Average heavyweight height

kaiserbill
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 355
Joined: 29 Jun 2011, 18:11

Re: Average heavyweight height

Post by kaiserbill »

Controversial wrote:Interesting. I always wonder who accurate heights are, no way Tyson was 5' 11.5" as quite often listed, more like 5' 10". Marciano was also meant to be around 5'9" and Frazier around the same, again shorter than listed heights. Also I doubt Tyson Fury is 6'9" and Haye probably a bit shorter than 6'3"
I know about some of the other guys heights being a stretch (pardon the pun), such as Tyson actually being being 5'10.....

....but Marciano always looked his billed height to me. Ignoring when Ali and him were clowning and joking around with the heights for their theatre, there are loads of standing pics of him with people of verified heights such as Charlie Powell, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, George Logan, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, La Starza, Walcott etc...and even non boxers such as Stan Stutz, Bob Hope or president Eisenhower that showed him pretty much to be bang on his given height. In fact, there is also a pic when Marciano went to the UK and met leading or famous British heavyweights, such as Cockell, Cooper, Peterson, Erskine, Farr...and again, somewhere north of 5'10'' or around 1.79m as boxrec have him.
Marciano had an unusual build I guess, bulky in some area, not so in others, shorter arms, low center of gravity, that was misleading.

Frazier also look his billed height of about 5'11' outside the ring. His crouching style also I guess accentuated things.

Speaking of Don Cockell, how about this fantastic pic below of Rocky absolutely smashing his ribs in with a cracking right hand body shot that I'd never seen before. He always did have such great leverage.
I'm not surprised at Cockells facial expressions when watching video of the fight.
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/box ... d452191122
Last edited by kaiserbill on 29 Mar 2016, 19:18, edited 1 time in total.
jezzamundo
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3127
Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 13:11

Re: 2.5 inch in almost 100 years?

Post by jezzamundo »

Tarkus wrote:
jezzamundo wrote:
Tarkus wrote: I think weight would increase proportional to height. But it would seem more pronounced as volume and therefore weight varies as a power of length. Also I think BMI would be lower rather then higher as current fighters seem leaner. There is more attention to nutrition and conditioning and lot more knowledge about those things today.
BMI is only based on height and weight and average weight has been increasing at a much faster rate, so the average heavyweight BMI today would definitely be higher than in the past. Body fat percentage is another question, but we're never going to get the data on that.
I dont think weight increased faster for the reasons I outlined before. BMI takes the power relationship between the height and weight into account and therefore might not increase either. And considering BMI standards are different for different heights I think it will show that modern fighters are leaner.
While I haven't done the data, I'm 100% sure that weight has increased at a faster rate and BMI for top heavyweights today would be higher than in the past. I also disagree that modern fighters are leaner - I think that's true for fighters in lower weight classes where you have big guys cutting weight but not at heavyweight. I'd say heavyweights today are generally more heavily muscled, which is also going to contribute to an increase in BMI. You're also right about BMI and different heights - it really isn't meaningful when applied to very tall or muscular people. There have been plenty of chubby guys in the heavyweight top 10 in recent years, including but not limited to Sam Peter, Eddie Chambers, Povetkin, Chagaev, Arreola, Chisora, Helenius, Sanders, Valuev, Liakhovich, Ibragimov.
Cutman Scabbers
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2313
Joined: 05 Jun 2008, 18:15

Re: Average heavyweight height

Post by Cutman Scabbers »

jezzamundo wrote:
tigermoth87 wrote:The average heights may not be as high as expected but, the successful ones in the division are the bigger than average guys.

Wlad 6'6, Fury 6'9, Wilder 6'9, Ortiz 6'4 (Not won a title yet but he's got some good wins) and from a couple of years ago Vitali. Plus I guess Martin 6'5 and Browne 6'5 deserve a mention too since they are current belt holders.

Not to mention, the fighters with the most promise and considered to be future champions are the ones who tend to be bigger. Terper 6'5, Joshua 6'6, Hughie 6'6, Granat 6'7, Parker 6'4. Really the only successful "small" heavyweight in recent years is Povetkin. In my opinion he's the last of the successful "small" heavyweights.


