Why heavyweights are bigger today

[Ambling Alp]

Some heavyweights today simply don't rain hard and are simply fat.
Others through strength training/steriods are muscular.

Both consist of heavyweights who usually have slow handspeed, no footspeed, have low stamina, and don't have good reflexes.

There were people that weighed 230-260 in the time previous to the 1980's. However rarely were they boxers. It was understood that it wasn't ideal. The big men who were boxers seldom were the best. Usually the heavyweight champion was far from being the biggest heavyweight of his own era.

Just becasue a certain pattern occurs in a sport doesn't mean the sport has "evolved". Evolved implies it got better. Sometimes the new patterns are just different; other times it makes things worse.
Of course these athletic guys that weigh 190-220 almost always play other sports.
Guys that size that do become boxers are often misled into the belief that they need to "bulk up" in order to succeed. Therefore, you see fewer and fewer guys of this size.

However, you only have to look at Michael Spinks, Evander Holyfield,Mike Tyson, Roy Jones,Chris Byrd to see that "smaller heavyweights" can succeed against the big heavyweights.

[Jaybee From The Castle]

Not sure how much of it I chalk up to nutrition, but since the 80's the "Fast" HW has certainly been a dying breed, the 60's/70's were replete with rapid fire HW fights, yet by the 90's we had...what, ONE that gave the guys at CompuStat sore fingers? Ibeabuchi Vs Tua.

As for nutrition, I suspect that the gains we have made in, and because of sheer scientific knowledge, we have partially lost because of (over)regimentation. HW's in the 60's weren't told precisely what times to eat, didn't put their portions on weighing scales etc. They largely followed their own natural rhythms of eating, they simply LISTENED to their bodies. If the guy got hungry and wanted a burger, fvck it, slam in the onions and ketchup. The last guy who ate like that was the 80's Iron Mike himself, but then, he lived pretty much every single second of that decade as he wanted to.

But I DO think it has something to do with the cost of food coming down so drastically. II remember reading an article in '86 that Frank Bruno spent (or rather, ate) about £150 of food per week. That was 80's money, so we're talking about £600 pw or more. A bodybuilder today - who knows how to cook - can feed himself on £20Pw in today's money. So with young struggling fighters, the pressure of training/fighting on skimpy food budgets is much reduced. Before, fighters were literally "hungry" young fighters. Nowadays, the hunger is gone - so they're going to eat, and by the time they get to the upper echelons, it'll really show.

[zslayton]

If you look at the heavyweights of yesteryear and compare them to the ones today, one aspect of their physiques should stand out and help explain at least 20 pounds of difference. Look at the spindly legs of old time heavies. Heavyweights today have huge legs by comparison, like tree trunks in some cases. From thigh to ankle you're probably talking at least twenty pounds of additional flesh and muscle. Put that on Schmeling or Dempsey or Tunney, etc and you've got guys weighing at least 210 or 215. Wonder what led to the increase in size?

Cap

Better nutrition, better health care, better ways to condition and train such as weight training. Plus, in the world of the American Heavyweight boxer at least, many of them come late to the sport after having played football or basketball most of their lives. Weight training is a big part of both sports.

[granberry]

Better nutrition, better health care, better ways to condition and train such as weight training. Plus, in the world of the American Heavyweight boxer at least, many of them come late to the sport after having played football or basketball most of their lives. Weight training is a big part of both sports.

Cannot agree.

Weight training is not good for boxing.

The better fighters in earlier times all used the pulley weights, which imitate punchiing motions with some resistance.

They also shadow boxed holding 2,4, or 5 lb weights in each hand.

The so-called 'nutrition' conisisting of steroids, growth hormones, etc is not better.

As has been pointed out, the more recent excuses for fighters lack stamina.

The modern idea of weight training for boxing is garbage.

The so-called heavyweights of recent years are all 20-30 pounds overweight as compared to what an in shape boxer would be in years past.

That illustrates the incompetence in training methods for boxing more recently.

"Fighters" who have no stamina and are 20 or more pounds overweight are not 'better.'

[Collins2000]

"Fighters" who have no stamina and are 20 or more pounds overweight are not 'better.'

Awesome insight here, terap.

Your 50+ years in the sport obviously haven't been wasted.

