BoxRec

Carbo wrote:

raylawpc wrote:This is a very interesting approach. I have two questions:

1. You extrapolated the old timer fighter's height had be lived today using "the average US male at the time." From what source did you find the height for the average US male at that time. What formula did you employ, using that data, to adjust the old-timer's height?

2. I assume you used the standard BMI formula. How did you make the adjustment in body weight accounting for the increased height? What forumla did you employ to make this adjustment? I assume you worked backward from the BMI, correct?

I am not challenging your work in anyway, but I would like to perform the same analysis for a couple of fighters I am researching. I would like to understand your methodology.

Thanks.

The height of the average US male can be found from numerous sources, as can BMI calculators and charts.

I found a table charting the average height of the US male at decade intervals since the 1800s. I simply looked at a fighters resume, selected an approximate peak era -- we could argue about peaks until the cows come home, but, for Marciano, I selected Walcott and just after, for Louis Schmelling 2 and just after and so on. Then, I went to a BMI chart and found their BMI at that approximate peak. I then matched the average height of the US male at the time of the peak to the fighter.

After all that, we have a fighter's height, his weight at an approximate peak, his BMI and the height of the average US male at that time. It's fairly simple math to then work out how much taller, in percentage terms he was than the average (especially if you convert to metric). You can then take that percentage and multiply it by the current average height, 5'10. This should give you their new height if they were as much taller than the average US male today as they were in their primes. With this new height, you can use a BMI chart to scroll across and find their original, peak BMI, and then go up to find how heavy their would be at the new height if their BMI stayed the same.

The Shilstone boost was a fairly simple process. Three fighters have made high profile steps to heavyweight over the last 20 or so years: Spinks, Holyfield, Jones. All added 3 points on to their BMI. Obviously Jones and Spinks did it with Shilstone, Holyfield, I beleive, with Lee Haney. So, it is reasonable to assume that a man with a lower BMI, as Spinks, Holyfield and Jones has -- as did the classic heavyweights -- can raise this figure by 3 points given expert tutelage. We can then add those three points onto the original BMI and find out how heavy a man would weigh at the new height and with the new BMI.

Hope this explains. PM me if you need any more help.

raylawpc wrote:

Carbo wrote:

raylawpc wrote:This is a very interesting approach. I have two questions:

1. You extrapolated the old timer fighter's height had be lived today using "the average US male at the time." From what source did you find the height for the average US male at that time. What formula did you employ, using that data, to adjust the old-timer's height?

2. I assume you used the standard BMI formula. How did you make the adjustment in body weight accounting for the increased height? What forumla did you employ to make this adjustment? I assume you worked backward from the BMI, correct?

I am not challenging your work in anyway, but I would like to perform the same analysis for a couple of fighters I am researching. I would like to understand your methodology.

Thanks.

The height of the average US male can be found from numerous sources, as can BMI calculators and charts.

I found a table charting the average height of the US male at decade intervals since the 1800s. I simply looked at a fighters resume, selected an approximate peak era -- we could argue about peaks until the cows come home, but, for Marciano, I selected Walcott and just after, for Louis Schmelling 2 and just after and so on. Then, I went to a BMI chart and found their BMI at that approximate peak. I then matched the average height of the US male at the time of the peak to the fighter.

After all that, we have a fighter's height, his weight at an approximate peak, his BMI and the height of the average US male at that time. It's fairly simple math to then work out how much taller, in percentage terms he was than the average (especially if you convert to metric). You can then take that percentage and multiply it by the current average height, 5'10. This should give you their new height if they were as much taller than the average US male today as they were in their primes. With this new height, you can use a BMI chart to scroll across and find their original, peak BMI, and then go up to find how heavy their would be at the new height if their BMI stayed the same.

The Shilstone boost was a fairly simple process. Three fighters have made high profile steps to heavyweight over the last 20 or so years: Spinks, Holyfield, Jones. All added 3 points on to their BMI. Obviously Jones and Spinks did it with Shilstone, Holyfield, I beleive, with Lee Haney. So, it is reasonable to assume that a man with a lower BMI, as Spinks, Holyfield and Jones has -- as did the classic heavyweights -- can raise this figure by 3 points given expert tutelage. We can then add those three points onto the original BMI and find out how heavy a man would weigh at the new height and with the new BMI.

