Why were the 1950s heavyweights so small?

[pundit]

The topic was mentioned in another thread, but it deserves its own treatment. Brockton and others disputed my claim that the 1950s heavywegihts were particulalary small. Now I took Brockton's own top 15 heavyweights of each decade - http://www.boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=42489 - and computed the average weight in each decade. Here is the outcome:

1900 191.3
1910 195.1
1920 195.9
1930 207.5
1940 203.7
1950 195.1
1960 200.1
1970 211.1
1980 217.1
1990 231.7

The average weight rises from the 1900s, reaches a temporary peak in the 1930s, falls back to the 1910s level in the 1950s, and then takes off again, surpassing the 1930s level in the 1970s and continueing to rise until the end of the century. In the 1990s, the average top-15 heavyweight was 40 pounds heavier than in the 1900s, and about 20 pounds heavier than in the 1930s/1970s.

Now could some of this be due to a statistical fluke? Unlikley. The table below repeats the exercise for the top 10 heavyweights. Same pattern (I did it for the top 6 too, again same pattern. I actually have quite an illustrative excel chart which I'd like to send to an editor if he can post it here).

1900 189.5
1910 189.2
1920 190.9
1930 208.6
1940 198.5
1950 195.1
1960 202.1
1970 208.8
1980 214.2
1990 228.3

Is there a good explanation for this? As a first approximation, I have no clue.

P

PS: btw, bigger does of course NOT necessarily mean better.

[bill.lockhart]

They would have been born during the great depression. No explanation necessary.

[HomicideHenry]

Back then there wasn't that many weight classes. Back then HW was 176 and up. In the 80's it was changed to being 196 and up was a HW. Cruiserweight division more or less replaced the LHW division, because during the 70's and before, LHW's were considered as 'failed' HW's. Much like how we view Cruiserweights today.

Besides, I don't really consider the men back then to have been 'small' fighters, they were just fighting and training down to their target weight. For instance, if a HW weighs 240 pounds, but should weigh 220, back then they would try their damndest to get down to 220---a HW back then was a finely tuned athlete.

Guys these days are coming in at 240-250-260+ when they should be coming in at 230 or less. I remember a few people saying "The division is getting bigger and better"---that's a pipe dream, as men these days are sucking wind after four rounds. The division hasn't gotten bigger, it's getting heavier.

Back then those men proved that even at a smaller weight, they could beat much larger opponents---take into consideration Primo Carnera, he was anywhere from 260-275 pounds, he possibly could have fought better if he was 240 pounds---but Joe Louis, no more than 198 ripped him to shreds. It was all about conditioning back then and being in shape.

Even if someone lost back then, you were still in fighting shape, that's why these men fought so often---nowadays with inflated purses and all, people train for one fight and then get out of shape and have to re-train.

Take for example Rocky Marciano, in the amateurs he was 200+ and even when he was out of training he weighed anywhere from 220-240, but when he was a professional and started doing some heavy duty training, he would get down to 185 pounds, so that he would have the endurance and the stamina to fight his style to the best of his ability.

It wasn't that the man was small, it was all about conditioning.

[pundit]

I just did the same for body height, converted into centimeters for easier calculation.

1900 182.3
1910 184.6
1920 184.6
1930 188.1
1940 185.7
1950 184.1
1960 186.0
1970 187.7
1980 190.0
1990 189.3

Same picture, except that in the 1990s fighters have apparenlty become just heavier rather than taller.

[pundit]

Back then there wasn't that many weight classes. Back then HW was 176 and up. In the 80's it was changed to being 196 and up was a HW.

So how does this explain the 1900s-1930s-1950s-1970s zick-zack pattern.

Besides, I don't really consider the men back then to have been 'small' fighters, they were just fighting and training down to their target weight. For instance, if a HW weighs 240 pounds, but should weigh 220, back then they would try their damndest to get down to 220---a HW back then was a finely tuned athlete.

So you're seriously suggesting the 1990s heavyweights were simply worse conditioned???

Btw, the length table shows the same as the weight table, hence this can't be the reason.

[pundit]

They would have been born during the great depression. No explanation necessary.

Hmmm. In htis case it should correspond to the height/weight development of the average American man. I'll look for sources.

[granberry]

Back then there wasn't that many weight classes. Back then HW was 176 and up. In the 80's it was changed to being 196 and up was a HW. Cruiserweight division more or less replaced the LHW division, because during the 70's and before, LHW's were considered as 'failed' HW's. Much like how we view Cruiserweights today.

Besides, I don't really consider the men back then to have been 'small' fighters, they were just fighting and training down to their target weight. For instance, if a HW weighs 240 pounds, but should weigh 220, back then they would try their damndest to get down to 220---a HW back then was a finely tuned athlete.

Guys these days are coming in at 240-250-260+ when they should be coming in at 230 or less. I remember a few people saying "The division is getting bigger and better"---that's a pipe dream, as men these days are sucking wind after four rounds. The division hasn't gotten bigger, it's getting heavier.

