BoxRec

Riddick Blowe wrote:I hope Haye announces his next fight soonish. But I fear he's going to live it up for another 2 months before we even get word.

He needs to be back fighting in July- what reason does he have not to?

what reason does he have not to? Too many girls to shag!!! Very popular with the women is David.

Why does Haye need to bulk up to Heavyweight when he boils down from 225+?

observer1 wrote: You watch a Welterweight Fight and a HW fight you would think its two different sports.

Not if it's a Vicky "The $hitman" Fatton fight you won't.

Lenny wrote:He said 6 months to properly bulk up to heavyweight.

Rahman towards the end of the year is my bet. Although he will have to get a move on, given how inactive the heavies are, I can't see him unifying before he's 31

I think his desire to make an impact at HW will mean it'll be a while until he goes in, I'd like to see him take a couple of making time fights in 4 months time to get used to the weight but that ain't how he wants to do it.

I just think on the origanal post that most HWs would still be in trouble with a smaller guy if he was around 16 he'd still have the punch to concuss

The thing about the olden day heavyweights -- and in fact boxers, period -- is that they never lifted wieghts for fear of losing speed and flexibility.

Haye does.

Haye was a loose limbed, elongated muscled 188 pounder when he fought Arthur Williams. Since then, he's piled on the muscle like a Pelican Bay lifer. He put on 25 lbs of muscle fast.

That's why he found it a squeeze to get down to cruiser.

If Foreman was around today, he'd have had his own Mackie Shilstone to get his power output up to Herculean standards, and he'd have been 15 pounds heavier, minimum.

The point is, the old school boys didn't concentrate on muscle. They did it all naturally. The modern boys do concentrate on muscle, and they go about building strenght in a clinical, regimented way.

Big difference.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:

WildWaylon wrote:

rhino222 wrote:i think you are spot on, but genetically people seem to be a lot bigger in this day and age, when we look back in history the likes of marciano were a stone under the current cruiser limit !!!!!

perhaps its all of the high protein enhancements etc that fighters take as part of their methodical high tech training regimes etc...

Boxers aside, people are generally bigger today and I am not sure why. Many kids are brought up on poor diets, chips and junkfood. When I was young we ate good wholesome food, plenty of vegetables and proper meat yet kids in the 50s and 60s were smaller on average. I was considered very tall at over 6 feet in 1960 yet today that height is commonplace and many lads are much taller. Tall lads back then were beanpoles, I was, but kids today are far more bulky. That probably is due to too many chips. Fish in those days was plentiful and cheap and everybody bought it from the fishmongers and cooked it at home. Far less people buy fish these days because it costs so much. So why are kids so much bigger in modern times?

Growth Hormones in beef production has been largely blamed. Since Japanese people have started eating more beef in their diets, there has been a sharp increase in the height of the population.

Also, there is a trend towards a height increase due to genetic advantages conferred by height. For instance, women with long legs, tend to suffer less with a variety of diseases and live longer on average. Thus populaces over time tend to breed taller and taller offspring as taller people are often considered more attractive, due to their lesser prevelance to disease, though this choice is subconscious, it is also very powerful.

Thanks for your reply which is very interesting and answers what I asked. However people have been getting taller over the past three centuries. Compare general height at 1700 with 1900 and there was a big difference. I wonder what brought that about? I remember seeing a waxwork model of Henry 8th wearing Henrys actual clothing and was amazed at how tiny he was. Doors in old Churches and houses also indicate how much smaller people were then. The better off had better diets and ate more food but the rich dont seem to have been bigger than the poor. Natural selection cant be the answer the process is far too slow. I find it puzzling.

Terry D wrote:

Syntax Error wrote:

josh fg wrote:Don't worry the fight hasn't been scheduled.

I'm busy reading Norman Mailer's book the fight (about the rumble in the jungle and a dam good read as well if anyone is thinking of it) and while reading about what a gigantic terrifying physical specimen Foreman was I decided to look up his height and weight at about the time he fought Ali. As I suspected he was about 220lb (what Haye wants to be, slightly below in fact) and he was about 6ft 3.

It strikes me that talk of Haye being a small HW is just bollocks. I know there are bigger guys now but not that much bigger. If he'd started his pro career little later as an Olympic cruzer weight fighter rather than an ametre light heavy weight no one would see the problem.

Just a few thoughts.

Times have definitely changed.

Like you say, Foreman was considered a monster, yet in his 70's pomp, he weighed under 16 stones (224 lb)!

Sonny Liston is another HW is often referred to as menacing etc, yet he was 'only' 6ft 1 in & 15st 10lb (210 lb)!

On that basis, I have to agree with you, Haye is big enough: I just hope he doesn't get any daft ideas about weighing 17 stone plus (238 lb+).

Watch the two Liston-Williams bouts, if you have not already. Williams seems so much bigger than Sonny but Liston pounded the hell out of him. Size does not always mean fear. If you saw Valuev the only fear would be that he is allowed to breed.

Good points.

Is Valuev married?