Why heavyweights are bigger today

[granberry]

. . .
Weight lifting wasn't the main reason holyfield was good. . .

Weight lifting is an Olympic sport.

It consists of training and then competing in official meets in the Olympic lifts--which today are the snatch and clean and jerk.

Weight TRAINING is the use of weights in general as an aid to gain strength, conditioning etc.

[dempseyfire]

Wladimir Klitschko has been pretty consistent the last few yrs, but even if he get's KO'd in his next bout, the new champion will be 6-5 and probably over 240. Whether there are dominant fighters or not, the guys who are winning the belts are typically over 230.

As for Tyson and Holyfield. I remember back when many thought Tyson was a nearly flawless fighter, then Bonecrusher Smith a guy with a 19-5 record, showed how a big strong 6-4 guy can tie up a smaller man and make him look less than lethal. Sure it was an ugly fight that Tyson clearly one, but if Smith had thrown a few punches, other than the one that buckled Tyson's legs in the last 15 seconds, he might have won. You might not like hearing the reason Evander Holyfield was able to perform well on the inside against guys with a clear weight advantage. Plain and simple, he spent some quality time in the weightroom, and that's why Tyson got pushed around the ring like a blocking sled in the first bout.

All these arguments about fighters from the past and how they'd beat the HW's of today have no real bearing on what's actually happening in the present. The more and more a case is made for how beatable everyone in this HW division now is, the more questionable those claims become as time passes without anyone achieving that which is supposed to be so easy. I'll just boldly stand by what I've been saying and that is that days of Louis, Frazier sized champions are over.

And if he gets beaten by Povetkin (which is more likely than Thompson) it will be by a chubby 6'2er.

If Tyson was 'nullified' by Smith's clinching than Klitschko was 'nullified' by Ibragimov's handspeed as both of their offenses were blunted, the difference being Tyson was the smaller man getting clinched by Smith who was scared of return fire, whereas Klitschko was the much bigger man failing to produce any meaning offense b/c HE was scared.

Holyfield has his success in the HW division by fighting on the inside? Huh? he reason he got beaten by Bowe in the first fight was that he layed on the inside from the 2nd round on. He had much more success boxing Bowe from a distance in the rematch. His success vs Douglas, Foreman, Dokes, Mercer etc. was from smart boxing and fast hands/counterpunching. No-one ever 'feared' Evander's inside strength.

I don't know how the days of Louis-sized champs are over when the longest reining post Lewis champ was a light HW in Chris Byrd, and present-title holder Ruslan Chagaev is no bigger than Louis.

[Seamus]

I don't know what has to be proven here. The HW division isn't changing, it's already changed. Of the Top 100 HW's in the World, do you know how many were 215 or lighter ? THREE ! Guillermo Jones, Evander Holyfield and Domonic Jenkins. Know how many were 250 or more ? 25. There are actually more guys 270 and up, then there are 215 and under. Do you guys honestly expect those weights to drop way down next year, or 5 years from now ? There isn't a guy under 210 in the whole Top 100.

Regarding Chris Byrd, he was certainly competitive, but hardly dominant.And he was never close to being the World's number 1 HW, had a couple of questionable wins, not to mention the fact that he weighed a little more than a prime Louis and Frazier.

[wouter]

I don't know what has to be proven here. The HW division isn't changing, it's already changed. Of the Top 100 HW's in the World, do you know how many were 215 or lighter ? THREE ! Guillermo Jones, Evander Holyfield and Domonic Jenkins. Know how many were 250 or more ? 25. There are actually more guys 270 and up, then there are 215 and under.

If your point is that today's heavies are out of shape, I agree.

[UpWithEvil]

Steroids and short 12-round "championship" fights. Period, end o' sentence, lock the thread.

[dempseyfire]

I don't know what has to be proven here. The HW division isn't changing, it's already changed. Of the Top 100 HW's in the World, do you know how many were 215 or lighter ? THREE ! Guillermo Jones, Evander Holyfield and Domonic Jenkins. Know how many were 250 or more ? 25. There are actually more guys 270 and up, then there are 215 and under.

