Resizing the Heavyweights: Jack Johnson a 240lb Killer?

[Carbo]

I write occasionally for David Payne’s blog BoxingWriter, and I recently contributed an article about resizing the old-time heavyweights for today’s world.

We’re all used the arguments against the old time heavyweights, and they usually revolve around size. Just how could Rocky Marciano have given up so much weight against Lennox Lewis and Riddick Bowe and expected to win?

I got onto thinking about this, and how humans have grown over the last 150 years, and how guys like Mackie Shilstone have boosted muscle mass and bulk.

What would John L Sullivan, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis and Jack Johnson look like today? And if they looked different, how would they fare against the recent heavyweight greats?

You can read my efforts to do things scientifically here --> http://boxingwriter.wordpress.com/2008/ ... lb-killer/

I'd be interested in your comments.

[jezzamundo]

That made a really interesting read. I am one of the school who believe that size does matter, and a prime Lennox Lewis would have absolutely schooled (and eventually stopped on cuts) a prime Marciano. The only part I would somewhat question is whether the Shilstone conditioning, and whether it would actually be beneficial to the old timers when facing today's heavier fighters. I think most would agree that the stamina of most of the best heavyweights from the 90s and 00s is clearly worse than that of the champions of old, and that a little extra strength (I won't say power, because the extra bulk could reduce flexibility and speed) would not be worth the trade-off in stamina.

[Diamond WEAPON]

That made a really interesting read. I am one of the school who believe that size does matter, and a prime Lennox Lewis would have absolutely schooled (and eventually stopped on cuts) a prime Marciano. The only part I would somewhat question is whether the Shilstone conditioning, and whether it would actually be beneficial to the old timers when facing today's heavier fighters. I think most would agree that the stamina of most of the best heavyweights from the 90s and 00s is clearly worse than that of the champions of old, and that a little extra strength (I won't say power, because the extra bulk could reduce flexibility and speed) would not be worth the trade-off in stamina.

Good post, you pretty much described my sentiments about that article in full. I'm also unsure the Shilstone conditioning would apply so evenly to all of those fighters, I think the effects of modern day conditioning and training would have maybe 50-75% of the extra effect that he calculated it would have, because humans aren't machines that are easily able to apply math to.

[Carbo]

That made a really interesting read. I am one of the school who believe that size does matter, and a prime Lennox Lewis would have absolutely schooled (and eventually stopped on cuts) a prime Marciano. The only part I would somewhat question is whether the Shilstone conditioning, and whether it would actually be beneficial to the old timers when facing today's heavier fighters. I think most would agree that the stamina of most of the best heavyweights from the 90s and 00s is clearly worse than that of the champions of old, and that a little extra strength (I won't say power, because the extra bulk could reduce flexibility and speed) would not be worth the trade-off in stamina.

Good post, you pretty much described my sentiments about that article in full. I'm also unsure the Shilstone conditioning would apply so evenly to all of those fighters, I think the effects of modern day conditioning and training would have maybe 50-75% of the extra effect that he calculated it would have, because humans aren't machines that are easily able to apply math to.

Thanks for the response, guys.

Jazzamundo, I believe that that Stamina may have been affected by the Shilstone work, but perhaps not as much as you might think. The old timers were guys who could clearly go 15 rounds, sometimes more -- even Joe Louis had some fights scheduled for 20 and beyond. However, work with Shilstone shouldn't dent this, because he is at pains to point out the difference between the work he does, and the work done by others, who just build muscles. He argues that if the bulking is done right, stamina shouldn't be affected, and looking at the work he did with Roy Jones, Michael Spinks and Bernard Hopkins, I tend to agree with him.

Of course, on the other side of the coin are those heavily muscled heavyweights with suspect stamina, like Vladimir Klitschko; however, I'm not sure why that is, because there should be nothing to stop a 240lb man who trains properly having enough stamina to do the distance. Perhaps it's poor preparation; perhaps it is a low body fat count? Who knows?

However, even if you argue that they would be affected, how do we know that it would be negatively? In my view, they're just as likely to get a cardio boost from modern work as they are to lose stamina, right? Or perhaps things would cancell out and they'd keep roughly the same level of cardio fitness. And how do we know how fit that was, anyway? I think in these circumstances, it's is best to leave it alone.