Back then those men proved that even at a smaller weight, they could beat much larger opponents---take into consideration Primo Carnera, he was anywhere from 260-275 pounds, he possibly could have fought better if he was 240 pounds---but Joe Louis, no more than 198 ripped him to shreds. It was all about conditioning back then and being in shape.

Even if someone lost back then, you were still in fighting shape, that's why these men fought so often---nowadays with inflated purses and all, people train for one fight and then get out of shape and have to re-train.

Take for example Rocky Marciano, in the amateurs he was 200+ and even when he was out of training he weighed anywhere from 220-240, but when he was a professional and started doing some heavy duty training, he would get down to 185 pounds, so that he would have the endurance and the stamina to fight his style to the best of his ability.

It wasn't that the man was small, it was all about conditioning.

CORRECT.

[granberry]

Back then there wasn't that many weight classes. Back then HW was 176 and up. In the 80's it was changed to being 196 and up was a HW. Cruiserweight division more or less replaced the LHW division, because during the 70's and before, LHW's were considered as 'failed' HW's. Much like how we view Cruiserweights today.

Besides, I don't really consider the men back then to have been 'small' fighters, they were just fighting and training down to their target weight. For instance, if a HW weighs 240 pounds, but should weigh 220, back then they would try their damndest to get down to 220---a HW back then was a finely tuned athlete.

Guys these days are coming in at 240-250-260+ when they should be coming in at 230 or less. I remember a few people saying "The division is getting bigger and better"---that's a pipe dream, as men these days are sucking wind after four rounds. The division hasn't gotten bigger, it's getting heavier.

Back then those men proved that even at a smaller weight, they could beat much larger opponents---take into consideration Primo Carnera, he was anywhere from 260-275 pounds, he possibly could have fought better if he was 240 pounds---but Joe Louis, no more than 198 ripped him to shreds. It was all about conditioning back then and being in shape.

Even if someone lost back then, you were still in fighting shape, that's why these men fought so often---nowadays with inflated purses and all, people train for one fight and then get out of shape and have to re-train.

Take for example Rocky Marciano, in the amateurs he was 200+ and even when he was out of training he weighed anywhere from 220-240, but when he was a professional and started doing some heavy duty training, he would get down to 185 pounds, so that he would have the endurance and the stamina to fight his style to the best of his ability.

It wasn't that the man was small, it was all about conditioning.

Willard weighed 232 for his chance against Johnson.

Marciano weighed 230-40 when he wasn't training.

The modern so-called "experts," with their total incompetence with anything physical, would be much more impressed with Marciano at an out of shape 240 than the 182 he weighed when he showed up for a fight.

I bet his opponents wish he had showed up weighing 240.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

yes but pundit you cant work like this. ur using statistics from one mans opninion.


for example


wut if i changed my 1950s list and took roland lastarza out and replaced him with 220lb bob baker and took out harold johnson and replaced him with 6'3 200lb earl walls? then the weight average of those 15 guys in the 1950s would be higher.


and

wut if i took 240lb george godfrey out of the 1930s and replaced him with 175lb maxie rosenbloom?

and wut if i took out 250lb buddy baer and replaced him with 190lb jack trammell



just switching two guys from each decade would make both averages alot closer.






wut u have to do is take 30 top heavyweights from each decade and compare the weights. this way, it wont be as objective. its pretty easy to pick out the top 30 hgeavyweights of a decade, but top 15? well then u get to opinions.


u have to look at the decade as a whole







like i showed u in another thread.........take a look at the european heavyweight scene in the 1950s. almost all the top european heavyweights were over 210lb

[The Great John L]

Do you guys really think that Lennox Lewis walked around at 240? He was a 270-pound man who trained down to that weight. Same with the Klitschko brothers, Riddick Bowe and most of the super-heavyweight fighters.

Well, maybe not Bowe. He was always pretty soft.

[pundit]

yes but pundit you cant work like this. ur using statistics from one mans opninion.

for example

wut if i changed my 1950s list and took roland lastarza out and replaced him with 220lb bob baker and took out harold johnson and replaced him with 6'3 200lb earl walls? then the weight average of those 15 guys in the 1950s would be higher.

and

wut if i took 240lb george godfrey out of the 1930s and replaced him with 175lb maxie rosenbloom?

and wut if i took out 250lb buddy baer and replaced him with 190lb jack trammell

just switching two guys from each decade would make both averages alot closer.

wut u have to do is take 30 top heavyweights from each decade and compare the weights. this way, it wont be as objective. its pretty easy to pick out the top 30 hgeavyweights of a decade, but top 15? well then u get to opinions.

It would in fact not change that much. 2 fighters with a combined 100 pounds difference (which are extreme substitutions) result in 7 pounds difference for the decade on average. But the difference between the 1930s and the 1950s is 12-14 pounds - so you would have to do almost twice as much such that the 1950s HWs would just maintain the average weight of the 1930s HWs (but you would expect them to continue to grow, judging from the 1900-1930s and the 1950s-1990s patterns).