If your point is that today's heavies are out of shape, I agree.

Bingo, yes, your stats show that the current crop of HWs are by and large an overweight mess.

I'm 6'1, 170ish in shape. But by your standards, if I 'Creatined', ate, and weightlifted myself to 195 (which I could do with my frame and I'd look no less pudgy than a Joe Mesi), I'd suddenly be as 'big' as Joe Louis!

[Robinson]

So you box at 170?

[Robinson]

DF
Im 6'1.5 and nomally 210-215ish. Ive been this weight since I was
19. Before that when I ran ALOT I was 185lbs.
And at training and amongst my work peers and mates I am average
height and build. In no way am I taller or bigger.

[wouter]

If the human race in general is of bigger build today that should not only affect the heavyweights: lower weight classes would be made up of shorter fighters.

[Robinson]

Yet it seems they are getting taller too.

Also I think people are getting pretty good at cutting weiht

[dempseyfire]

DF
Im 6'1.5 and nomally 210-215ish. Ive been this weight since I was
19. Before that when I ran ALOT I was 185lbs.
And at training and amongst my work peers and mates I am average
height and build. In no way am I taller or bigger.

I boxed at 165 amateur, but doing regular training and walking around I was fairly cut in the lower 170s. Now I've gotten older and eat much worse, but if I wanted to bite down I could get back down to 170.

Your situation among your work-group is not the norm. I've worked in several office environments where I was in the top percentile height and frame-wise (average male height is 5'8 I believe), and while I'm bigger than average statistically I don't consider myself a big man.

Now, if you want to talk about cutting weight, that's a different story. Tommy Hearns was a true 6'1 welterweight (for a spell) . . Paul Williams is a 6'1 MIDDLEWEIGHT who can cut down to 147 (amazingly) But remember if day before weigh-ins had been intact back in the old days, maybe Bob Foster would've fought at middleweight, and Sandy Saddler at bantamweight. But if there were, as there should be, same day weigh-ins today, you would not see the likes of Cintron, Margarito, and Williams fighting as welterweights.

[The Great John L]

Your situation among your work-group is not the norm. I've worked in several office environments where I was in the top percentile height and frame-wise (average male height is 5'8 I believe), and while I'm bigger than average statistically I don't consider myself a big man.

I'm pretty sure the average US male is about 5-9, and my observations is that seems about right. In fact there was a great deal of fanfare when statistics were released earlier this year showing that the average height of US males hasn't really increased in the past 2 decades or so, and theories about why average heights in the US have stalled included poor nutrition due to eating habits (junk and processed food) and lower food consumption due to shrinking wages. And yes, once you factor out inflation and public debt, average US wages for middle class and below don't look very good, particularly in this century.

[Cap]

Wonder what average heights are in your Latino and Asian communities?

[John Galt]

This is a Center for Disease Control (CDC) study from 2002 that shows people have gotten taller and heavier since 1960. In that 42 year period there were considerable differences.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcar ... butfat.htm

[bjermaine]

This is a Center for Disease Control (CDC) study from 2002 that shows people have gotten taller and heavier since 1960. In that 42 year period there were considerable differences.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcar ... butfat.htm

this post is way too logical for this forum. remove it immediately. the only explanation is that the whole world is on steroids!

[wouter]

This is a Center for Disease Control (CDC) study from 2002 that shows people have gotten taller and heavier since 1960. In that 42 year period there were considerable differences.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/healthcar ... butfat.htm

Name of article: Americans getting taller, bigger, FATTER says CDC.

Since 1960 an increase of 1 inch in average height, an increase of 25 lbs in weight.

[The Great John L]

One inch in 48 years? And this from the CDC?

A discussion of this very topic. There are a slew from a few months back, this was just the first one I found.

Try searching for "Americans not getting taller" and you'll find a lot of articles and studies.

