BoxRec

I haven't made this post to make a point, merely as a discussion point.

Recently, faced with an afternoon with little to do, I compiled the average (mean) weight and height of the top 10 heavyweights from each decade ending year. Below are the results:

1899
6'0 and 182lb

1909
5'11 and 187lb

1919
6'0 and 197lb

1929
6'1 and 200lb

1939
6'0 and 198lb

1949
6'0 and 191lb

1959
6'1 and 198lb

1969
6'1 and 208lb

1979
6'2 and 212lb

1989
6'2 and 229lb

1999
6'3 and 237lb

2009
6'4 and 242lb

The general opinion that "heavyweights have become bigger over time" certainly seems true, although it is noticeable that there was actually very little change in the size of the average top 10 heavyweight between 1899 and 1949. It is worth noting that if you take Valuev away from the 2009 top 10, the average height stays at 6'4 (actually down from 6'4.4 to 6'3.6) and the average weight drops to 234lb.

...all it takes is one giant, to skew the average for everyone! It's time to grab the torches and storm the castle!

From 59-89 HWs gained one inch and over 30 pounds???

If anyone mentions the word 'evolution' they are a fool!

Ezzard wrote:From 59-89 HWs gained one inch and over 30 pounds???

If anyone mentions the word 'evolution' they are a fool!

i think it has more to do with cruisers being introduced in the late 70s where many smaller heavys boiled off the little bit to get to 190 and the larger ones remained

Athletes have gotten bigger in just about every sport there is. The world's fastest man is 6-5 ! I don't know why boxing is supposed to be any different, but nothing spells disadvantage like facing a big man who know's how to use his jab effectively (see Klitschko's, not Valuev)

Ezzard wrote:From 59-89 HWs gained one inch and over 30 pounds???

If anyone mentions the word 'evolution' they are a fool!

Try better pre-natal care for Mom and the future titleholder, and decades of better healthcare and nutrition for Mom and Dad, Grandma and Grandpas, etc.

They've gotten a little taller, & a lot fatter. The most noteworthy change in your average, run-of-the-mill contemporary contender.

"Evolution" my ass.

raylawpc wrote:

Ezzard wrote:From 59-89 HWs gained one inch and over 30 pounds???

If anyone mentions the word 'evolution' they are a fool!

Try better pre-natal care for Mom and the future titleholder, and decades of better healthcare and nutrition for Mom and Dad, Grandma and Grandpas, etc.

Not sure I'm getting your argument here, Ray...

How does better health care for your Grandpa make you bigger?

Also, if pre-natal care makes a difference, and you're probably right, then why don't we see a constant relationship/ratio between height and weight? Why does this suddenly deviate so much?

People aren't changing on a fundamental level. Yes better nutrition may make bigger people but these people will be subject to the proportions of their genetic code? So if people get taller they tend to weigh more. But if people don't get taller but are weighing more then what's going on?

Ezzard wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Ezzard wrote:From 59-89 HWs gained one inch and over 30 pounds???

If anyone mentions the word 'evolution' they are a fool!

Try better pre-natal care for Mom and the future titleholder, and decades of better healthcare and nutrition for Mom and Dad, Grandma and Grandpas, etc.

Not sure I'm getting your argument here, Ray...

How does better health care for your Grandpa make you bigger?

Also, if pre-natal care makes a difference, and you're probably right, then why don't we see a constant relationship/ratio between height and weight? Why does this suddenly deviate so much?

People aren't changing on a fundamental level. Yes better nutrition may make bigger people but these people will be subject to the proportions of their genetic code? So if people get taller they tend to weigh more. But if people don't get taller but are weighing more then what's going on?

I dunno. I'm a lawyer not a physican. But when I mentioned increased height and weight in heavyweight champion to one of my clients, who is a physician, that's how he responded.

Ezzard wrote:

raylawpc wrote:

Ezzard wrote:From 59-89 HWs gained one inch and over 30 pounds???

If anyone mentions the word 'evolution' they are a fool!

Try better pre-natal care for Mom and the future titleholder, and decades of better healthcare and nutrition for Mom and Dad, Grandma and Grandpas, etc.

Not sure I'm getting your argument here, Ray...

How does better health care for your Grandpa make you bigger?

Also, if pre-natal care makes a difference, and you're probably right, then why don't we see a constant relationship/ratio between height and weight? Why does this suddenly deviate so much?

People aren't changing on a fundamental level. Yes better nutrition may make bigger people but these people will be subject to the proportions of their genetic code? So if people get taller they tend to weigh more. But if people don't get taller but are weighing more then what's going on?

Crap diets, that's what.

Ray
Fair enough. Wonder what a physician would make of the ratio differences...

Ezzard wrote:Ray
Fair enough. Wonder what a physician would make of the ratio differences...

I don't know. Maybe our friend Dempseyfire answered the question.

Ezzard wrote:From 59-89 HWs gained one inch and over 30 pounds???

If anyone mentions the word 'evolution' they are a fool!

the main thing that has evolved is that the best and biggest athletes are not boxing anymore.

