Why heavyweights are bigger today

[dempseyfire]

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.

Fatter, not naturally bigger.

A study just came out (if you must I'll search for the link later) that showed that men from the early middle ages were about as tall as people today.

And they wern't drinking Gatoraide and protein shakes.

Also, we're not talking about 18th century bareknuckle champions. Some of you seem to be claiming that the diet of people now compared to 50-70 years ago is so superior it's added inches to human height. That's just not true. In the U.S. and other nations, human height has NOT increased in the past 50 years.

[Robinson]

Food is yum

[dempseyfire]

Food is yum

Agreed!!

[Diamond WEAPON]

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.

Fatter, not naturally bigger.

A study just came out (if you must I'll search for the link later) that showed that men from the early middle ages were about as tall as people today.

And they wern't drinking Gatoraide and protein shakes.

Also, we're not talking about 18th century bareknuckle champions. Some of you seem to be claiming that the diet of people now compared to 50-70 years ago is so superior it's added inches to human height. That's just not true. In the U.S. and other nations, human height has NOT increased in the past 50 years.

Uh, no, people are naturally more muscular as well. Bigger doesn't always just mean taller.

[The Great John L]

Uh, no, people are naturally more muscular as well. Bigger doesn't always just mean taller.

I would agree. And in general we now have much worse stamina as it's very hard to carry around all of the extra weight whether it's fat or muscle. In general, excessive muscle mass also hinders speed.

[dempseyfire]

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.

Fatter, not naturally bigger.

A study just came out (if you must I'll search for the link later) that showed that men from the early middle ages were about as tall as people today.

And they wern't drinking Gatoraide and protein shakes.

Also, we're not talking about 18th century bareknuckle champions. Some of you seem to be claiming that the diet of people now compared to 50-70 years ago is so superior it's added inches to human height. That's just not true. In the U.S. and other nations, human height has NOT increased in the past 50 years.

Uh, no, people are naturally more muscular as well. Bigger doesn't always just mean taller.

So now the human population as a whole is not only taller but naturally more muscular over a time period equalling less than one lifespan?

Interesting theories you find on the Internet.

[Diamond WEAPON]

The time period I was speaking of was more like the 1940's versus now. HWs aren't just fatter now than they were in the 60's and 70's, they tend to be more massive in general, both in muscle and fat.

[dempseyfire]

The time period I was speaking of was more like the 1940's versus now. HWs aren't just fatter now than they were in the 60's and 70's, they tend to be more massive in general, both in muscle and fat.

But not naturally. If the 6'2 Rahman ate right and did roadwork he'd weigh about 215. But he lifts weights and eats junk and weighs in at a pumped up but slow and stamina challenged 235-240 (and that's when the pundits call him 'in-shape')
It's not like he undergoes extremely disciplined camps with daily 5 mile runs eating lean chicken and fish and still comes out to be a beefy 240.

These 6 ft-6'3 guys fighting at 230-250 aren't naturally any bigger than the likes of Foreman, Lyle, Norton, Ali etc (or if you want to go further back, Louis, Baer, Johnson). who all weighed in the 200-225 range in shape. Only the 6'5 and above guys like the Klitschkos, Lewis, Dimitrenko have any business weighing over 230.

[Diamond WEAPON]

The time period I was speaking of was more like the 1940's versus now. HWs aren't just fatter now than they were in the 60's and 70's, they tend to be more massive in general, both in muscle and fat.

But not naturally. If the 6'2 Rahman ate right and did roadwork he'd weigh about 215. But he lifts weights and eats junk and weighs in at a pumped up but slow and stamina challenged 235-240 (and that's when the pundits call him 'in-shape')
It's not like he undergoes extremely disciplined camps with daily 5 mile runs eating lean chicken and fish and still comes out to be a beefy 240.

These 6 ft-6'3 guys fighting at 230-250 aren't naturally any bigger than the likes of Foreman, Lyle, Norton, Ali etc (or if you want to go further back, Louis, Baer, Johnson). who all weighed in the 200-225 range in shape. Only the 6'5 and above guys like the Klitschkos, Lewis, Dimitrenko have any business weighing over 230.