In fact, going by the Ring Magazine's rankings is a bit flawed to be honest because for some reason, Stiverne and Jennings are in there. Neither of them belong in the top 10 and should arguably be replaced by two of Parker, Teper or Takem.
The numbers I provided are for top 10 heavyweights - the results would have been practically the same if I'd used the BoxRec top 10. Oh and IMO Jennings in particular is more worthy of a top 10 rank than Parker, Takam and especially Teper, whose biggest win has been turned into a NC.

Fury is really nearer 6'7, maybe 6'8 and Wilder is 6'7.

The following have been top 5 heavyweights this millennium:
Mike Tyson 5'10
Kirk Johnson 6'2
David Tua 5'10
Chris Byrd 6'1 1/2
John Ruiz 6'2
Roy Jones 5'11
James Toney 5'10
Lamon Brewster 6'2
Sam Peter 6'2
Ruslan Chagaev 6'1 (recently upgraded from 5'11 for some reason)
Alexander Povetkin 6'2
Eddie Chambers 6'1
Tomasz Adamek 6'1 1/2
Bermane Stiverne 6'2

Successful shorter heavyweights aren't as common as they used to be, but to consider them a thing of the past is a bit of an overreaction IMO.


Nice growth spurt from Chagaev!
5016
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5
Joined: 21 Nov 2005, 17:07

Re: Average heavyweight height

Post by 5016 »

bigman1968
Super Welterweight
Posts: 672
Joined: 24 Jul 2014, 03:45

Re: 2.5 inch in almost 100 years?

Post by bigman1968 »

jezzamundo wrote:
kaiserbill wrote:
bigman1968 wrote:Practically no change!

Interesting to check the weights too. Generally looks like that most of champs and contenders till 60s were todays cruisers ;-)
The weights increased dramatically in the 1980's going by my memory. That was also the decade that the 15 rounders were shortened to 12 rounders. Cutting a quarter off the duration of a fight must have had an impact.

Even a "regular" size heavyweight in recent terms, or a large'ish one back in the day, such as Muhammed Ali fought his first 15 fights weighing under 200lbs, or 90kg. Yet he was still the heavier in those first 15 fights than most of his opponents.
Ali weighed in at 188lbs (85kg) for his 9th pro fight.
Floyd Patterson weighed 182lbs or 82kg for 3 of his world heavyweight title fights.
Even large full scale 6ft6 Ernie Terrell, with an 82inch reach, fought 31 of his first 32 fights under 200lbs, with his lightest being 185lbs. He came in again under 200lbs years into his career in his 41st bout.

All info is from this site.
It's an interesting topic.
Yes, the average weight would definitely have increased at a faster rate than the height and the average BMI would definitely be higher. Your 15 round to 12 round theory has some merit too.
And do not forget steroids and other pharma sh#t!
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9152
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: Average heavyweight height

Post by Controversial »

kaiserbill wrote:
....but Marciano always looked his billed height to me. Ignoring when Ali and him were clowning and joking around with the heights for their theatre, there are loads of standing pics of him with people of verified heights such as Charlie Powell, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, George Logan, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, La Starza, Walcott etc...and even non boxers such as Stan Stutz, Bob Hope or president Eisenhower that showed him pretty much to be bang on his given height. In fact, there is also a pic when Marciano went to the UK and met leading or famous British heavyweights, such as Cockell, Cooper, Peterson, Erskine, Farr...and again, somewhere north of 5'10'' or around 1.79m as boxrec have him.
Marciano had an unusual build I guess, bulky in some area, not so in others, shorter arms, low center of gravity, that was misleading.
I was going by an autobiography on Marciano where it said he was only 5'9", I've have also seen a photo of him next to Bob Hope and they were similar heights and Hope was only 5'8". I think his reach is also a good indictor for his lack of height, 68" reach is very short.

Image
funso banjo baby
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4417
Joined: 23 Sep 2005, 11:05

Re: Average heavyweight height

Post by funso banjo baby »

tigermoth87 wrote:The average heights may not be as high as expected but, the successful ones in the division are the bigger than average guys.

Wlad 6'6, Fury 6'9, Wilder 6'9, Ortiz 6'4 (Not won a title yet but he's got some good wins) and from a couple of years ago Vitali. Plus I guess Martin 6'5 and Browne 6'5 deserve a mention too since they are current belt holders.

Not to mention, the fighters with the most promise and considered to be future champions are the ones who tend to be bigger. Terper 6'5, Joshua 6'6, Hughie 6'6, Granat 6'7, Parker 6'4. Really the only successful "small" heavyweight in recent years is Povetkin. In my opinion he's the last of the successful "small" heavyweights.