What I do know is that Shilshone has trained men to carry more muscle without losing speed or stamina, which is why I included a 3 point BMI boost in my article.

I wonder how a 240lb Jack Johnson would do now, and I suspect rather well. I even think that John Sullivan, crude as he would have been, would terrorize the hopeless cases we have at the top of the heavyweight division these days if he was 6'2'' and 225.

[Pygmy]

In regards to the stamina of old, is it a matter of a slower pace or truly better stamina? I haven't seen the old, great heavyweights fight, but I would guess that if you are training for a 15 round fight that you would pace yourself for the extra 3 rounds from today's 12. Someone with a better historical perspective may be able to answer that.

The physique on some of the current guys is more impressive looking, but that doesn't really mean anything from a fighting perspective. Wlad Klitschko has learned to pace himself a bit better, but it has made him less exciting. Shannon Briggs is probably a bad example with his medical condition, but I can't help thinking of him when heavyweight and stamina are mentioned together. Holyfield has great stamina. Lennox had pretty good stamina too even though he went on idle from time to time.

[dempseyfire]

In regards to the stamina of old, is it a matter of a slower pace or truly better stamina? I haven't seen the old, great heavyweights fight, but I would guess that if you are training for a 15 round fight that you would pace yourself for the extra 3 rounds from today's 12. Someone with a better historical perspective may be able to answer that.

The physique on some of the current guys is more impressive looking, but that doesn't really mean anything from a fighting perspective. Wlad Klitschko has learned to pace himself a bit better, but it has made him less exciting. Shannon Briggs is probably a bad example with his medical condition, but I can't help thinking of him when heavyweight and stamina are mentioned together. Holyfield has great stamina. Lennox had pretty good stamina too even though he went on idle from time to time.

The likes of Dempsey, Sharkey, Louis, Ali, Frazier fought on average at much faster paces than today's HWs, over longer distances.
Lewis noticeably tired after 9 rounds vs Mercer and Holyfield. He teetered out late vs Tucker. His mouth was wide-open after 3 rounds vs Briggs. Lennox didn't have bad stamina for a big man but it would certainly be a major weakness in a 15 round fight vs the likes of Johnson, Louis, Ali etc.

As for Shilstone, I respect his work, but his results have been exaggerated. Holyfield's stamina advantage was more pronounced vs older, overweight fighters like Foreman and Dokes, but in both of those bouts he seemed to at times just freeze and stop throwing punches (and recieve a fair amount of head shots in return) . . not a sign of great stamina. And Holyfield's work-rate was much better when he weighed 205-210 as opposed to his later 215-220. And anyone remember Michael Spinks literally gasping for air by the 8th round vs Holmes in their rematch?

[Pygmy]

Thanks, Dempseyfire.

That's interesting because my first reaction is to think that it's just because the guys today are bigger that they have worse stamina. Then, I think of the heavies today that are closer in size to the heavies of old.

We've got guys like Povetkin, Chambers, and Byrd who are closer in size to the old greats. I can't say that Povetkin or Chambers impress me much on a stamina basis. Byrd, in his heavyweight days, had pretty good stamina, but he also didn't commit to his punches much. I know it's not a fair comparison as none of these guys will go down as all-time greats, but we just don't have any small, recent greats to compare to.

This all leaves me wondering what the heavyweights of yesteryear did to have greater stamina. Perhaps it was more emphasis on cardio and less on weights?

[dempseyfire]

Thanks, Dempseyfire.

That's interesting because my first reaction is to think that it's just because the guys today are bigger that they have worse stamina. Then, I think of the heavies today that are closer in size to the heavies of old.

We've got guys like Povetkin, Chambers, and Byrd who are closer in size to the old greats. I can't say that Povetkin or Chambers impress me much on a stamina basis. Byrd, in his heavyweight days, had pretty good stamina, but he also didn't commit to his punches much. I know it's not a fair comparison as none of these guys will go down as all-time greats, but we just don't have any small, recent greats to compare to.

This all leaves me wondering what the heavyweights of yesteryear did to have greater stamina. Perhaps it was more emphasis on cardio and less on weights?