George Foreman:


Samuel Peter:



Neither one of them looks especially defined, in fact, by your idea that Peter should be about 230, then that would mean Foreman should probably have been more like 200. Foreman was leaner than Peter is now, but not by much. It's obvious Peter has much more muscle mass on a thicker frame despite being shorter.

[dempseyfire]

The time period I was speaking of was more like the 1940's versus now. HWs aren't just fatter now than they were in the 60's and 70's, they tend to be more massive in general, both in muscle and fat.

But not naturally. If the 6'2 Rahman ate right and did roadwork he'd weigh about 215. But he lifts weights and eats junk and weighs in at a pumped up but slow and stamina challenged 235-240 (and that's when the pundits call him 'in-shape')
It's not like he undergoes extremely disciplined camps with daily 5 mile runs eating lean chicken and fish and still comes out to be a beefy 240.

These 6 ft-6'3 guys fighting at 230-250 aren't naturally any bigger than the likes of Foreman, Lyle, Norton, Ali etc (or if you want to go further back, Louis, Baer, Johnson). who all weighed in the 200-225 range in shape. Only the 6'5 and above guys like the Klitschkos, Lewis, Dimitrenko have any business weighing over 230.

Neither one of them looks especially defined, in fact, by your idea that Peter should be about 230, then that would mean Foreman should probably have been more like 200. Foreman was leaner than Peter is now, but not by much. It's obvious Peter has much more muscle mass on a thicker frame despite being shorter.

First off, Foreman has 3 inches on Peter.

2ndly. being 'thick' and being able to suck in your gut for a picture doesn't equate to being in shape for 12 rounds of boxing. Here's a 270 lb Danny Williams looking 'solid' but in realiy incredibly overweight.http://www.flickr.com/photos/sunshinetrue/2185792796/

But he's just naturally big, right?

Then how'd he manage to lose almost 50 lbs to fight Gammer? http://www.britishboxing.net/news_2156- ... ammer.html

The proof is in the pudding. Foreman was regarded as having the worse stamina of the top contenders of the 70s, yet the sloths of today like Rahman and Peter could've never dreamed to keep up the pace he sustained vs Peralta over 10 rounds. The likes of Ali, Louis, Norton, Holmes etc. could go a hard 15 rounds. Peter is dead tired by the 5th in his fights, it's pathetic.

If he actually lived like a fighter should, cut out the junk food, and did hard roadwork 5-6 days out of the week, Peter could get down to 220, NO question.

[Goodnight, Irene]

I struggle to understand how it is DempseyFire even has competition on this issue, to be honest. The case he's making is the only reality.

[Diamond WEAPON]

I struggle to understand how it is DempseyFire even has competition on this issue, to be honest. The case he's making is the only reality.

Because to me it seems obvious that HWs today are simply larger and heavier by way of both muscle and fat, not just purely fat. Hell, look at "small" Heavyweight David Haye. The fuckin guy is 6'3" and was 217 lbs. in his first HW fight, and he was solid muscle, ripped like crazy. Now compare that to a similar sized Muhammad Ali, who was never considered a small HW in his prime.

[Robinson]

Food is very yum

[Knucklez]

Not all modern fighters have so-called massive legs either. Tyson had very slim legs, so did Nigel Benn; two noted punchers.

[mrbassie]

I struggle to understand how it is DempseyFire even has competition on this issue, to be honest. The case he's making is the only reality.

Because to me it seems obvious that HWs today are simply larger and heavier by way of both muscle and fat, not just purely fat. Hell, look at "small" Heavyweight David Haye. The fuckin guy is 6'3" and was 217 lbs. in his first HW fight, and he was solid muscle, ripped like crazy. Now compare that to a similar sized Muhammad Ali, who was never considered a small HW in his prime.

But Ali fought in an era of fifteen round title fights and same day weigh ins when boxers generally fought more often and were fitter, clearly heavies are not training either as hard or as correctly as in Ali's day. I think it's established that nobody's any taller, for every klitschko or Valuev there's a Willard or Carnera. I dunno, I'm no expert on nutrition and I'm not present in any training camps but it seems simple to me that these "bigger" modern heavies with shit stamina are heavier and have shit stamina because they're not as physically fit.

