BoxRec

Ezzard mentioned something in another post that got me to thinking. Sonny Liston is sometimes thought of the as the first of era of bigger heavyweights. I thought I would do a little research to see how much bigger heavyweights got. Someday I may do a much more more extensive look; for now I just looked at the weights of the heavyweight champions form Corbett to Holmes. I just looked at how much they weighed when they won the title.

Here is what I found:
From Corbett all the way to Patterson, the average weight was about 195.
From Corbett to Tunney it was about 191.
From Schmeling to Patterson, it was about 199.

From Liston to Holmes, it was about 208.
You can see the weights gradually going up, but not a huge amount.

One thing I also noticed was that many heavyweight were lighter when they won the title than what they would later be. For example, Jeffries was just 206 and Baer was at 209 and 1/2 when they won the title.

I still can't figure out how Walcott only weighed 194. The guy just looks so much bigger!
Foreman also always looked much bigger than what he weighed in at.

*I only counted Patterson weight once, when he beat Moore. Only counted Ali (Clay) once, when he beat Liston. Norton never actually won a title fight, so I counted his weight when he beat Young. I counted Ellis when he beat Quarry, and Frazier when he beat Ellis.

Anyway, this was kind of un and was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on any of this?

Ambling Alp wrote:Ezzard mentioned something in another post that got me to thinking. Sonny Liston is sometimes thought of the as the first of era of bigger heavyweights. I thought I would do a little research to see how much bigger heavyweights got. Someday I may do a much more more extensive look; for now I just looked at the weights of the heavyweight champions form Corbett to Holmes. I just looked at how much they weighed when they won the title.

Here is what I found:
From Corbett all the way to Patterson, the average weight was about 195.
From Corbett to Tunney it was about 191.
From Schmeling to Patterson, it was about 199.

From Liston to Holmes, it was about 208.
You can see the weights gradually going up, but not a huge amount.

One thing I also noticed was that many heavyweight were lighter when they won the title than what they would later be. For example, Jeffries was just 206 and Baer was at 209 and 1/2 when they won the title.

I still can't figure out how Walcott only weighed 194. The guy just looks so much bigger!
Foreman also always looked much bigger than what he weighed in at.

*I only counted Patterson weight once, when he beat Moore. Only counted Ali (Clay) once, when he beat Liston. Norton never actually won a title fight, so I counted his weight when he beat Young. I counted Ellis when he beat Quarry, and Frazier when he beat Ellis.

Anyway, this was kind of un and was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on any of this?

Weights of heavyweights are kinda hard to pinpoint, I think fighters over 200lbs were generally considered big in the early years upto the 1960s. As you say Liston is often referred to as the first big heavyweight when in reality there were bigger fighters than him around, he just happened to be world champion.

Even Mike Tyson, Holyfield, and even currently David Haye, are often referred to as small heavyweights, when in fact Haye is the same height and roughly the same weight than Ali. I guess the 80s were the era that muddied the waters as there were a raft of big guys on the scene, Witherspoon, Tubbs, Page etc... Then guys like Lewis and the Klitscko's came along. As we know bigger doesn't mean better.

I don't think heavyweigts have to extra big like the Klits to be successful. I think a guy the size of Ali or Holmes could get the job done if he was talented

Weights were fairly steady until the 1980s-present when you saw weights go overboard as fighters ate more and fought less often. They aren't naturally bigger overall though. Liston would be big in any era, as for his height (6'1) he was an incredibly massive man, but so was Max Baer. Liston in the 20s-30s would've been fighting the likes of Ed Wright, George Godfrey, and Tom Hawkins, who were all as big or bigger than him. The idea that Liston ushered in an era of 'bigger' heavyweights is a myth. Look at many of the top champs/contenders who followed Sonny . . .Quarry, Frazier, Ellis, Young . . guys who would've been small in older eras! I always say look at the Frazier-Quarry rematch and see Joe Louis in there as the referee. Even in his 60s, one can see Louis dwarfs those two in terms of his body frame.
One can see Louis carrying 230 lbs in sparring footage with Rex Layne in 1950 and he carries it better than 95% of the heavyweights today. But true to the era he trained down to maximize speed and endurance. Louis was a big man.