In fact, going by the Ring Magazine's rankings is a bit flawed to be honest because for some reason, Stiverne and Jennings are in there. Neither of them belong in the top 10 and should arguably be replaced by two of Parker, Teper or Takem.



Povetkin hasn't actually done anything though.

I'd say that the last small heavyweight who achieved something was Lamon Brewster?

Since Brewster no other small heavy has got even close to threatening the giants, let alone beat them
tigermoth87
Welterweight
Posts: 1793
Joined: 21 Feb 2016, 11:23

Re: Average heavyweight height

Post by tigermoth87 »

funso banjo baby wrote:
tigermoth87 wrote:The average heights may not be as high as expected but, the successful ones in the division are the bigger than average guys.

Wlad 6'6, Fury 6'9, Wilder 6'9, Ortiz 6'4 (Not won a title yet but he's got some good wins) and from a couple of years ago Vitali. Plus I guess Martin 6'5 and Browne 6'5 deserve a mention too since they are current belt holders.

Not to mention, the fighters with the most promise and considered to be future champions are the ones who tend to be bigger. Terper 6'5, Joshua 6'6, Hughie 6'6, Granat 6'7, Parker 6'4. Really the only successful "small" heavyweight in recent years is Povetkin. In my opinion he's the last of the successful "small" heavyweights.


In fact, going by the Ring Magazine's rankings is a bit flawed to be honest because for some reason, Stiverne and Jennings are in there. Neither of them belong in the top 10 and should arguably be replaced by two of Parker, Teper or Takem.



Povetkin hasn't actually done anything though.

I'd say that the last small heavyweight who achieved something was Lamon Brewster?

Since Brewster no other small heavy has got even close to threatening the giants, let alone beat them
I mentioned Povetkin because, even though he hasn't really had success with titles he has got a good resume of wins and is considered one of the top 5 fighters in the division.

Other than that though, I agree. No small heavy is close to threatening the bigger guys in the division. Other than Povetkin, the only one with the chance to do so for me is Haye solely because of his excellent KO power. I think Fury and Wlad would beat him but I could see him getting a KO over Wilder and Joshua.
kaiserbill
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 355
Joined: 29 Jun 2011, 18:11

Re: Average heavyweight height

Post by kaiserbill »

Controversial wrote:
kaiserbill wrote:
....but Marciano always looked his billed height to me. Ignoring when Ali and him were clowning and joking around with the heights for their theatre, there are loads of standing pics of him with people of verified heights such as Charlie Powell, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, George Logan, Archie Moore, Ezzard Charles, La Starza, Walcott etc...and even non boxers such as Stan Stutz, Bob Hope or president Eisenhower that showed him pretty much to be bang on his given height. In fact, there is also a pic when Marciano went to the UK and met leading or famous British heavyweights, such as Cockell, Cooper, Peterson, Erskine, Farr...and again, somewhere north of 5'10'' or around 1.79m as boxrec have him.
Marciano had an unusual build I guess, bulky in some area, not so in others, shorter arms, low center of gravity, that was misleading.
I was going by an autobiography on Marciano where it said he was only 5'9", I've have also seen a photo of him next to Bob Hope and they were similar heights and Hope was only 5'8". I think his reach is also a good indictor for his lack of height, 68" reach is very short.

Image
Thanks for the reply Controversial.
The picture you selected is one of the pics of Ali and Rocky clowning around, as mentioned in my post above that you replied to. The fact that it isn't a full length pic and that Rocky and middle guy are laughing their heads off tallies with the description I recall reading in two different accounts of the "computer superfight" that they clowned together, with Ali at one stage in filmed or photographed proceedings standing on tip toes whilst clowning around to pronounce their height difference. Even Ali is struggling to keep a straight face.
There are other full length pics, but many of them are difficult to judge as either one fighter or the other is crouched over or moving on their toes. Below is a full length pic, giving a better illustration, although Ali is putting his weight on one leg and crooking his knee. It does however, taking that and camera angles into account tally quite well with the given heights of 6'3'' and 5'10''. Even the second pic of Rocky more crouched and Ali more upright demonstrates this.

It shows a very different pic to the clowning around one above, which would ridiculously give Rocky a height of about 5'5'' or 5'6'', which would make him way shorter than even Tommy Burns. :lol: Or it would make Ali a solid 6'7'' to 6'8''........ ;-)
Image
Image

When you say "an autobiogrophy", can you recall which one? I'd be interested.