Hope this explains. PM me if you need any more help.

What chart did you use for average heights? If its on-line, do you have a link? Thanks.

raylawpc wrote:Thanks, Carbo. I appreciate it.

Ezzard wrote:Carbo, as someone who knows about research, I'll tell you that all acts of generosity always pay dividends in the long run.

Seamus, I know you are one guy who thinks size of HWs would be a big factor. I do think it is a factor but also appreciate the success of guys like Toney against these big monsters... Anyway, does a 240 lb Johnson; 215 lb Dempsey, etc change the way you might perceive our usual, crazy, fanatsy match ups?

raylawpc wrote:Shilstone or not, I don't think the weight increase is that foolish. Fighters today train with weights. Before the 1990s, no fighter in his right mind used weights. When I was involved in boxing in the 1970s, weightlifting was strictly taboo by every trainer that I knew.

The fear was that weight-training would leave a boxer muscle-bound and lacking in flexiblity.

Seamus wrote:Ezzard

I think it's been clearly proven that some guys can bulk up tremendously and be successful, but it's also been proven that some very good fighters could not, so it's hardly automatic. Bob Foster is as good an example as there is. 6-3 with alot of power at LHW, he was a very dominant fighter. However, his natural build is very slender and he was unable to pack on 30 lbs of muscle, which you'd think wouldn't be that hard for a tall LHW.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Carbo, as someone who knows about research, I'll tell you that all acts of generosity always pay dividends in the long run.

Seamus, I know you are one guy who thinks size of HWs would be a big factor. I do think it is a factor but also appreciate the success of guys like Toney against these big monsters... Anyway, does a 240 lb Johnson; 215 lb Dempsey, etc change the way you might perceive our usual, crazy, fanatsy match ups?

I don't think so, at least not the Mackie Shilstone weights. Does Klitschko train with Shilstone? No. just blindly assuming all of those fighters would get a Shilstone boost is foolish. The modernized weights without the Shilstone-boost seem much more valid.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Shilstone or not, I don't think the weight increase is that foolish. Fighters today train with weights. Before the 1990s, no fighter in his right mind used weights. When I was involved in boxing in the 1970s, weightlifting was strictly taboo by every trainer that I knew.

The fear was that weight-training would leave a boxer muscle-bound and lacking in flexiblity.

Not all fighters train with weights, some do, some don't. We can't just blindly assume that all fighters or all HW's train with weights. Kostya Tszyu did for instance, but Ricardo Lopez certainly did not.

Carbo wrote:

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Carbo, as someone who knows about research, I'll tell you that all acts of generosity always pay dividends in the long run.

Seamus, I know you are one guy who thinks size of HWs would be a big factor. I do think it is a factor but also appreciate the success of guys like Toney against these big monsters... Anyway, does a 240 lb Johnson; 215 lb Dempsey, etc change the way you might perceive our usual, crazy, fanatsy match ups?

I don't think so, at least not the Mackie Shilstone weights. Does Klitschko train with Shilstone? No. just blindly assuming all of those fighters would get a Shilstone boost is foolish. The modernized weights without the Shilstone-boost seem much more valid.

You've missed the point by quite some way, with the greatest respect DW. Look, I called it 'the Shilstone boost' because Shilstone is a high profile name that I could use to symbolize the increased knowledge of the training techniques that can lead to greater bulk.

I said that "one possible" explanation for the greater BMI of modern fighters was a better understanding of the interaction between nutrition, weight training and muscle mass.

I was using Shilstone as a symbol of this, and shoehorning his name into what I thought was a catchy way of heading the column in the second table that indicated the BMI boost I believe the old time heavyweights could expect if they trained to modern standards.

I certainly wasn't suggesting that they would all train with Shilstone, or that every heavyweight with an impressive physique currently trains with him.

In fact, in my article, I mentioned Holyfield as one of the three high profile fighters who jumped to heavyweight and put on 3 points of BMI when doing so. As mentioned earlier in this thread -- by me -- Holyfield did not train with Shilstone.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

raylawpc wrote:Shilstone or not, I don't think the weight increase is that foolish. Fighters today train with weights. Before the 1990s, no fighter in his right mind used weights. When I was involved in boxing in the 1970s, weightlifting was strictly taboo by every trainer that I knew.

The fear was that weight-training would leave a boxer muscle-bound and lacking in flexiblity.