Overall body frame speaks much more to true size than simple height/weight ratios. Ali and Haye may both be 6'3, 210 but I can gaurantee you standing side by side Ali would clearly be bigger. Ali had to train like a beast to get to 210 whereas Haye has to undergo strength training and force-feed himself meals so he doesn't get back below 200.

I agree with most of that. It is somewhat of a myth that Liston ushered in in a new era of much bigger heavyweights. They were probably a little bigger, but not by that much.
I don't think Quarry, Frazier,Ellis, and young would have smaller in older eras. They were all in the 190-205 range; which would make them normal for any previous era.
You make a good point about frames. Height and weight isn't everything.
This may sound crazy, but I have my doubts about the weights sometimes listed. Take for example Jersey Joe Walcott and Chris Byrd. They are both listed at 6'0. Walcott looks so much bigger. He is ripped while Bryd look like a bit of a doughboy sometimes. (Muscle is upposed to weigh more than fat.)If you new anything about them; you would think Walcott outweighs by at least 15 pounds. Yet somehow Bryd outweighs walcott by more than 20 pounds! What is going on here?

What's surprising to me is that Foreman's "peak" weight was rarely over 220lbs but at the time he was made out to be this all conquering man mountain of a leviathan. 220lbs isn't a lot of weight, particularly for an athelete over 6'3".

I think Dempsey makes a good point RE: Haye & Ali. I've stood next to Haye, & if he's six-three... Well, then I'm over six foot. Which I'm not.

But the thing about Haye having to hit the protein shakes to get over 210 is deffo correct, whereas Ali's bigger frame meant he was training down to the weight.

Plus, I've seen that footage of which he speaks too, & yes Louis looks beefy but solid as fornicate at sixteen & a half stone.

Correct, there's no way Haye is 6'3". Like you say if he is, then I'm 6' or over.

Hide was another who hit the shakes to "make" heavyweight.

Ambling Alp wrote:
This may sound crazy, but I have my doubts about the weights sometimes listed. Take for example Jersey Joe Walcott and Chris Byrd. They are both listed at 6'0. Walcott looks so much bigger. He is ripped while Bryd look like a bit of a doughboy sometimes. (Muscle is upposed to weigh more than fat.)If you new anything about them; you would think Walcott outweighs by at least 15 pounds. Yet somehow Bryd outweighs walcott by more than 20 pounds! What is going on here?

I think there is a lot of exaggeration with fighters sizes, probably to give a slight mental edge. Henry Cooper was said to weigh just 12 stone 12lbs (180lbs) when he fought Ali the first time, wearing lead in his boots at the weigh in. Then you have Tysons height, he looks no way near being just under 6 foot tall. There are also reports that Marciano was shorter than claimed in the history books.

Byrd is actually a perfect example of what I was talking about. Here was a guy who at age 23-24 was still able to weigh in at super middleweight. But he hit the weights and force-fed himself to get above 200 lbs. Years later in his late 30s (!) he begins to regularly run and eat regular meals and he went down to the 170s in just a few weeks. While I don't think Byrd could've stayed at 168, he definitely was a natural light heavyweight who just ate up to heavyweight for bigger paychecks. The man was NOT a heavyweight despite being around 6 ft and weighing 205-215 in fights. Knowing this actually makes his career more impressive b/c the strength and power disadvantage the guy was up against facing monsters like the Klitschkos was so immense, as he wasn't even a power puncher at light heavyweight (unlike guys like Doug Jones or Satterfield who were natural light heavies but were big punchers at that weight and carrier their power up above 175).

To the contrary, take a guy like Earnie Shavers, who just by the ledger was 6'1 and 210 at his peak. But Earnie was and is a BIG guy. Much bigger than Byrd.

I think you guys made some good comments here.
Also wanted to disucss , how important is a weight advanage for heavyweights?

To me it seems like an advantage if one guy weighs say 200 and the other guy only 185. (Assuming the extra weight isn't fat.) Not saying this adisadvantage for the smaller guy can't be overcome, but it is a disadvantage.

215 seems to be an advantange over 200. However, not long after that, the advantage stops. At a certain point, bigger guys are usually too slow, and if they don't pace themselves greatly have stamina problems.
Historically, it seems to bear this out.
Just wanted to hear people's opinions on this.