[Ambling Alp]

Often the weights given don't seem right.

I don't know when the picture of Foreman was taken, but that certainly isn't how he looked in fights during his prime. He was a big man without not much fat. He had big arms,legs,chest, and shoulders. Foreman was usually listed around 220, but he always looked bigger. He supposedly weighed only 217 when he beat Frazier the first time, (same as Frazier even though he is much taller) but looked much bigger.
If Foreman was listed at 235, no one would question it.
During his prime, Foreman was in much better condition that Samuel Peter.

Look at Jersey Joe Walcott. He was a big man with very little fat. The guy is listed at 190-200 pounds. If he was listed at 220 it's doubtful that anyone would question it.

If we go by heights and weights given then Chris Byrd and Sonny Liston are almost the exact same size. Look at Liston's chest, shoulders, arms, and then look at Byrds. Liston is clearly bigger and more solid. He has to outweigh Byrd by several pounds.

James Jeffries was 6'2 and is usually listed at 215-220. He was big and muscular. He looks like he could weigh atleast 230.

Even the heights given you have to question. Larry Holmes was always listed at 6'4 when he fought. He is now listed at 6'3.
Foreman was always listed at 6'3. When he made his comeback, he was always listed at 6'4.

[Seamus]

Are you suggesting the old time HW's were actually heavier than listed ?

When all arguments are finished the question still remains. Why isn't there a superfit, fast HW just over 200, cleaning out the divisions big men. Chris Byrd had his share of questionable decisions and he was never close to being the World's number 1 HW, and by 1970's standards Byrd was actually heavy.

I've been saying for yrs now, that the days of a dominant HW under 220 are over, and I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Cap]

Jeffries was never 6' 2". He was barely 6'. Look at him standing beside 5' 11" Fitzsimmons. And he was a freak compared to most heavies of his day. There are examples of large heavyweights throughout boxing history, but the "average" heavyweight boxer (NOT all heavyweights or even most) was like Dempsey, Tunney, Sharkey, Renault, Schmeling, Braddock, Farr, etc. Between 185 and 190 in their primes, big on top and spindly legs. In the sixties they started to become heavier, more of them around 210-215. Now they build up muscle and put on fat because they want to look like football players who are considered powerful men. Most of them fight infrequently and don't like to train either.

[dempseyfire]

I struggle to understand how it is DempseyFire even has competition on this issue, to be honest. The case he's making is the only reality.

Because to me it seems obvious that HWs today are simply larger and heavier by way of both muscle and fat, not just purely fat. Hell, look at "small" Heavyweight David Haye. The fuckin guy is 6'3" and was 217 lbs. in his first HW fight, and he was solid muscle, ripped like crazy. Now compare that to a similar sized Muhammad Ali, who was never considered a small HW in his prime.

Sure they put on more muscle as well through heavy weight lifting, like Rahman. But the point I was arguing was that they wern't "naturally" bigger. If these were in truly 'top' boxing shape they'd weigh as much as your Alis and Louiss.

[Diamond WEAPON]

I struggle to understand how it is DempseyFire even has competition on this issue, to be honest. The case he's making is the only reality.

Because to me it seems obvious that HWs today are simply larger and heavier by way of both muscle and fat, not just purely fat. Hell, look at "small" Heavyweight David Haye. The fuckin guy is 6'3" and was 217 lbs. in his first HW fight, and he was solid muscle, ripped like crazy. Now compare that to a similar sized Muhammad Ali, who was never considered a small HW in his prime.

Sure they put on more muscle as well through heavy weight lifting, like Rahman. But the point I was arguing was that they wern't "naturally" bigger. If these were in truly 'top' boxing shape they'd weigh as much as your Alis and Louiss.

To be honest, I think the Alis and Louis' of today are all Cruiserweights

[granberry]

Jeffries was never 6' 2". He was barely 6'. . . .

And how tall were Ali and Larry Holmes?

Were they eight feet tall?

Or were they ten feet tall?

Tell us all about it, Mr. Authority.

Herb Goldman began the obvious ploy of 'making nothing' of earlier fighters by reducing the heights of earlier champions in the joke that the Ring record book became once Nat Fleischer died and Bert Sugar and Goldman got their paws on it.