Bob Hope was not 5'8''. There are tons of pics out there with him hobnobbing with various famous people, including presidents such as Eisenhower, JFK, and LBJ that demonstrate that. He was pretty much the same height as Eisenhower or Rocky, at his given 5'10''. It is worth bearing in mind that we do shrink as we get older, and Bob Hope did live to 100 years of age, and that Marciano was basically into middle age when the Ali "superfight" theatrics was filmed,

Lastly, I would seriously urge caution in using Rocky's reach as an indication of his height. He had a notoriously short reach for just that reason. It was notoriously short even for his height. Why measure his reach accurately, making it short, but not his height? :-?
Anthropomorphic measurements vary greatly, so I would certainly be very very cautious to base anything on that.
Sonny Liston was 6'1'' but had an 84 inch reach.
Leon Spinks was 6'2'' and had a 76 inch reach.
Jess Willard was 6'6'' and had an 83 inch reach.
Primo Carnera was 6'5'' and a half and had an 85 inch reach.
2 contempories Max Baer and James Braddock were the same height at 6'2 and a half, but Baer had a 81 inch reach, and Braddock 75 inch.
Floyd Patterson was another with a notoriously short reach, being 6 feet tall but only having a 71 inch reach, not that far off Rocky.
The shortest heavyweight champ, Tommy Burns, had the same reach as Ezzard Charles and Walcott, even though they were almost half a foot taller than him.
Mike Tysons reach sits squarely between Joe Frazier and Rocky, all of them roughly in the same height bracket, give or take an inch.
It has also recently been discussed on this forum by more than a couple of posters that Joseph Parker, the up and coming heavyweight prospect, has a short reach of 76 inches for a man who is 6'4''.

It's not something I would rely on.

But it is a fascinating topic, the different sizes, I guess there are more omportant things that can'y be measured accurately though, things such as speed, punching power, natural timing and natural leverage, core strength, and plain and simple old fashioned heart/guts.
Controversial
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 9152
Joined: 13 Jul 2002, 18:29

Re: Average heavyweight height

Post by Controversial »

kaiserbill wrote:
Thanks for the reply Controversial.
The picture you selected is one of the pics of Ali and Rocky clowning around, as mentioned in my post above that you replied to. The fact that it isn't a full length pic and that Rocky and middle guy are laughing their heads off tallies with the description I recall reading in two different accounts of the "computer superfight" that they clowned together, with Ali at one stage in filmed or photographed proceedings standing on tip toes whilst clowning around to pronounce their height difference. Even Ali is struggling to keep a straight face.
There are other full length pics, but many of them are difficult to judge as either one fighter or the other is crouched over or moving on their toes. Below is a full length pic, giving a better illustration, although Ali is putting his weight on one leg and crooking his knee. It does however, taking that and camera angles into account tally quite well with the given heights of 6'3'' and 5'10''. Even the second pic of Rocky more crouched and Ali more upright demonstrates this.

It shows a very different pic to the clowning around one above, which would ridiculously give Rocky a height of about 5'5'' or 5'6'', which would make him way shorter than even Tommy Burns. :lol: Or it would make Ali a solid 6'7'' to 6'8''........ ;-)

When you say "an autobiogrophy", can you recall which one? I'd be interested.

Bob Hope was not 5'8''. There are tons of pics out there with him hobnobbing with various famous people, including presidents such as Eisenhower, JFK, and LBJ that demonstrate that. He was pretty much the same height as Eisenhower or Rocky, at his given 5'10''. It is worth bearing in mind that we do shrink as we get older, and Bob Hope did live to 100 years of age, and that Marciano was basically into middle age when the Ali "superfight" theatrics was filmed,