You're right on the mark with the comparisons to Povetkin, Ruiz, Brewster, Ibragimov, Chagaev, Chambers etc. Those guys in terms of natural body size are no bigger than your Quarrys, Fraziers, Louisis (and in the case of Chambers and Byrd naturally smaller) but they simply weigh more. Why? Less roadwork and less disciplined diets are the main standouts. I don't even think the likes of Chagaev do much in terms of weights, he just baloons up in weight in-between fights.

[Diamond WEAPON]

In regards to the stamina of old, is it a matter of a slower pace or truly better stamina? I haven't seen the old, great heavyweights fight, but I would guess that if you are training for a 15 round fight that you would pace yourself for the extra 3 rounds from today's 12. Someone with a better historical perspective may be able to answer that.

The physique on some of the current guys is more impressive looking, but that doesn't really mean anything from a fighting perspective. Wlad Klitschko has learned to pace himself a bit better, but it has made him less exciting. Shannon Briggs is probably a bad example with his medical condition, but I can't help thinking of him when heavyweight and stamina are mentioned together. Holyfield has great stamina. Lennox had pretty good stamina too even though he went on idle from time to time.

Old-time fighters (particularly those pre-1930's) often did fight at slower paces over the long distances that their fights went. A lot of people try to over-dramatize old time fighters as if they were all doing a Barrera-Morales impression for every second over 15 plus rounds, but the truth is the action was very much in spurts much like it is today. There are plenty of old fights between HW's that weren't all out exciting slugfests over 15 rounds.

I honestly don't think that HW's nowadays necessarily have that much worse stamina than many of the ATG's. I think the stamina issues are overblown in most instances along with the other issues in people trying to trash all modern HW's. Alexander Povetkin and Chris Arreola in particular are good examples of modern HW's with excellent stamina easily close to par with any of the ATG HW's, both of them throw tons of punches with power and don't stop. I've seen film of ATG heavys and have witnessed plenty of clinching and mauling and shit from them too, especially Jack Johnson (hence why I find the idea that he would beat Louis and/or Ali laughable, hence why I don't even know why anyone would come to such an idiotic conclusion).

[fatman]

nice article

the size difference applies in all sports, like in football Pele or George Best wouldnt be fit enough to play top level now, read some stat that the World Cup final players from 1970 ran an average 4km per match and in the last World Cup they ran 11km. In athletics all of the records have been smashed, Carl Lewis's Gold 100m Medal run wouldn't make the frame now. And in boxing it's worst of all, truth is that Klitschko would stand Ali on his head, he is 50lbs bigger, just as quick and twice as powerful... increasing their sizes puts a nice angle on this, good work

[dempseyfire]

nice article

the size difference applies in all sports, like in football Pele or George Best wouldnt be fit enough to play top level now, read some stat that the World Cup final players from 1970 ran an average 4km per match and in the last World Cup they ran 11km. In athletics all of the records have been smashed, Carl Lewis's Gold 100m Medal run wouldn't make the frame now. And in boxing it's worst of all, truth is that Klitschko would stand Ali on his head, he is 50lbs bigger, just as quick and twice as powerful... increasing their sizes puts a nice angle on this, good work

Sorry, but that's a complete load of crap. Pele wouldn't be fit enough to play now? Lewis wouldn't make the frame? Carl Lewis's recorded speed in the 4 by 100 in 92 was still the fastest any man has ever ran until just recently.
Sure, records are broken when the participation/talent pool doubles (swimming, distance running) and/or tech advances are made to greatly increase speeds (shoes and running surface in sprinting)
As for baseball, which like boxing was a top sport 50 years ago (while football/basketball was not) I'll take Willie Mays and Ted Williams to be all-stars today without a doubt. And pitchers were recorded in the 1930s going at 95-100 MPH, so the myth that pitchers are pitching much faster is also bogus.
Not so in boxing.