Ambling Alp wrote:I think you guys made some good comments here.
Also wanted to disucss , how important is a weight advanage for heavyweights?

To me it seems like an advantage if one guy weighs say 200 and the other guy only 185. (Assuming the extra weight isn't fat.) Not saying this adisadvantage for the smaller guy can't be overcome, but it is a disadvantage.

215 seems to be an advantange over 200. However, not long after that, the advantage stops. At a certain point, bigger guys are usually too slow, and if they don't pace themselves greatly have stamina problems.
Historically, it seems to bear this out.
Just wanted to hear people's opinions on this.

Think it depends. I can't see extra weight being any benefit to someone like Ali as he liked to move and rarely put his full weight behind his punches. Someone being too heavy comes with its own problems as you say, stamina, but if they know how to use that weight, laying on their opponent in clinches for example, it can be an advantage. Someone like Marciano would be at a disadvantage if he was over 200lbs I think.

I have a question, because too much weight is not a good thing, what would be the ideal weight for these fighters:

Lennox Lewis: 6'5" 245 lbs.
Riddick Bowe: 6'5" 235 lbs.
Wladimir Klitschko: 6'6" 245 lbs.
Vitali Klitschko: 6'8" 245 lbs.
Buddy Baer: 6'7" 250 lbs.
Mike Tyson: 5'11" 220 lbs.
Buster Douglas: 6'4" 230 lbs.

The heights and weights listed are when they fought what was considered their best fight.

Vitali, Lewis and Wladimir were best in the 235-245 range, with upper 230s probably being the optimal weights.

Buddy Baer was around 238 vs Louis, and I think that was his peak weight.

Bowe's best performance was 235 vs Evander but I think he was more of a 225 lb guy in true top condition.

Tyson was better around 216 than in the lower 220s.

orbtastic wrote:Correct, there's no way Haye is 6'3".

aren't heights measured officially? are fighters
just telling their height? if so: that's weird.

man wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Correct, there's no way Haye is 6'3".

aren't heights measured officially? are fighters
just telling their height? if so: that's weird.

Its not an official measurement, only the weigh-in weight is recorded. I think many over exaggerate it. Tyson is a good example, watch the Youtube video of him where he is supposedly measured at 5' ft 11.5" (how his height was shown in his early fights, Berbick for example) but if you notice he is standing away from the tape, if he stood with his back to it he would be a lot shorter. Lots of people claim Tyson is a lot shorter in real life, around 5'10"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yQb5nx5-w8

I always thought the same thing about Tyson. He didn't seem to be 5'11 and 1/2.
How about some other guys:
George Foreman was listed at 6'3 in his prime. Then when he made his comeback he was 6'4.
Larry Holmes was the opposite. He was listed at 6'4 when he was younger and then later would be listed at 6'3.

It always seemed to me that Jack Johnson was taller than he was listed. He is usually listed at just over 6"0( often at 6'0 and a 1/4.)
In most of the film and pictures, he seemes to be a bit taller; around 6'2. Except he does seem shorter than Jeffries who is listed at 6'2. Maybe Jeffries was taller than listed as well. :P

Whilst I am always intrigued by discussions of this nature, part of me expects kovits or whatever his name was to pop up & ask someone "Can you please to be telling me please how talls was [FIGHTER X] in heights, please?"

Although it is a terrible thing that inadequate measuring of boxers led to kovits' awful malady.

for the record George Groves is 6'0

or 5'11, depending on who you ask.

man wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Correct, there's no way Haye is 6'3".

aren't heights measured officially? are fighters
just telling their height? if so: that's weird.

They may be measured but I'm sure it's halfway measured.