Herb Goldman was the subject of widespread comment at the time when he reduced Jack Dempsey's height by an inch YEARS after Dempsey died.

At the same time boxing "expert" Goldman was trumpeting that Dempsey "wasn't big enough" to beat Ali and Larry Holmes (both of whom were considerably smaller than Jess Willard).

Jerks like Herbert Goldman with an agenda to sell

attach themselves all over "boxing" and proclaim themselves "boxing experts"

and elect themselves and their cronies to the ridiculous "Halls of Fame" they and their buddies create.
.

[Ambling Alp]

Diamond Weapon,
How do you come to that conclusion?
Ali was well over 200 (the new crusierweight limit) when he fought.
Louis was around 200 for most of his career. He certainly had much more ability than any heavyweight today.
Why in the world would they be a cruiserweights today?

[The Great John L]

To be honest, I think the Alis and Louis' of today are all Cruiserweights

To be really honest, there are no Ali's and Louis's today.

[Ambling Alp]

Are you suggesting the old time HW's were actually heavier than listed ?

When all arguments are finished the question still remains. Why isn't there a superfit, fast HW just over 200, cleaning out the divisions big men. Chris Byrd had his share of questionable decisions and he was never close to being the World's number 1 HW, and by 1970's standards Byrd was actually heavy.

I've been saying for yrs now, that the days of a dominant HW under 220 are over, and I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Yes I do think some guys weighed more than what are listed.
Liston,Walcott,Foreman etc. were all much bigger than Chris Byrd.
According to scales, I weigh more than Marciano. If you looked at us, you would think he outweighed me by 20 pounds.

More importantly, I don't think the days of heavyweights under 220 are over.
Chris Byrd was one of the top heavyweights for years. He couldn't crack an egg. There will probably be guys that can hit much harder that are Byrd's size.

Why hasn't a superfit small guy cleaned out the division? Well, there isn't a big man cleaning out the division either.

Holyfield was well under 220. Tyson when in shape was under 220. Does anyone seriously not think they would be the top heavyweight today?

If Roy Jones can win the title at 193, a talented fighter can certainly be the top heavyweight at 210-220.

What is really going is the perception that you must be big to compete now. As mentioned by others, there are guys now weighing 230 and more that should be weigh less than 220.

If you took Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Holmes etc. and had them fight todays top heavyweights they would have little touble.

[dempseyfire]

Are you suggesting the old time HW's were actually heavier than listed ?

When all arguments are finished the question still remains. Why isn't there a superfit, fast HW just over 200, cleaning out the divisions big men. Chris Byrd had his share of questionable decisions and he was never close to being the World's number 1 HW, and by 1970's standards Byrd was actually heavy.

I've been saying for yrs now, that the days of a dominant HW under 220 are over, and I've seen no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Yes I do think some guys weighed more than what are listed.
Liston,Walcott,Foreman etc. were all much bigger than Chris Byrd.
According to scales, I weigh more than Marciano. If you looked at us, you would think he outweighed me by 20 pounds.

More importantly, I don't think the days of heavyweights under 220 are over.
Chris Byrd was one of the top heavyweights for years. He couldn't crack an egg. There will probably be guys that can hit much harder that are Byrd's size.

Why hasn't a superfit small guy cleaned out the division? Well, there isn't a big man cleaning out the division either.

Holyfield was well under 220. Tyson when in shape was under 220. Does anyone seriously not think they would be the top heavyweight today?

If Roy Jones can win the title at 193, a talented fighter can certainly be the top heavyweight at 210-220.

What is really going is the perception that you must be big to compete now. As mentioned by others, there are guys now weighing 230 and more that should be weigh less than 220.

If you took Dempsey, Louis, Ali, Holmes etc. and had them fight todays top heavyweights they would have little touble.

The reason Byrd is smaller is b/c he's a natural light HW. He's as tall as Liston and ate up to Liston's weight, but his overall bone structure was much smaller. The fact that a feather-hitting 175 lber could eat up to over 200 and be one of the top HWs today actually proves my point. Guys who trained DOWN to 190-200 like Dempsey and Louis would embarass the top 10 today, it would be a slaughter.