[Carbo]

nice article

the size difference applies in all sports, like in football Pele or George Best wouldnt be fit enough to play top level now, read some stat that the World Cup final players from 1970 ran an average 4km per match and in the last World Cup they ran 11km. In athletics all of the records have been smashed, Carl Lewis's Gold 100m Medal run wouldn't make the frame now. And in boxing it's worst of all, truth is that Klitschko would stand Ali on his head, he is 50lbs bigger, just as quick and twice as powerful... increasing their sizes puts a nice angle on this, good work

Fatman, thanks for the praise, but I must pull you up on one point: there is no way on earth that Klitschko would beat Ali. Ever. Under any circumstances. At any weight. Period. I could, at a stretch, see Lewis or even a peak Bowe (maaaaayyyybeee) doing it because they're so much heavier, but that's quality heavy against quality lighter. Klitschko really isn't in the same ball park as Ali. In fact, I would pick some of the great light heavies -- Bob Foster, Ezzard Charles, Michael Spinks, Archie Moore -- against Klitschko any day of the week -- and that's at 175 to his 245-55 or whatever.

In general terms, though, I understand your point, and if you had chosen a big, great heavy, I would have probably agreed.

First, I'd just like to pick Dempseyfire up on something: I was under the impression that Mackie Shilstone did not work with Holyfield -- at least at first -- and that Commander Vander bulked up for heavyweight with former Mr Olympia Lee Haney. I may be wrong, but, in fact, I'm sure I remember reading an interview with Shilstone in which he criticized Hoylfield's performances as a way of contrasting Evander's style of bulking with his own. May be wrong, but there you go.

Second, I think you've all picked up on an important point when it comes to stamina. It is true that pre 1930s a great deal of fights were beset with wrestling. Sometimes, looking at the grainy b&w footage of those guys, I wonder if the invention of the telegraph helped boxing, because they could let people know when a punch was about to be thrown

On a more serious note, though, I suspect the stamina of heavyweights from eras past was far better. Look at Ali or Frazier: those guys could punch and move for 15 rounds. Sure they'd be winded, but they could and did do it. Same goes for Marciano, and I suspect Dempsey and Louis, too. The footage is there; it's not open for debate, but fact.

The question is, 'why'? I suspect it has something to do with the great emphasis on cardiovascular work in training. You read about what old fighters did during training and it was all about roadwork, sparring, push-ups, pull-ups, ab-crunches bag work, skipping, medicine ball, and that's about it. There were no weights involved. Virtually everything they did was based on being fit enough to go fifteen rounds. How many fighter skip these days?? How much roadwork to these guys actually do? Ten miles a day? I doubt it.

Personally, I see rowers in the Olympics and believe there's nothing to stop a big man being cardiovascularly fit. Obviously you have to be fitter to carry the extra bulk around, but I beleive it is doable. Holyfield proved it; Holmes proved it too. And even Lewis, despite him blowing in fights fir which he did not prepare, could go the full 12 at a decent pace.

Thoughts?

[jezzamundo]

Wow, there is some seriously quality debate going on in this topic!

As for the suggestion that Wlad would beat Ali, it's actually an interesting scenario, as Wlad would probably do better than he would against the power punching greats. I see Ali winning this by a mid rounds stoppage after dominating with his speed and punch output.

I think the best way to judge how two fighters would perform against each other is simply to watch footage of said fighters. Until recently I had not seem a lot of Wlad, except for YouTube clips, which were, of course, impressive. When I saw the Wlad-Tucker fight, it was painfully obvious that a prime Lennox Lewis would have knocked out Wlad with relative ease. Even the past-prime, overweight version who fought Vitali would knock out Wlad on any given night. He may be the best heavyweight at the moment, but he simply doesn't compare to the all-time greats.

[DavidPayne]

Introducing a heavyweight as flawed as Wladimir into this debate is ludicrous.

Ali out-jabbed and out-hustled 6-6 guys in his prime.

I think Carbo's point is interesting, too much effort is put into pretty mass not effective mass.

Surely you build up in the right way doing exercise akin to the activity you'll do in the ring?

I never understood how leg pressing 46 tonnes, ala Hatton, helped a pro fighter?

[Poncey]

Firstly, congrats on the BMI stats. It was interesting. It's easy to see you put a lot of work into it and it was really fun to read. A nice spin on the old argument.

Pat yourself on the back, Lad!

[Carbo]

Firstly, congrats on the BMI stats. It was interesting. It's easy to see you put a lot of work into it and it was really fun to read. A nice spin on the old argument.

