Yeah I know we have the two Tyson’s, as in Mike and Fury whose morphology are pretty much polar opposite.
Always thought circa 6’ 3 in an around 16.5 stone with a non too muscular frame and solid chin is about ideal.
Seems an ideal starting point, some of the other facets are either natural or trained IE ring craft, endurance, hand speed etc etc.
Optimum morphology for a heavyweight boxer.
-
The Docker
- Bantamweight
- Posts: 608
- Joined: 16 Feb 2022, 15:26
Re: Optimum morphology for a heavyweight boxer.
Well at the moment it is 6'9" and 270lbs
But probably 6'5" is the sweet spot since the 90s
But probably 6'5" is the sweet spot since the 90s
-
jamesmcdonnell
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 45213
- Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11
Re: Optimum morphology for a heavyweight boxer.
Lennox Lewis was the perfect size and weight in his prime.
6'5" 235-245 lbs or so in his prime.
Fury like Lewis, isn't overburdened with huge hulking muscles, hence why he appears to have very good stamina for such a big man, if he wasn't so fond of a jaffa cake between fights, I think Fury would get down to around 250.
6'5" 235-245 lbs or so in his prime.
Fury like Lewis, isn't overburdened with huge hulking muscles, hence why he appears to have very good stamina for such a big man, if he wasn't so fond of a jaffa cake between fights, I think Fury would get down to around 250.
-
Thomastearns
- Super Lightweight
- Posts: 2401
- Joined: 26 Feb 2017, 11:11
Re: Optimum morphology for a heavyweight boxer.
The Docker wrote: ↑23 Aug 2022, 04:44 Yeah I know we have the two Tyson’s, as in Mike and Fury whose morphology are pretty much polar opposite.
Always thought circa 6’ 3 in an around 16.5 stone with a non too muscular frame and solid chin is about ideal.
Seems an ideal starting point, some of the other facets are either natural or trained IE ring craft, endurance, hand speed etc etc.
Me too.
Usyk would fit right in with the classic champions of the past such as Dempsey, Louis, Liston, Frazier, Foreman, Ali, Holmes etc.
AJ himself even made the point right after the fight that the fact that him being 18 stone inevitably takes something away from his boxing skills.
6"3' might well be the sweet spot.
Any remaining questions could well be answered by an eventual Usyk v Fury clash.
-
HomicideHenry
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 18722
- Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43
Re: Optimum morphology for a heavyweight boxer.
6'3" and 220 pounds is really all the size you need to really beat anybody. The problem is a few of the giant heavyweights today have the skills and athleticism that earlier giant fighters simply did not have, which makes it harder for 6'3" and 220 pound guys to overcome.
When the likes of Fury, Wilder and Joshua leave the scene you'll start to see smaller heavyweights beating bigger men on a more frequent basis because the gulf of ability and pedigree between those three giants and the other big men in the division is pretty wide.
When the likes of Fury, Wilder and Joshua leave the scene you'll start to see smaller heavyweights beating bigger men on a more frequent basis because the gulf of ability and pedigree between those three giants and the other big men in the division is pretty wide.
-
Bard of Boxrec
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 13112
- Joined: 22 Feb 2002, 20:00
Re: Optimum morphology for a heavyweight boxer.
Keen to see EO’s take with some extensive stats.*
*Disclaimer: May Not Be Keen On The Above
*Disclaimer: May Not Be Keen On The Above