Lastly, I would seriously urge caution in using Rocky's reach as an indication of his height. He had a notoriously short reach for just that reason. It was notoriously short even for his height. Why measure his reach accurately, making it short, but not his height? :-?
Anthropomorphic measurements vary greatly, so I would certainly be very very cautious to base anything on that.
Sonny Liston was 6'1'' but had an 84 inch reach.
Leon Spinks was 6'2'' and had a 76 inch reach.
Jess Willard was 6'6'' and had an 83 inch reach.
Primo Carnera was 6'5'' and a half and had an 85 inch reach.
2 contempories Max Baer and James Braddock were the same height at 6'2 and a half, but Baer had a 81 inch reach, and Braddock 75 inch.
Floyd Patterson was another with a notoriously short reach, being 6 feet tall but only having a 71 inch reach, not that far off Rocky.
The shortest heavyweight champ, Tommy Burns, had the same reach as Ezzard Charles and Walcott, even though they were almost half a foot taller than him.
Mike Tysons reach sits squarely between Joe Frazier and Rocky, all of them roughly in the same height bracket, give or take an inch.
It has also recently been discussed on this forum by more than a couple of posters that Joseph Parker, the up and coming heavyweight prospect, has a short reach of 76 inches for a man who is 6'4''.

It's not something I would rely on.

But it is a fascinating topic, the different sizes, I guess there are more omportant things that can'y be measured accurately though, things such as speed, punching power, natural timing and natural leverage, core strength, and plain and simple old fashioned heart/guts.
Sorry not an autobiography, I meant biography. I think it was in the book by Everett Skehan I read it. The trouble with heights is its very common for it to be exaggerated, especially by celebs and boxers. There are tale of the tapes of Marciano vs Louis and Moore where he is listed as 5'11" and 5'.11.5". Without seeing someone properly measured then shoes can make someone seem taller than they really are. I agree that reach isn't always a good sign but a 68" reach is very short for a HW especially for someone with relatively small hands. Also Marciano just looked very squat. There are photos of Bob Hope standing next to Bing Crosby and they are similar heights, according to most records Crosby was only 5'7" or 5'8".
jamesmcdonnell
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 45213
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 06:11

Re: 2.5 inch in almost 100 years?

Post by jamesmcdonnell »

jezzamundo wrote:
Tarkus wrote:
jezzamundo wrote:
BMI is only based on height and weight and average weight has been increasing at a much faster rate, so the average heavyweight BMI today would definitely be higher than in the past. Body fat percentage is another question, but we're never going to get the data on that.
I dont think weight increased faster for the reasons I outlined before. BMI takes the power relationship between the height and weight into account and therefore might not increase either. And considering BMI standards are different for different heights I think it will show that modern fighters are leaner.
While I haven't done the data, I'm 100% sure that weight has increased at a faster rate and BMI for top heavyweights today would be higher than in the past. I also disagree that modern fighters are leaner - I think that's true for fighters in lower weight classes where you have big guys cutting weight but not at heavyweight. I'd say heavyweights today are generally more heavily muscled, which is also going to contribute to an increase in BMI. You're also right about BMI and different heights - it really isn't meaningful when applied to very tall or muscular people. There have been plenty of chubby guys in the heavyweight top 10 in recent years, including but not limited to Sam Peter, Eddie Chambers, Povetkin, Chagaev, Arreola, Chisora, Helenius, Sanders, Valuev, Liakhovich, Ibragimov.

Fighters certainly appear far bulkier at heavyweight than they used to be - I think the reduction of rounds will have contributed to that somewhat, as the focus is less on stamina that heft.
kaiserbill
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 355
Joined: 29 Jun 2011, 18:11

Re: Average heavyweight height

Post by kaiserbill »

Controversial wrote:
Sorry not an autobiography, I meant biography. I think it was in the book by Everett Skehan I read it. The trouble with heights is its very common for it to be exaggerated, especially by celebs and boxers. There are tale of the tapes of Marciano vs Louis and Moore where he is listed as 5'11" and 5'.11.5". Without seeing someone properly measured then shoes can make someone seem taller than they really are.
Thanks. I must see if I've read that.
On the height issue, it is worth bearing in mind that a persons height itself varies at different times, and different circumstances.
When I wore a younger mans clothes, to quote the great Billy Joel, I can vouch for it.
I was in the infantry a couple of decades back, and was measured one morning on a machine along with everyone else. The machine was mounted onto the wall and wasn't moveable apart from the large flat height guage. It was like an overengineered industrial equivalent to the ones you get in some hospitals. It very solidly and accurately gave very accurate readings rapidly to a lot of young men going through a system.

Anyway, I was measured that morning...and 4 months later was measured (and weighed along with other stuff) again on exactly the same machine in the same place and again dressed only in my underpants as before, but this time in the late afternoon before evening feeding time.
I had shrank just a little more than 1,5 cm, which is about 0,7 of an inch. When I queried it the fellow asked what I had done that day.
Basically, I was weighed in the morning at the first weigh in, and in the second weigh in 4 months later, it was in the late afternoon after we had earlier in the day been on a route march of 20km with about 20 to 25 kg's on our backpack and person.