Ezzard wrote: Wonder what a physician would make of the ratio differences...

- Already established the major impetus leading to larger sized success are:

1. Modern rule changes and refereeing that favor size and strength.

2. The development of more effective big man styles utilizing their size and strength.

3. More weight and strength training incorporated into training as 15 rd stamina fell by the way side. Even the 210 lb Field flagged over 12, and he was bigged up as the best trained heavy in history.

bjermaine wrote: the main thing that has evolved is that the best and biggest athletes are not boxing anymore.

- Jack, Gene, Joe, Rocky, Floyd, Ali and so on were not the best and biggest athletes. That's a myth.

They were the best prizefighters of the lot who chose prizefighting for a living. Huge difference.

Michael Grant was a standout in baseball, basketball and football, but he chose boxing. Might have done better there if not for terrible defensive lapses.

Where is kovit when we need truly accurate height checks?

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

bjermaine wrote: the main thing that has evolved is that the best and biggest athletes are not boxing anymore.

- Jack, Gene, Joe, Rocky, Floyd, Ali and so on were not the best and biggest athletes. That's a myth.

They were the best prizefighters of the lot who chose prizefighting for a living. Huge difference.

The "huge difference" is the number of athletes who decided to boxing as their livelihood back then compared to today.

Its harder to be the best when there are more and better athletes doing it.

raylawpc wrote: The "huge difference" is the number of athletes who chose to boxing back then compared to today.

- Got any numbers?

I can accept by observation that boxing has declined on an American scale, but not in Mexico, Russia, or Asia for example, or even Africa, regions that refresh boxing with cultures who before may have had only limited if any access to the sport.

Are more American "athletes" now chosing mma styled events?

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

raylawpc wrote: The "huge difference" is the number of athletes who chose to boxing back then compared to today.

- Got any numbers?

I can accept by observation that boxing has declined on an American scale, but not in Mexico, Russia, or Asia for example, or even Africa, regions that refresh boxing with cultures who before may have had only limited if any access to the sport.

Are more American "athletes" now chosing mma styled events?

Fair enough. I don't know about those other countries, but I do know that the big men who complete in boxing in this country, on the average, do not have the athleticism of the boxers in decades past.

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:
- Already established the major impetus leading to larger sized success are:

1. Modern rule changes and refereeing that favor size and strength.

2. The development of more effective big man styles utilizing their size and strength.

3. More weight and strength training incorporated into training as 15 rd stamina fell by the way side. Even the 210 lb Field flagged over 12, and he was bigged up as the best trained heavy in history.

And now a couple for you: How do you conclude that modern rule changes and refereeing favor size and strength? What are the more effective big man styles utilized by boxers today? Give us some examples, please.

raylawpc wrote: And now a couple for you: How do you conclude that modern rule changes and refereeing favor size and strength? What are the more effective big man styles utilized by boxers today? Give us some examples, please.

1. 15 to 12 rds, heavier gloves with more KDs that are now being scored and stoppages quicker. Off balance flash KDs now count for something. Stamina gives way to size and strength to better withstand KDs and administer them.

2 Then you have fighters like Akinwande or Skelton who's whole game revolved around clinching since they lacked effective offense. Ruiz has taken that to the highest level with many fights a jab/clinch/break sequenced endlessly. Big strong fighters like Foreman and Mathis almost never clinched or grappled to wear on other fighters, probably because the refs in those days wouldn't allow it any more than promoters. In Jeffries/Johnson days it was more acceptable, but fell out of favor to modern offensive styles.

3. Taller fighters now tend to fight tall slightly on the back foot now instead of crouching forward. Willard fought tall, but his size advantage much larger in his day. Take a guy like Valuev and the Klitschkos. Trainer has to understand the unusual physics involved with a fighter that size in the manner of conditioning and style. Can't train them like a flyweight.

Fighters never clinched in the past.

I learn more Greco Roman watching fights from
the 20s and earlier than I do watching MMA>

BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:

raylawpc wrote: And now a couple for you: How do you conclude that modern rule changes and refereeing favor size and strength? What are the more effective big man styles utilized by boxers today? Give us some examples, please.

1. 15 to 12 rds, heavier gloves with more KDs that are now being scored and stoppages quicker. Off balance flash KDs now count for something. Stamina gives way to size and strength to better withstand KDs and administer them.

2 Then you have fighters like Akinwande or Skelton who's whole game revolved around clinching since they lacked effective offense. Ruiz has taken that to the highest level with many fights a jab/clinch/break sequenced endlessly. Big strong fighters like Foreman and Mathis almost never clinched or grappled to wear on other fighters, probably because the refs in those days wouldn't allow it any more than promoters. In Jeffries/Johnson days it was more acceptable, but fell out of favor to modern offensive styles.

3. Taller fighters now tend to fight tall slightly on the back foot now instead of crouching forward. Willard fought tall, but his size advantage much larger in his day. Take a guy like Valuev and the Klitschkos. Trainer has to understand the unusual physics involved with a fighter that size in the manner of conditioning and style. Can't train them like a flyweight.

Okay. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Heavier gloves result in more knockdowns?