Pat yourself on the back, Lad!

Jolly decent of you, EPNG. All praise is gratefully received.

[JCS]

Probably better suited for the "Past" forum.

[Seamus]

First we hear that size means nothing at all. In fact on the BOTP forum it seems the consensus is that you typically go with the lighter heavyweight in a hypothetical matchup. But then comes the argument that the old timers would just bulk up 20-30 lbs and be even more ferocious.

[dempseyfire]

nice article

the size difference applies in all sports, like in football Pele or George Best wouldnt be fit enough to play top level now, read some stat that the World Cup final players from 1970 ran an average 4km per match and in the last World Cup they ran 11km. In athletics all of the records have been smashed, Carl Lewis's Gold 100m Medal run wouldn't make the frame now. And in boxing it's worst of all, truth is that Klitschko would stand Ali on his head, he is 50lbs bigger, just as quick and twice as powerful... increasing their sizes puts a nice angle on this, good work

Fatman, thanks for the praise, but I must pull you up on one point: there is no way on earth that Klitschko would beat Ali. Ever. Under any circumstances. At any weight. Period. I could, at a stretch, see Lewis or even a peak Bowe (maaaaayyyybeee) doing it because they're so much heavier, but that's quality heavy against quality lighter. Klitschko really isn't in the same ball park as Ali. In fact, I would pick some of the great light heavies -- Bob Foster, Ezzard Charles, Michael Spinks, Archie Moore -- against Klitschko any day of the week -- and that's at 175 to his 245-55 or whatever.

In general terms, though, I understand your point, and if you had chosen a big, great heavy, I would have probably agreed.

First, I'd just like to pick Dempseyfire up on something: I was under the impression that Mackie Shilstone did not work with Holyfield -- at least at first -- and that Commander Vander bulked up for heavyweight with former Mr Olympia Lee Haney. I may be wrong, but, in fact, I'm sure I remember reading an interview with Shilstone in which he criticized Hoylfield's performances as a way of contrasting Evander's style of bulking with his own. May be wrong, but there you go.

Second, I think you've all picked up on an important point when it comes to stamina. It is true that pre 1930s a great deal of fights were beset with wrestling. Sometimes, looking at the grainy b&w footage of those guys, I wonder if the invention of the telegraph helped boxing, because they could let people know when a punch was about to be thrown

On a more serious note, though, I suspect the stamina of heavyweights from eras past was far better. Look at Ali or Frazier: those guys could punch and move for 15 rounds. Sure they'd be winded, but they could and did do it. Same goes for Marciano, and I suspect Dempsey and Louis, too. The footage is there; it's not open for debate, but fact.

The question is, 'why'? I suspect it has something to do with the great emphasis on cardiovascular work in training. You read about what old fighters did during training and it was all about roadwork, sparring, push-ups, pull-ups, ab-crunches bag work, skipping, medicine ball, and that's about it. There were no weights involved. Virtually everything they did was based on being fit enough to go fifteen rounds. How many fighter skip these days?? How much roadwork to these guys actually do? Ten miles a day? I doubt it.

Personally, I see rowers in the Olympics and believe there's nothing to stop a big man being cardiovascularly fit. Obviously you have to be fitter to carry the extra bulk around, but I beleive it is doable. Holyfield proved it; Holmes proved it too. And even Lewis, despite him blowing in fights fir which he did not prepare, could go the full 12 at a decent pace.

Thoughts?

But Holyfield isn't a big man (in the sense being described here) . .he's a 6'2 190 lber who bulked up to 205-210 and then since the Bowe rematch was weighing in the upper 200-teens. Practically everyone will argue Holyfield was at his HW peak from 89-93 when he was weighing 205-210 on a 6'2 frame, which is a very typical HW size.
Holmes at his peak was actually very lean, about 212 on a 6'3 frame. He wasn't bulky at all.

Only Lewis post McCall is a arguably 'great' HW who had a relatively high BMI, and I'm not sold on his stamina at all (see the Mavoric fight or the 12th round in the Holyfield rematch) in comparison to his trimmer co-horts Ali, Holmes, Louis, Dempsey, Liston etc. I think Lennox would have been better stamina wise if he'd stayed around 235 instead of 245+.