And yes, current US HWs are bigger than they used to be, and the US population is slightly taller than it was 75 years ago. Slightly taller and MUCH fatter.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zei ... 68,00.html

[John Galt]

The actual numbers showed that the average height went from 5-8 in 1960 to 5-9.5 in 2002 which is 1 1/2 inches taller and from 166 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, a difference of 25 pounds. They did not do body fat tests so they assumed that the added weight meant that people were fatter. Whether people were fatter or not, an inch and a half and 25 pounds are substantial differences in only 42 years.

[The Great John L]

All you need is reasonable vision to tell that there is a serious obesity problem in the US. Certainly no one is refuting that fact?

[dempseyfire]

Yes, and the CDC's method of obtaining average height in 1960 must have been extremely accurate and the same way they do it now

The fact that weight has ballooned while height hasn't basically supports my and John and Alp's arguments. The HWs are fatter, not naturally bigger

[spion]

If you take any of today's heavies and kept their nutrition the same as it is today but trained them in the same fashion as the heavyweights of old (lot's of roadwork, training for 15 round bouts, fighting a lot more often) PLUS incorporated the living standards of the day's gone by I don't think you will find a huge difference any more. There was a lot more walking by sheer necessity, no television remotes, sometimes no tv at all, no internet, no video games, many had demanding full time jobs at the same time they were fighting and training. Not much time or reason to be sitting around back in the day. It was a completely different lifestyle and if you take this fact into consideration you will find that it does make a big difference in excess size attributed to many of the heavier (non steroid user) heavyweights around today.

[Big Bad John]

Tall boxers go in and out of style. 100 years ago, every time you saw a big, tough guy, you made him into a boxer or a wrestler. Starting in the 1950s, with the popularity of team sports, big guys started going into basketball and football more and more. Also, you have to see that professional boxing in the former Soviet states has had a huge surge in popularity. Athletes who were normally forced into amateur athletics are now excelling in professional sports like basketball, hockey and boxing.

Basically, people like to see big guys in the ring. Take Ray Austin, for example. He doesn't even belong in the same sentence as John Ruiz, but people would rather see him fight simply because he's big. Nicolai Valuev is basically a one-handed John Ruiz, and he was pretty popular in Europe for a while. Big heavyweights are going to get more shots at the title than small fighters - because they're popular - and therefore, they're going to be more likely to win titles than similarly talented smaller heavyweights. It wasn't really like that in the Golden Era of boxing, the 1950s. Back then, any heavyweight with even a hint of a belly was considered fat.

[Seamus]

Question for Dempseyfire, The Great John L, and Ambling Alp. Do you guys expect there to be a dominant heavyweight who weighs 215 or under, within the next 10 years ?

[Ambling Alp]

We don't have crystal ball, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised. Of course a lot depends upon what you consider to be dominaint. In my opinion, there hasn't been a dominaint heavyweight in several years.
Chris Byrd was the IBF Champ for several years, up to 2006. He was far from dominaint, but who else was?

I certainly think a small heavyweight will win one of those WBS belts in the next 10 years.

It's not that a talented guy can't beat the poor big fighters. There just isn't as many smaller guys. The ones that are naturally 200-220 either think they have to be bigger or just don't want to train down to their best weight.

Sometimes things do go in cycles. In the NFL a certain offense will be popular for a few years until people realize it can be stopped. Right now coaches don't seem to realize that it isn't against the rules to hand off the ball to their fullback. They don't seem to know how stupid it is to complete a 3 yard pass on 3rd and 10 and then punt.
That doesn't mean this will be always be the way it is.

In boxing, sooner or later fighters will realize that they don't need to be that big.

There is a mountain of evidence that roughly 200-225 (depending on height and frame) is the ideal weight for heavyweights. There is virtually no evidence that fighters weighing over 250 is the way to go.
I would be much more surprised if there was a dominaint heavyweight that weighs over 250. So far, there have only been two really good heavyweights over 225 (Lewis and Bowe) and only one of them was able to be great over the long haul.

[The Great John L]

Question for Dempseyfire, The Great John L, and Ambling Alp. Do you guys expect there to be a dominant heavyweight who weighs 215 or under, within the next 10 years ?

No, I don't. Of course I don't expect to see any dominant HW in the next 10 years, but I think the majority of the belt holders will be 230+.