[granberry]

collins has never made a post on the subject of boxing

and he NEVER will.

[Collins2000]

collins has never made a post on the subject of boxing

and he NEVER will.

I refer the honourable troll to the answer I gave earlier.



Quick question, terap. How many years 'following' boxing did it take you to come up with that fantastic insight you gave above?

[granberry]

collins has never made a post on the subject of boxing

and he NEVER will.

[zslayton]

Better nutrition, better health care, better ways to condition and train such as weight training. Plus, in the world of the American Heavyweight boxer at least, many of them come late to the sport after having played football or basketball most of their lives. Weight training is a big part of both sports.

Cannot agree.

Weight training is not good for boxing.

The better fighters in earlier times all used the pulley weights, which imitate punchiing motions with some resistance.

They also shadow boxed holding 2,4, or 5 lb weights in each hand.

The so-called 'nutrition' conisisting of steroids, growth hormones, etc is not better.

As has been pointed out, the more recent excuses for fighters lack stamina.

The modern idea of weight training for boxing is garbage.

The so-called heavyweights of recent years are all 20-30 pounds overweight as compared to what an in shape boxer would be in years past.

That illustrates the incompetence in training methods for boxing more recently.

"Fighters" who have no stamina and are 20 or more pounds overweight are not 'better.'

Not all boxers are on steroids. Like in most sports, some might be, but not all. As far as weight training goes, using pulley weights is weight training. Using any load is weight training. I failed to be specific as to the type of training. If guy goes in the gym and lifts weights like a football player or wwe wrestler he is going about it wrong. Weight training for boxing is a completely different animal than weight training for other sports. My undergraduate degree is in exercise science and physical education and I was amazed at how little they teach you about weight training. Everything seemed to be focused on the cardio side of things, but this was in 1993-1998. Perhaps it has changed some. The only weight training they talked about was geared towards football. I did take a specialized graduate course that broke down the types of training needed for different sports, but not much was there for boxing, however, there was plenty for college wrestling.

Make no mistake, weight training is very important, however, it is the way you go about it that can make or break you.

As far as stamina goes..................I can't argue with you on that one. I have noticed since the Tyson era that most heavy's have poor stamina. I'd argue that this has always been the case as the larger athletes tend to not be able to bring it like the lower weight classes, but as they years go on, the big guys seem to get worse and worse in this department. I honestly think since they have no weight limitations a lot of heavy weights just don't do the road work.

[Robinson]

Meat Livestock Australia
has done studies along with the CSIRO and several universities on the trend of
the average Australians growth.

I shall post the info. When I am in the office at work.

What was found was that

These days we have better nutrition, more variety in our daily staples, we have OVER nutrition,
better vitamin in take, which enhances growth and our daily protein intake is much more
than in the past. Higher intakes of things such as calcium.

Through better breeding, better farming our live stock (in Australia we have grazing and
feed lots, NO growth hormones or battery cattle), yields more cuts and has 'richer' meat.

The notion that during the 30s or so we had better quality meat is stupid and naive.
The notion that the average person ate better and had more food available is absolutely
ignorant. In the past the availability of 'choice' cuts was limited to the wealthy and
restraunts. The average person had to resort to brasing, stewing and so on...this was
because the meat was less than top as well as the fact that it could be re-eaten.

These cooking methods drains the nutrient density of the food, to start with.

Up until the 1950s-60s people were relying on salting to preserve meats, as well as
salt flushing (injecting salt water into the meat) to add colour and help preserve
the meat. Butchers up until the 1970s were even using preservatives such as
vinegar to help the meat keep. These days we have better packaging, Modified
Atmosphric Packaging and decent refrigeration.

The results are a loss of 'nutrients and integrity of the product.
Using these 'older methods'

The reality is guys that in the last few years decades if you will. Average meat consumption
as for varieties and over all quality has gone up. Methods in maintaining the quality and
nutrient value of the meat has increased (chilling, quality control points, cold chains and
packaging). This is a HUGE factor in the average growth of the populace. Look at Japan a
nation that up until the last 50 years relied on its proteins from minimal red meats, alot
of fish, whale and so forth. Check the average height of a Japanese male in the last few
decades compare that to how much meat they now eat.

