Optimum morphology for a heavyweight boxer.

Post Reply
The Docker
Bantamweight
Posts: 608
Joined: 16 Feb 2022, 15:26

Optimum morphology for a heavyweight boxer.

Post by The Docker »

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.
Finkel
Super Featherweight
Posts: 1380
Joined: 08 Sep 2018, 20:51

Re: Optimum morphology for a heavyweight boxer.

Post by Finkel »

Well at the moment it is 6'9" and 270lbs :lol:

But probably 6'5" is the sweet spot since the 90s
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45213
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Re: Optimum morphology for a heavyweight boxer.

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

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.
Thomastearns
Super Lightweight
Posts: 2401
Joined: 26 Feb 2017, 11:11

Re: Optimum morphology for a heavyweight boxer.

Post by Thomastearns »

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
Heavyweight
Posts: 18722
Joined: 08 Sep 2005, 00:43

Re: Optimum morphology for a heavyweight boxer.

Post by HomicideHenry »

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.
Bard of Boxrec
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 13112
Joined: 22 Feb 2002, 20:00

Re: Optimum morphology for a heavyweight boxer.

Post by Bard of Boxrec »

Keen to see EO’s take with some extensive stats.*









*Disclaimer: May Not Be Keen On The Above
Post Reply