Of course no method is perfect. BUT I think one needs to take the top heavyweights of each decade, because in their case you can pretty much exclude that the conditioning factors that Rufus refered to account for the difference. Probably top 30 would be better than top 15, but I didn't have a top 30 list. I did some sampling tests within the top 15, things don't change much. Which means: the result does not depend on Buddy Baer.

I stand to be corrected, but believe that the two most significant results are unlikely to be erased:

- the trend towards ever-bigger heavyweights that dominated the 1900s-1930s was at least interrupted - if not reversed - after the 1930s, and set in again in the 1960s. Someone suggested the great depression as an explanation, this sounds interesting. It's known that body height depends on nutritional levels in early childhood.

- in the 1990s something weird happens - the top heavyweights stop growing in length, but they continue to add in weight. A part of this is due because you have small and extremely heavy folks like David Tua in your 1990s list. But even if you take out Tua and replace him by Vitali (as heavy but more than a foot taller), the result still holds.

But perhaps Compurank or someone else could give us a list of the top 30 or top 40 heavyweights in each decade according to boxrec's rating, and we would try again. I'll send him a PM.

Cheers, P

[pundit]

Just to let you know that Computerrank provided me with great statistics and that I am working on something more systematic. I'll keep you posted.

[pundit]

Some results from computerranks' data. Each number is based on 150 observations (5 years, 30 boxers per year). The 1900s and in parts the early 1910s data are incomplete though and should be taken with caution.

1900: early 1900s, 1905: late 1900s, and so on.

Average weight (kilogram):

1900 81.9
1905 80.4
1910 86.9
1915 88.1
1920 87.5
1925 88.1
1930 89.4
1935 89.7
1940 90.3
1945 87.9
1950 88.6
1955 88.9
1960 89.7
1965 90.8
1970 93.8
1975 97.4
1980 98.4
1985 100.6
1990 104.1
1995 104.9
2000 108.5

Average height (centimeters):

1900 183.8
1905 180.5
1910 181.9
1915 183.4
1920 183.8
1925 184.9
1930 185.2
1935 185.8
1940 184.1
1945 184.0
1950 185.5
1955 185.3
1960 186.2
1965 186.5
1970 187.6
1975 189.2
1980 190.2
1985 189.9
1990 190.2
1995 190.2
2000 191.6

Things don't look as extreme as with Brockton's top-15 sample, but it remains that

(i) the trend towards ever-bigger top heavyweights was interrupted in the 1940s - annual data show that the average size shrank between 1936 and 1948 (height)/1950 (weight), then it grew again (a bit too early to have the great depression as main explanation); and

(ii) weight growth far outstrips height growth from the late 1980s the latest.

If anyone's interested in more, send me a pm and I pass on some charts.

P

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

i am putting together two lists. top 30 heavyweights of the 1930s and top 30 heavyweights of the 1950s. then we can do more statistics. i will try to be at least as bias as possible and will not try to put big heavyweights in the decade of 1950s if they dont deserve it.

[Cojimar 1945]

Marciano and Patterson were fairly small. Out of the champions of earlier eras Jeffries, Willard, Carnera, Baer and Louis were clearly bigger than the 1950s heavyweight champions.

[Expug]

I cant say if people are getting bigger or not in general . But the last few years at the Chicago Golden Gloves , there were hardly any fighters in the Feather, bantam . or Fly divisions. Years ago they were full.

[Chuck1052]

Don't write off the smaller heavyweights. After all, James
Toney, Chris Byrd, and Evander Holyfield had quite a
bit of success in the heavyweight division in recent
years.

- Chuck Johnston

[pound per pound]

Don't write off the smaller heavyweights. After all, James
Toney, Chris Byrd, and Evander Holyfield had quite a
bit of success in the heavyweight division in recent
years.

- Chuck Johnston

Very true, but the success that had was at 210-215 pounds.

[pundit]

i am putting together two lists. top 30 heavyweights of the 1930s and top 30 heavyweights of the 1950s. then we can do more statistics. i will try to be at least as bias as possible and will not try to put big heavyweights in the decade of 1950s if they dont deserve it.

I think I have very good statistics from computerrank. Boxrec's annual top 30 may not be the best quality ranking, but it should be unbiased as regards weight- and height-composition - and this is what is needed here. And 30 per YEAR are plentiful data. I'd be happy to send you the file if you tell me where to.

The more I look at the resulting graphs though the more I believe that the 1930s-1950s differences ought not to be overplayed also. The serious weight growth of the heavyweights sets in in the late 1960s, and this dominates everything else - including a much smaller drop in average in the 1940s.

The height statistic is more volatile but alo estimated with less precision. There is a clearly visible drop 1936-48 though. Interesting also that height growth slowed down in the mid-80s, while weight growth continued unabated.

[pound per pound]

Don't write off the smaller heavyweights. After all, James
Toney, Chris Byrd, and Evander Holyfield had quite a
bit of success in the heavyweight division in recent
years.

- Chuck Johnston

Very true, but they success that had was at 210-215 pounds. 210-215 would be considered big in the 1950's.