Other factors as listed above are that in early child hood, we are exposed to this nutrition.
Less people in the West are at risk of what was then common illnesses.
We have better medical practices, everyday and personal hygene.

If you people seriously think that its simply because of weights, growth hormones
and steroids...then good for you.

Big people have always existed. They always shall. The point is that WE as humans
are growing up and OUT.

Can I also make a point.....

Post training recovery is a big factor in a fighters ability to maintain themselves as a
top tier athlete. Our knowledge on this subject is often under rated.
Yes the old time purists think that 'mutton chops and steamed vegitables' are better
than nutrient dense protein shakes, multi vitamins and a solid meal thereafter.

These are crazy notions that in the old days people ate better !!!! My God. My grand
parents, uncles and so on....all are adament that 'You kids are lucky at how good
the food is these days'.

Sorry to rant, but way to much ignorance is past on for information these days.

I suppose you shall always have those that long for the good ole days.

Thanks for those pictures Granberry, yes they had great big legs.

ON enhancers and steroids...yes fighters do take them whether it be
HGH, steroids, EPO and the likes. This happens in EVERY sport alot more than
what is reported. This however does not equate to size, as it does to
performance. Body builders use steroids and HGH....for there thing.
Sprinters use them to get speed and recovery....and so on.

The key is that these are used not so much for size but to limit recovery
time. These are used so that while the rest of us are 'resting' they are
able to train some more. These things not only give performance edges
but also let fighters train past the down time.

Thanks again guys.

Kym
Manager of Haven Lamb Meat Wholesale, pty ltd

[zslayton]

Meat Livestock Australia
has done studies along with the CSIRO and several universities on the trend of
the average Australians growth.

I shall post the info. When I am in the office at work.

What was found was that

These days we have better nutrition, more variety in our daily staples, we have OVER nutrition,
better vitamin in take, which enhances growth and our daily protein intake is much more
than in the past. Higher intakes of things such as calcium.

Through better breeding, better farming our live stock (in Australia we have grazing and
feed lots, NO growth hormones or battery cattle), yields more cuts and has 'richer' meat.

The notion that during the 30s or so we had better quality meat is stupid and naive.
The notion that the average person ate better and had more food available is absolutely
ignorant. In the past the availability of 'choice' cuts was limited to the wealthy and
restraunts. The average person had to resort to brasing, stewing and so on...this was
because the meat was less than top as well as the fact that it could be re-eaten.

These cooking methods drains the nutrient density of the food, to start with.

Up until the 1950s-60s people were relying on salting to preserve meats, as well as
salt flushing (injecting salt water into the meat) to add colour and help preserve
the meat. Butchers up until the 1970s were even using preservatives such as
vinegar to help the meat keep. These days we have better packaging, Modified
Atmosphric Packaging and decent refrigeration.

The results are a loss of 'nutrients and integrity of the product.
Using these 'older methods'

The reality is guys that in the last few years decades if you will. Average meat consumption
as for varieties and over all quality has gone up. Methods in maintaining the quality and
nutrient value of the meat has increased (chilling, quality control points, cold chains and
packaging). This is a HUGE factor in the average growth of the populace. Look at Japan a
nation that up until the last 50 years relied on its proteins from minimal red meats, alot
of fish, whale and so forth. Check the average height of a Japanese male in the last few
decades compare that to how much meat they now eat.

Other factors as listed above are that in early child hood, we are exposed to this nutrition.
Less people in the West are at risk of what was then common illnesses.
We have better medical practices, everyday and personal hygene.

If you people seriously think that its simply because of weights, growth hormones
and steroids...then good for you.

Big people have always existed. They always shall. The point is that WE as humans
are growing up and OUT.

Can I also make a point.....

Post training recovery is a big factor in a fighters ability to maintain themselves as a
top tier athlete. Our knowledge on this subject is often under rated.
Yes the old time purists think that 'mutton chops and steamed vegitables' are better
than nutrient dense protein shakes, multi vitamins and a solid meal thereafter.

These are crazy notions that in the old days people ate better !!!! My God. My grand
parents, uncles and so on....all are adament that 'You kids are lucky at how good
the food is these days'.

Sorry to rant, but way to much ignorance is past on for information these days.

I suppose you shall always have those that long for the good ole days.

Thanks for those pictures Granberry, yes they had great big legs.