[scottmallon]

Personally I think the intangibles of the older fighters; guts, will to win, fighting instinct - the desire to fight, not run around and dance, exceed the attributes of many of today's fighters. No doubt we've evolved physically in the last 50-100 years, but many of today's fighters are BOXERS not FIGHTERS. Not to say the old-timers weren't boxers but...the guys truly willing to lay their life on the line in the ring, let it all hang out, are a minority compared to the days of yesteryear....I could be wrong but that's what it seems to me.

[raylawpc]

Ali out-jabbed and out-hustled 6-6 guys in his prime.

Aside from Terrell, what other fighters that Ali fought in his prime were 6'6"?

[raylawpc]

This is a very interesting approach. I have two questions:

1. You extrapolated the old timer fighter's height had be lived today using "the average US male at the time." From what source did you find the height for the average US male at that time. What formula did you employ, using that data, to adjust the old-timer's height?

2. I assume you used the standard BMI formula. How did you make the adjustment in body weight accounting for the increased height? What forumla did you employ to make this adjustment? I assume you worked backward from the BMI, correct?

I am not challenging your work in anyway, but I would like to perform the same analysis for a couple of fighters I am researching. I would like to understand your methodology.

Thanks.

[Carbo]

This is a very interesting approach. I have two questions:

1. You extrapolated the old timer fighter's height had be lived today using "the average US male at the time." From what source did you find the height for the average US male at that time. What formula did you employ, using that data, to adjust the old-timer's height?

2. I assume you used the standard BMI formula. How did you make the adjustment in body weight accounting for the increased height? What forumla did you employ to make this adjustment? I assume you worked backward from the BMI, correct?

I am not challenging your work in anyway, but I would like to perform the same analysis for a couple of fighters I am researching. I would like to understand your methodology.

Thanks.

The height of the average US male can be found from numerous sources, as can BMI calculators and charts.

I found a table charting the average height of the US male at decade intervals since the 1800s. I simply looked at a fighters resume, selected an approximate peak era -- we could argue about peaks until the cows come home, but, for Marciano, I selected Walcott and just after, for Louis Schmelling 2 and just after and so on. Then, I went to a BMI chart and found their BMI at that approximate peak. I then matched the average height of the US male at the time of the peak to the fighter.

After all that, we have a fighter's height, his weight at an approximate peak, his BMI and the height of the average US male at that time. It's fairly simple math to then work out how much taller, in percentage terms he was than the average (especially if you convert to metric). You can then take that percentage and multiply it by the current average height, 5'10. This should give you their new height if they were as much taller than the average US male today as they were in their primes. With this new height, you can use a BMI chart to scroll across and find their original, peak BMI, and then go up to find how heavy their would be at the new height if their BMI stayed the same.

The Shilstone boost was a fairly simple process. Three fighters have made high profile steps to heavyweight over the last 20 or so years: Spinks, Holyfield, Jones. All added 3 points on to their BMI. Obviously Jones and Spinks did it with Shilstone, Holyfield, I beleive, with Lee Haney. So, it is reasonable to assume that a man with a lower BMI, as Spinks, Holyfield and Jones has -- as did the classic heavyweights -- can raise this figure by 3 points given expert tutelage. We can then add those three points onto the original BMI and find out how heavy a man would weigh at the new height and with the new BMI.

Hope this explains. PM me if you need any more help.

[Ezzard]

Seamus makes a very interesting point. Many people believe that extra size does not help. It makes sense that a bigger man has all the advantages. Yet guys like Toney and Langford seem to stick out.

Then there's Holyfield but he bulked up in order to tackle the HWs. He remained a small HW for his era but was IMO the best HW of the 1990s.

My feeling is that most HWs seem to be trained for strength rather than stamina these days. I think many of the big guys would struggle over 15 rounds. Even so, this idea sort of allows us to consider how far the old guys could have 'bulked up' or might have looked in a modern setting.

[fatman]

Ali out-jabbed and out-hustled 6-6 guys in his prime.

Aside from Terrell, what other fighters that Ali fought in his prime were 6'6"?

Height isn't really the main factor either, who has he fought who is a top level athlete weighing 245lbs + ?