Not all fighters train with weights, some do, some don't. We can't just blindly assume that all fighters or all HW's train with weights. Kostya Tszyu did for instance, but Ricardo Lopez certainly did not.

Second, why on earth would you use Ricardo Lopez as an example?

Forgive me, but I assume you mean the Ricardo Lopez who went undefeated at 105lbs? If he even looked at a dumbell, he'd have to have jumped three weight categories.

We're talking about heavyweights, and bulking up, not tiny guys who have to make weight.

Ezzard wrote:Isn't anyone willing to set up a re-sized HW tournament that would allow us to all argue without people telling me that the biggest guy always wins?

Carbo wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Isn't anyone willing to set up a re-sized HW tournament that would allow us to all argue without people telling me that the biggest guy always wins?

Great idea. Who will we pick to go against the 5 resized boys? Or do you want it just as the resized heavyweights in question?

Ezzard wrote:

Carbo wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Isn't anyone willing to set up a re-sized HW tournament that would allow us to all argue without people telling me that the biggest guy always wins?

Great idea. Who will we pick to go against the 5 resized boys? Or do you want it just as the resized heavyweights in question?

I'm curious to know what people would make of 240 lb Johnson versus Lennox Lewis... Our bigger Joe Louis versus Ali...

I guess I'm also curious to know how/if my own opinions would be changed and swayed. I'd say pick roughly the top 16 and face 'em off. The one guy who would interest me is Gene Tunney. I'd imagine he'd do much better in this kind of exercise.

Carbo wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Carbo wrote:
I'm curious to know what people would make of 240 lb Johnson versus Lennox Lewis... Our bigger Joe Louis versus Ali...

I guess I'm also curious to know how/if my own opinions would be changed and swayed. I'd say pick roughly the top 16 and face 'em off. The one guy who would interest me is Gene Tunney. I'd imagine he'd do much better in this kind of exercise.

I would suggest going pre-Ali (who always suffer in comparisons, usually because of the size difference,and, coincidently, the growth in US height stopped just around the time Liston was dominating) versus the modern day big men.

I would therefore suggest Sullivan, Corbett, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Marciano, Liston (all adjusted for size), against a selection of modern day greats -- Holmes to Lewis.

Perhaps we can even include Klitschko to have at least one first round knockout that will be symbolic of the current paucity of heavyweight talent.

All well and good, but who will do the calculations for Corbett, Tunney and Liston?

raylawpc wrote: Beyond the calculations, what rules and conditions do you use? Sullivan and Corbett fought on turf with 3 ounce gloves (I think), finish fight, eight-post ring with no mouthpieces or handwraps. Do you make Ali fight under those conditions?

How many rounds? 12-round, 15-rounds, 25-rounds? What ounce gloves?

BTW, I calculated Jim Jeffries for the 21st century using your formula and now I can't find my figures. But if memory serves, your calculations put him at 6-4 and 254 pounds (with the Shillstone boost).

Carbo wrote:

raylawpc wrote: Beyond the calculations, what rules and conditions do you use? Sullivan and Corbett fought on turf with 3 ounce gloves (I think), finish fight, eight-post ring with no mouthpieces or handwraps. Do you make Ali fight under those conditions?

How many rounds? 12-round, 15-rounds, 25-rounds? What ounce gloves?

BTW, I calculated Jim Jeffries for the 21st century using your formula and now I can't find my figures. But if memory serves, your calculations put him at 6-4 and 254 pounds (with the Shillstone boost).

You're right, it's difficult and impossible to do scientifically, I would have thought. It's just for fun.

As for Jeffries, I would have thought that he would be physically impressive, because he certainly was at the time. The guy was so athletic I seem to remember reading somewhere that he was held up as some kind of ideal white man -- and icon for the race.

Ezzard wrote:Seamus makes a very interesting point. Many people believe that extra size does not help. It makes sense that a bigger man has all the advantages. Yet guys like Toney and Langford seem to stick out.

Then there's Holyfield but he bulked up in order to tackle the HWs. He remained a small HW for his era but was IMO the best HW of the 1990s.

My feeling is that most HWs seem to be trained for strength rather than stamina these days. I think many of the big guys would struggle over 15 rounds. Even so, this idea sort of allows us to consider how far the old guys could have 'bulked up' or might have looked in a modern setting.