ON enhancers and steroids...yes fighters do take them whether it be
HGH, steroids, EPO and the likes. This happens in EVERY sport alot more than
what is reported. This however does not equate to size, as it does to
performance. Body builders use steroids and HGH....for there thing.
Sprinters use them to get speed and recovery....and so on.

The key is that these are used not so much for size but to limit recovery
time. These are used so that while the rest of us are 'resting' they are
able to train some more. These things not only give performance edges
but also let fighters train past the down time.

Thanks again guys.

Kym
Manager of Haven Lamb Meat Wholesale, pty ltd

This is really great stuff and backed up by some science not just speculation. Thanks for this post.

I said nutrition is better in my post but didn't go in to the kind of depth you just did so thanks for saving me the research work to back up my point.

It is true. Almost everything is fortified with vitamins and minerals that people 30, 40, 50 years ago weren't getting. This goes a long way in helping humans reach their growth potential. Hence we have bigger athletes in every sport, not just boxing.

Post training recovery and post training nutrition is huge in allowing the body to recover faster, but in the youth this is not done on a wide scale. Most kids, after a ball game or fight, eat a candy bar, nachos, and have a Coke!

[dempseyfire]

While overall nutritional out-take does correlate with overall size of the human population, the conclusions you're making don't stack up. Australia's experience is different than the American experience, which I'm predominantly talking about. First off, height is 90% inherited, and no-one knows exactly how much diet and the environment affects it. Americans have been consuming far more meat in the past 50 years. Yet American's height has remained fairly stagnant in the same time period. Some of the tallest populations in the world reside in East Africa (so is their diet now suddenly trumping Western diets with their Yogurt smoothies and Kraft Mac and Cheese??)


The likes of Johnson, Louis, Dempsey etc. were not starving peasants. They also knew the long-held knowledge of EATING after they worked out. It's NOT beneficial for overall human health to eat a large amount of red meat (and I don't practice what I preach, I'm a burger-holic). Multi-vitamins are crap . . .many of the vitamins only work in conjunction with compounds not found in the pill, hence you only get the benefits from them by eating fruits and vegatables with those vitamins/minerals present. Produce treated with chemicals/pesticides have far less vitamin/nutritional content than fresh produce. Fighters going back to the days of Corbett knew the value of eating lean meat and fruits and vegatables. This was also an era before 'snacking' and fast food.

[Robinson]

Certain tribes in Africa are tall and lean...why ? Well they live in thin air
high altitude enviornments. This is a reason why they are like this. There
have been CSIRO studies into this as well.

Height is hereditary...yes....BUT> so is natal nutrition and early childhood
stimulus, developtment and sustanance.

I am only using studies conducted here in Australia which has also been
confirmed recently by those done in the Canada.

The internet is also here for us to look into all of this.

Multi Vitamins are crap...ok sure lets go with that. I guess eating stewed prunes,
dried fruits and steamed vegies are always better source as a staple.

[Robinson]

DF

Yes Dempsey and Tunney and Johnson managed to live well when they were making money
as champs. How were they eating and living as children ????

Childhood nutrition is a HUGE factor in how we grow and develop into puberty
and adulthood.

We are heavily influenced as adults by our childhood nutrition.

That is one of the points made above.

[dempseyfire]

Certain tribes in Africa are tall and lean...why ? Well they live in thin air
high altitude enviornments. This is a reason why they are like this. There
have been CSIRO studies into this as well.

Height is hereditary...yes....BUT> so is natal nutrition and early childhood
stimulus, developtment and sustanance.

I am only using studies conducted here in Australia which has also been
confirmed recently by those done in the Canada.

The internet is also here for us to look into all of this.

Multi Vitamins are crap...ok sure lets go with that. I guess eating stewed prunes,
dried fruits and steamed vegies are always better source as a staple.

http://www.wrightnewsletter.com/etips/h ... 50224.html

What is the matter with steamed vegatables? http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/ ... -nutrients

http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/pesticides/

Again, Australia's industry might be very different, I do not know. I hope you all are doing better practices than over here.

[Robinson]

As for pesticides and those nasty preservatives....guess what get me some studies on
all that and we can have a conversation.