Duran has been remarkably listed at 5'10" and 5'7" in fights
SRL and Hagler were listed as 5'10" but both were a tad shorter
DLH Has been listed between 5'10" and 5'11" but is probably a tad shorter
Tyson for most of his career is listed as 5'11" 1/2 but Boxrec and many people who seen him claim he's no taller than 5'10"
Diego Corrales has been listed between 5'10" and 6'
Paul Williams is listed as 6'1" Aereola is listed as 6'4" but they look the same height standing together and Williams looked taller than 6'2" 1/2 Pavlik when they were next to each other

Counter-puncher wrote:for the record George Groves is 6'0

or 5'11, depending on who you ask.

ha, he was in front of us that first night we saw Haye. I'd say he's a legit six footer. It's not particularly scientific though, is it? When I saw Froch at the Dome, I thought to myself - there is no fornicating way he's 6'1"

I think some people can look taller due to build and posture and in some cases of course, lifts. Little guys like Downey Jr clearly wear custom shoes and lifts but boxing is one of those sports where it's impossible to lie about (or greatly exaggerate) your height or weight as you have direct comparisons at head to heads and weigh-ins etc. Skinny, gangly, long limbed guys can look tall - Corrales and Cabelero for example, they're both probably not far off six foot but stick them next to Tyson and they probably look like undernourished children. Williams is a tall fella, he must be around 6'2". Do they get [really] tall people to measure taller people? The last time I got measured the nurse had to stand on a box, I laughed of course and said are you sure you can read it accurately?

Valuev, for example, there is no way he is actually 7ft. Of course, it's churlish to say well he's "only 6'10"" when he's around a foot taller than the average man!

IKSRTFO wrote:

man wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Correct, there's no way Haye is 6'3".

aren't heights measured officially? are fighters
just telling their height? if so: that's weird.

They may be measured but I'm sure it's halfway measured.

Duran has been remarkably listed at 5'10" and 5'7" in fights
SRL and Hagler were listed as 5'10" but both were a tad shorter
DLH Has been listed between 5'10" and 5'11" but is probably a tad shorter
Tyson for most of his career is listed as 5'11" 1/2 but Boxrec and many people who seen him claim he's no taller than 5'10"
Diego Corrales has been listed between 5'10" and 6'
Paul Williams is listed as 6'1" Aereola is listed as 6'4" but they look the same height standing together and Williams looked taller than 6'2" 1/2 Pavlik when they were next to each other

Some Noteworthy Differentiating heights i've seen and heard about...

-Salvador Sanchez. 5'9 and 5'7-1/2
-Alexis Arguello. 5'9 and 5'10
-Ricky Hatton. 5'6, 5-8 and 5'7-1/2
-Rocky Marciano. 5'11, 5'10-1/2", 5'10-1/4"
-Mike Tyson. 5'11-1/2 and 5'10
-Gerrie Cooney. 6'4-1/2, 6'5, 6'5-1/2, 6'6, 6'7
-Ray Mancini. 5'6 and 5'4
-Sugar Ray Leonard. 5'9-1/2 and 5-10
-Sandy Saddler. 5'8 and 5'10-1/4" according to Bert Sugar


Also,Estaban DeJesus,usually listed at 5'4, but in his bouts with Duran he looks no more than 1" shorter than the 5'7 Duran.

If you watch any Televised Toney fight, the pre-fight stats pop up on screen and his height appears to fluctuate from 5'10" to 6'

if you look at the history of heavyweight boxing you'll see for the best part of 100 years that a 2 or 3 inch height difference was considered 'significant'.

this no longer the case anymore....

for me, the era of super heavies was ushered in with Lennox Lewis....both in weight and height

just look at boncecrusher smith's stats now.....tiny....and yet he 'seemed' a monster

when we have Valuev at 7ft versus dominquez et al at 5ft9 all you can do is laugh at the 'supposed' gulf in size between Tommy Burns and Jack johnson.

young Noah had it easy

Smith was just about the same size as Lennox Lewis. Smith was 6'4 and weighed between 227-245 during his prime. That would not be considered tiny by today's standards.
There were several other titlists/contenders slightly before or during Smith's time that were about his size; John Tate, Michael Dokes, Tony Tubbs, Greg Page, Carl Williams, David Bey, Frank Bruno etc.

If you have to pinpoint a specific time, the super size era of heavyweights probably began with John Tate in the late 1970s. You started seeing more and more guys weighing over 230. Still, Holmes, Holyfield and Tyson managed to have a lot of success. Only Lewis and and to a lesser extent Bowe have been consistently great supersized heavyweights.