Heavyweight Division average Weight by decade

[oogiebe]

1956 - 198
1966 - 207
1976 - 218
1986 - 230
1996 - 235
2006 - 252
2010 - 242
2016 - ?

Height went up on average of 3" over the same period.

[Boxing Writer]

1956 - 198
1966 - 207
1976 - 218
1986 - 230
1996 - 235
2006 - 252
2010 - 242
2016 - ?

Height went up on average of 3" over the same period.

Is that based on Ring Magazine's top-10 annual rankings?

[oogiebe]

1956 - 198
1966 - 207
1976 - 218
1986 - 230
1996 - 235
2006 - 252
2010 - 242
2016 - ?

Height went up on average of 3" over the same period.

Is that based on Ring Magazine's top-10 annual rankings?

No, I'll have to find the site again. It was overall fighters not just top 10. Why do you ask?

[oogiebe]

Boxing forum 24. I did a back of the napkin to ensure it was somewhat reasonable.

[Ruthless-RKO]

I preferred when HW's weighed around 220-240

[oogiebe]

I preferred when HW's weighed around 220-240

I get it...they were more skilled than the monsters.

[Boxing Writer]

1956 - 198
1966 - 207
1976 - 218
1986 - 230
1996 - 235
2006 - 252
2010 - 242
2016 - ?

Height went up on average of 3" over the same period.

Is that based on Ring Magazine's top-10 annual rankings?

No, I'll have to find the site again. It was overall fighters not just top 10. Why do you ask?

Because if so, other years can be calculated the same way.

[oogiebe]

There were some caveats...such as taking the fighter during that period at his highest weight.

[Heretic]

1956 - 198
1966 - 207
1976 - 218
1986 - 230
1996 - 235
2006 - 252
2010 - 242
2016 - ?

Height went up on average of 3" over the same period.

Is that based on Ring Magazine's top-10 annual rankings?

No, I'll have to find the site again. It was overall fighters not just top 10. Why do you ask?

That sounds like pretty meaningless statistic.

Most of the division is bad boxers and journeyman. I couldn't care less how much do they weight.

Average weight of top 10 or 20 or 50 would be more interesting.

I would guess that the average weight for top 20 boxer is less than the average of the division. Top dogs are usually at least fit.

It is also kind of funny that the average HW boxer from the sixties would be a cruiser weight in today's division

[oogiebe]

Is that based on Ring Magazine's top-10 annual rankings?

No, I'll have to find the site again. It was overall fighters not just top 10. Why do you ask?

That sounds like pretty meaningless statistic.

Most of the division is bad boxers and journeyman. I couldn't care less how much do they weight.

Average weight of top 10 or 20 or 50 would be more interesting.

I would guess that the average weight for top 20 boxer is less than the average of the division. Top dogs are usually at least fit.

It is also kind of funny that the average HW boxer from the sixties would be a cruiser weight in today's division

Wasn't meant to be meaningful, just interesting...especially the dip for 2010. 3" and some 54 LBS difference over 5 or 6 decades. I'm sure the top 10 numbers are available. Go get 'em and let's take a looksee.

[Best Coast]

I think it IS meaningful. That's why many are clamoring for a new super-heavyweight division over 240, 250 or whatever. Some suggest a height limit too but that would complicate things.

Your thoughts?

[Enlightened-One]

1956 - 198
1966 - 207
1976 - 218
1986 - 230
1996 - 235
2006 - 252
2010 - 242
2016 - ?

Height went up on average of 3" over the same period.

How were these stats gathered? And in what context (i.e. are the stats calculated from a small sample and what calibre of fighters were used)?

If these simple questions can't be answered, then they don't mean much, even though they could be in the right sort of ballpark.

[Grilling Machine]

Your thoughts?

As an offshoot from history, I can't imagine many supporting super-heavy. But super-cruiser at 210 might win a decent level of backing. A maiden WBSS could launch it.

I think it's for caught-between boxers to advocate if they're keen in sufficient numbers. I'm not worried either way. I do think it's a shame that light-heavy's a division below where it should be! I'd make that 210 if it wouldn't mess anything up. And I'd increase 175 to 180, and 168 to 170.

[BitPlayer]

Obesity in action :p

[computerrank]

From BoxRec database and all world title bouts wbc, wba, ibf, Ibo, wbo for all decades from 1960 to 2017:

1960: 201.3 lbs
1970: 214.7 lbs
1980: 220.5 lbs
1990: 229.3 lbs
2000: 243.0 lbs
2010: 238.3 lbs

[oogiebe]

From BoxRec database and all world title bouts wbc, wba, ibf, Ibo, wbo for all decades from 1960 to 2017:

1960: 201.3 lbs
1970: 214.7 lbs
1980: 220.5 lbs
1990: 229.3 lbs
2000: 243.0 lbs
2010: 238.3 lbs

Even this has that 'dip' for 2010.