You know sugar in fruit happens to be a preseravtive...
as is salt...so are plenty of natural anti-oxidants which happen
to be found in ever day foods, that are also used as preservatives.

Oh what about those nasty chemicals...none of them are found in nature or
via organic processes ??

I am stuck in the meat and food industry, I was born into it. We have looked into
doing Organic Lamb and all that for those who want to feel better in themselves.
Or those who genuinely believe that nutrition is better via 'organic' methods.

The reality is that 'organic' foods are BS ! Plain and simple. It is a myth.
Most food we consume has been cross bread and cross polynated to give
us better yield, sustainability as well as nutritional benefits. Oh and taste.

It is just not sustainable, to go back to those old primal days of
hunting gathering with a limited staple of foods and those foods untouched by modernity ! It is simple as that.

As for snacking and grazing. Well here is another falacy. LOTS Of studies
have shown that this is contray to your conclusions. Grazing is what we are
suppose to do. 3 full meals a day is un natural. Humans and animals are not
suppose to do this. This is a culural life style introduction.

Now grazing on just chocolate, whale blubber and cheese burgers is just dumb.

The key is eating balanced, and nutrient dense meals. We have so much
available. BUT many of peoples choices stem from the fact that they like
sweets and fats.

Not to mention that sucking down a can of coke is so full of sugar its crazy...where
do you think those kilojoules/calories go ?

I know that in your country you have a huge drive for Organic foods. Good for you.
In Australia we also have those who think like this. They can pay more for less.
At the same time. Alot of so called organic foods simply receive a stamp and are
processed the same as non organic. Packaging and labelling is a wonderful thing.

How do I know...well lets just say, ignorance is bliss :)

Oh and if you really want to see how well organic food crops do, then go to a third
world nation un touched by dire famine and see the yield of there crops or
farm animals (those who have not already began using westernised methods).

Take care

Kym

[Robinson]

DF

Nothing is wrong with steamed vegies EXCEPT that often people
over steam and guess what happens then :)

[Robinson]

The reality here is that. You should eat wisely, balanced and nutrition minded meals.

Also be weary of what you drink. This is a big factor in over eating. Drinking
fruit juices and soft drinks and alcohol.

As for people getting bigger...well I guess I dont know. My dad is 5'7. My mum is
5'5. Yet I am 6'2 and my brother is just on 6'. BUT we ate well as kids :)

[dempseyfire]

DF

Yes Dempsey and Tunney and Johnson managed to live well when they were making money
as champs. How were they eating and living as children ????

Childhood nutrition is a HUGE factor in how we grow and develop into puberty
and adulthood.

We are heavily influenced as adults by our childhood nutrition.

That is one of the points made above.

Neither grew up starving, you seem to be envisioning any poor family at the turn of the century eating only a bowl of rice per day. Johnson's diet for example probably consisted primarily of beans and yams (both extremely nutritious), milk, eggs and occasional dinners of ham/poultry/cattle. I believe they had healthier diets overall than the majority of poor children currently in the United States, who grow up on soda and McDonalds.

[dempseyfire]

As for pesticides and those nasty preservatives....guess what get me some studies on
all that and we can have a conversation.

You know sugar in fruit happens to be a preseravtive...
as is salt...so are plenty of natural anti-oxidants which happen
to be found in ever day foods, that are also used as preservatives.

Oh what about those nasty chemicals...none of them are found in nature or
via organic processes ??

I am stuck in the meat and food industry, I was born into it. We have looked into
doing Organic Lamb and all that for those who want to feel better in themselves.
Or those who genuinely believe that nutrition is better via 'organic' methods.

The reality is that 'organic' foods are BS ! Plain and simple. It is a myth.
Most food we consume has been cross bread and cross polynated to give
us better yield, sustainability as well as nutritional benefits. Oh and taste.

It is just not sustainable, to go back to those old primal days of
hunting gathering with a limited staple of foods and those foods untouched by modernity ! It is simple as that.

As for snacking and grazing. Well here is another falacy. LOTS Of studies
have shown that this is contray to your conclusions. Grazing is what we are
suppose to do. 3 full meals a day is un natural. Humans and animals are not
suppose to do this. This is a culural life style introduction.

Now grazing on just chocolate, whale blubber and cheese burgers is just dumb.