It was explained to me by the medical technician/doctor that the time difference during the day of the weigh ins and compressive effects of carrying the load over the distance on only one of the days would easily account for that difference.
Or in other words, gravity really is a bitch.
And neither was it rare. A simple measurement to anybody in the evening vs morning, combined with particular daily activity would show a varying height difference. As does age...it was interesting to watch my dad shrink as he aged. We were always the same height when I stopped growing and he was in his early 40's, but the change became very pronounced as time slipped by us. :verysad:
kaiserbill
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 355
Joined: 29 Jun 2011, 18:11

Re: Average heavyweight height

Post by kaiserbill »

Something else that this interesting thread Jezzamundo started that came to my attention. Whilst he correctly used the average for the top 10, I was having a look through my Encyclopedia of Boxing by Gilbert Odd published in 1983, which lists the heavyweight champions measurements until it was published in 1983, ending at Mike Weaver.

Sticking to the heavyweight champs only, there is an interesting 15 year period between 1949 and 1964 when the tallest heavyweight champ for that period is the 6'1'' Sonny Liston.
The heavyweight champs for that period, as per the measurements in the Encyclopedia, are:
Ezzard Charles 6'0''
Jersey Joe Walcott 6'0''
Rocky Marciano 5'10 and a quarter
Floyd Patterson 6'0''
Ingemar Johannson 6'0'' and a half
Sonny Liston 6'1''

It's an interesting anomoly that also mirrors Jezzamundos info that in that period, even the top 10 heavies were slightly shorter.
I wonder why that was? I wonder if events such as the Great Depression or World War 2 had a slight influence?
Freedom
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 215
Joined: 11 Jan 2003, 20:05

Re: Average heavyweight height

Post by Freedom »

I wonder if the height chart has any correlation with the introduction of growth hormones in beef cows & poultry? 1970’s and
on shows a marked increase in height.
jezzamundo
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 3127
Joined: 16 Jun 2004, 13:11

Re: Average heavyweight height

Post by jezzamundo »

tigermoth87 wrote:The average heights may not be as high as expected but, the successful ones in the division are the bigger than average guys.

Wlad 6'6, Fury 6'9, Wilder 6'9, Ortiz 6'4 (Not won a title yet but he's got some good wins) and from a couple of years ago Vitali. Plus I guess Martin 6'5 and Browne 6'5 deserve a mention too since they are current belt holders.

Not to mention, the fighters with the most promise and considered to be future champions are the ones who tend to be bigger. Terper 6'5, Joshua 6'6, Hughie 6'6, Granat 6'7, Parker 6'4. Really the only successful "small" heavyweight in recent years is Povetkin. In my opinion he's the last of the successful "small" heavyweights.


In fact, going by the Ring Magazine's rankings is a bit flawed to be honest because for some reason, Stiverne and Jennings are in there. Neither of them belong in the top 10 and should arguably be replaced by two of Parker, Teper or Takem.
Just for you, I did the list for the years 2010-2015 using BoxRec ratings instead of Ring Magazine, here they are:

Average Top 10 heavyweight height:
2010
BoxRec = 6 foot 2.7
Ring = 6 foot 3.6

2011
BoxRec = 6 foot 4.4
Ring = 6 foot 3.5

2012
BoxRec = 6 foot 4.2
Ring = 6 foot 3.5

2013
BoxRec = 6 foot 3.8
Ring = 6 foot 3.4

2014
BoxRec = 6 foot 3.6
Ring = 6 foot 3.7

2015
BoxRec = 6 foot 4.3
Ring = 6 foot 3.8

Average for decade so far:
BoxRec = 6 foot 3.8
Ring = 6 foot 3.6

Not much difference overall, the biggest difference is that the Ring ratings are more static, while BoxRec changes more from year-to-year. I think you'd find the results would be similar when comparing average heights in any decade. The next step would be to calculate the average rating of a top 50, or top 100 heavyweight and see how that compares to a top 10. While the average height for a top 10 heavyweight is currently around 6'4'", I think the average for a top 100 would be nearer 6'2", as there are more natural light heavyweights and cruiserweights and short, skilled fatties operating in the lower ranks.
Post Reply