on spending and draw from a line of credit for all or part of a few years. That's like having 'virtual' bonds that magically appear right at the exact time you happen to need 'em. Down the road (year 10+), you should be so far ahead you won't have to care when there's another huge drop 'cuz it'll just drop you to the spending level of those on a 'safer' path.
The short version is 100% stock will probably make you look stupid in the first decade, but kick most people's asses from there on -as long as you didn't actually do something stupid during an early crash.
It's probably good to have more overhead in investments if you're 100% stocks, too. This means getting more like ~33X spending (~3%-ish rule). But that, on average, doesn't really take any longer to reach compared to say a nice old school 60/40 stock/bond blend that reaches ~25X spending (4% rule) at about the same time on build-up.