The key is eating balanced, and nutrient dense meals. We have so much
available. BUT many of peoples choices stem from the fact that they like
sweets and fats.

Not to mention that sucking down a can of coke is so full of sugar its crazy...where
do you think those kilojoules/calories go ?

I know that in your country you have a huge drive for Organic foods. Good for you.
In Australia we also have those who think like this. They can pay more for less.
At the same time. Alot of so called organic foods simply receive a stamp and are
processed the same as non organic. Packaging and labelling is a wonderful thing.

How do I know...well lets just say, ignorance is bliss :)

Oh and if you really want to see how well organic food crops do, then go to a third
world nation un touched by dire famine and see the yield of there crops or
farm animals (those who have not already began using westernised methods).

Take care

Kym

Yes, it's in effect produced much larger yields of food world-wide. I'm not debating the morals of pesticides/growth of factory farms etc., it's surely fed many people but I will stick by my view on their effects on the overall nutritional quality of the output.

Most of cross-pollination had, as the Brits would say, fu^& all to do with nutritional content and moreso to due to the color/presentation of the product/the duration of the growing season as well as the product's longetivty of ripeness/ability to withstand a good deal of transport. We have driven tons of perfectly good species of seeds to extinction for this reason, it's ridiculous.

Pleasure debating with you, I'm off to bed!

[Robinson]

DF

I dont envision anything of the kind. What I am stating above is that the varierty
and quality we eat in our youths helps to influence.

What you said sums up your stance. That you 'Believe' they ate....this or that.

In any case its a mute point. People have increased in size and mass. Those
are facts.

You get some sleep and dont be dreaming of me :)

Chat to you on the morrow no doubt

Kym

[Seamus]

Athletes in nearly every sport are now much larger than they were decades ago and heavyweight boxers are proving to be no different. Some are fat and relatively speaking, poorly conditioned, but I'd say the numbers are a bit exaggerated. Plenty of big heavyweights spend serious time in the gym. Heck, Valuev has a washboard stomach.

At the same time, among the general population, obesity is running rampant. I've never in my life seen so many young men, white, black, hispanic, you name it, who are so freakin fat ! AND that's just at my health club. I see boys about 14, who have got to be 200 lbs or more. When I was 14, I was 5-9 and only about 140.

I believe it's a combination of things, with bad diet, over eating and lack of physical activity being at the top. Diabetes rates are skyrocketing.

[Robinson]

NOt to mention young girls just breaking into there teens that look waaay
fat for a lil girl.

[zslayton]

Dempsey all you have to do to see the impact of nutrition on the growth of people is go to a country, like say, South Korea. 50 years ago they didn't have enough to eat, were eating a diet full of rice and kimchi (that's about it) and the people were very small and lean. The youth of today is much taller and more heavily muslced than the Koreans of the past. That can be chalked up to better health care and nutrition. Of course most people think Asians are smaller naturally than the white man or black man. This may be true. You will find instances of tiny, malnurished people, and giants in any race, but I'm going by what I see here, right now, in Korea.

If that experiement was tried in other countries you would see the same results I'm sure. You'd also see an increase in fat people like we have in the USA too.

This is not only a USA thing, Asian thing, or Austrialian thing. It's a boxing thing we are looking at. Just look across the board at all sports. Today's athletes, and people in general are, on the whole, bigger than they were, 30 years ago.

[joe kurtz]

Dempsey all you have to do to see the impact of nutrition on the growth of people is go to a country, like say, South Korea. 50 years ago they didn't have enough to eat, were eating a diet full of rice and kimchi (that's about it) and the people were very small and lean. The youth of today is much taller and more heavily muslced than the Koreans of the past. That can be chalked up to better health care and nutrition. Of course most people think Asians are smaller naturally than the white man or black man. This may be true. You will find instances of tiny, malnurished people, and giants in any race, but I'm going by what I see here, right now, in Korea.

If that experiement was tried in other countries you would see the same results I'm sure. You'd also see an increase in fat people like we have in the USA too.

This is not only a USA thing, Asian thing, or Austrialian thing. It's a boxing thing we are looking at. Just look across the board at all sports. Today's athletes, and people in general are, on the whole, bigger than they were, 30 years ago.

Excellent post. IMHO, you & Kym on spot on.