BoxRec

Recent comments in threads got me thinking about the role of height in heavyweight boxing and how it has changed over the decades. I decided to do try to find out what the average height of a heavyweight boxer is today and how much that figure has changed over time. Unsatisfied with what I could find via an internet search, I've spent about 10 minutes per day for the last month sorting data from the BoxRec database. What I have compiled is the average height of a Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight for every year since 1924, when the ratings began. To get a more representative figure, I discounted the tallest and shortest boxer in the top 10 every year. Here are a few interesting facts:
* Top heavyweight boxers were on average taller in the 20s and 30s than they were in the 40s and 50s.
* From 1924 to 1971, there was no appreciable change in the average heavyweight height. Since then there has been a steady increase.
* Average heavyweight height has been over 6 foot 3 every year since 2003.
* 1935 was an abnormally tall year for heavyweights at 6 foot 2.6 - a record that stood until 1975.


1924-1929
Average height: 6 foot 0.9 inches
Tallest year: 1929 (6 foot 2.1)
Shortest year: 1926 (6 foot 0.3)

1930s
Average heigth: 6 foot 1.1 inches
Tallest year: 1935 (6 foot 2.6)
Shortest year: 1938 (6 foot 0.3)

1940s
Average height: 6 foot 0.3 inches
Tallest year: 1940 (6 foot 1.2)
Shortest year: 1949 (5 foot 11.2 - shortest year on record)

1950s
Average height: 6 foot 0.7 inches
Tallest year: 1955 (6 foot 1.3)
Shortest year: 1952 (5 foot 11.9)

1960s
Average height: 6 foot 1 inch
Tallest year: 1961 (6 foot 1.3)
Shortest year: 1967 (6 foot 0.4)

1970s
Average height: 6 foot 2.1 inches
Tallest year: 1976 (6 foot 2.9)
Shortest year: 1970 (6 foot 0.6)

1980s
Average height: 6 foot 2.7 inches
Tallest year: 1984 (6 foot 3.1)
Shortest year: 1981 (6 foot 2.3)

1990s
Average height: 6 foot 3.1 inches
Tallest year: 1994 (6 foot 3.7)
Shortest year: 1993 (6 foot 2.4)

2000s
Average height: 6 foot 3 inches
Tallest year: 2008 (6 foot 4.1 - tallest year on record)
Shortest year: 2003 (6 foot 2.2)

2010s so far
Average height: 6 foot 3.6 inches
Tallest year: 2015 (6 foot 3.8)
Shortest year: 2013 (6 foot 3.4)

Nice job. You can see there that the average size starts to increase from the 70ies.

How did you average the decade? Is it an average of yearly averages or the average of all distinct fighters from the decade?

Practically no change!

Interesting to check the weights too. Generally looks like that most of champs and contenders till 60s were todays cruisers

Tarkus wrote:Nice job. You can see there that the average size starts to increase from the 70ies.

How did you average the decade? Is it an average of yearly averages or the average of all distinct fighters from the decade?

Option A: an average of the yearly averages.

I wonder how these heights compare with average heights of the general population?

Also, did you limit it to the US, or are the figures world-wide?

Good work man, interesting stuff

TheWigwam wrote:Good work man, interesting stuff

+1

Would be interesting to see the average height of the common man during those decades too.

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.

Cutman Scabbers wrote:I wonder how these heights compare with average heights of the general population?

Also, did you limit it to the US, or are the figures world-wide?

The figures are for all top ten heavyweights, regardless of nationality. Heavyweight boxers are always going to be taller than the general population. The fact that the cruiserweight division didn't exist until 1979 is definitely part of the reason that the average heavyweight height has increased.

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.

Taansend wrote:Would be interesting to see the average height of the common man during those decades too.

lots of charts:

https://ourworldindata.org/data/food-ag ... an-height/

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.

jezzamundo wrote: 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.

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.

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.

Very interesting to read this. It has certainly made a huge impact on the successful style in the division.

Tarkus wrote:

jezzamundo wrote: 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.

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.

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.

I agree, at some point we will see a smaller skilled heavyweight back in the mix.

jezzamundo wrote:

Tarkus wrote:

jezzamundo wrote: 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.

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.

Very interesting

I did something similar for BoxRec's top 100 active CWs a few years ago (caveat: went by BoxRec listed heights, which are probably exaggerated on the whole) and got an average height of slightly over 6'1" (something like 6'1.2 if I recall correctly). The average near the top tended to be a bit higher, but there were many guys at or below the average up there.

can't believe you guys don't get tired
of all that feet and inches crap. this is
the 21st century ...

greg wrote:

Taansend wrote:Would be interesting to see the average height of the common man during those decades too.

lots of charts:

https://ourworldindata.org/data/food-ag ... an-height/

how refreshing. centimeters!

I was thinking about this too actually. I wonder how average height changes as you go up the rankings.

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"

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"

Yeah, seems to be pretty much standard. Think Frazier was around 5' 11.

Haye is probably a smidge under 6' 3" I'm 6' 3" and he was a tad shorter than me when I met him, but not much.