BoxRec

Posted: **14 Apr 2016, 22:58**

i just want to make a point clear. they have been threads made about wilder beating ali or other stuff like this. i just want to point something out. the heavyweight division changed drasticly of the last 100 years +.

here you can see the #1 heavyweight in the world, considered at that time, how tall he was and how much he weighed. my point is, that it is no disrespect when someone would say deonthay or josh would beat muhammad ali, just for the simple fact because it is a difference like night and day, like heavyweight and super heavyweight division, which doesnt exist, but still it would be like a welterweight boxing a light heavyweight, a ~30 pounds weight difference and a good 3+ inches difference between height. if a light heavyweight would beat a welterweight nobody would got crazy, same as joshua would beat muhammad ali, to much difference in physic. thats why p4p, or ability is so important, because now we can say, who had the best ability, the better footwork, the better technic, the overall better skills, where surely ali > joshua. thats why to me p4p the best heavyweight ever are prime tyson and prime clay. they were much smaller and weight less to big guys like holmes, bruno, liston, foreman, but still could destroy them the way they did. tyson standing 5′ 10″ and clay only weighing around 210-220

timeline

1880 john l sullivan 5′ 10½″ 190

1939 joe louis 6′ 2″ 200

1974 muhammad ali 6′ 3″ 216½

1999 lennox lewis 6′ 5″ 242

2016 anthony joshua 6′ 6″ 244

Posted: **14 Apr 2016, 23:40**

No question that todays heavyweights are bigger than those of 100 years ago, but the difference isn't as drastic as your examples make it out to be. Not sure if you saw this post:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... ght+height

In the 1920s the average top ten ranked heavyweight was around 6'1", and in the 2010s, the average heavyweight top ten ranked heavyweight is just under 6'4". Granted, this is only factoring in height and the increase in weight has been greater - on average today's top heavyweights are more heavily muscled than those of yesteryear.

All that said, I disagree with your comparison of a welterweight fighting a light heavyweight - while it's mathematically accurate, it doesn't work out that way in the ring. In general I think that once you go over 6'4" and 220lb, any increases in height and weight are as much of a disadvantage as an advantage.

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 02:27**

jezzamundo wrote:No question that todays heavyweights are bigger than those of 100 years ago, but the difference isn't as drastic as your examples make it out to be. Not sure if you saw this post:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... ght+height

In the 1920s the average top ten ranked heavyweight was around 6'1", and in the 2010s, the average heavyweight top ten ranked heavyweight is just under 6'4". Granted, this is only factoring in height and the increase in weight has been greater - on average today's top heavyweights are more heavily muscled than those of yesteryear.

All that said, I disagree with your comparison of a welterweight fighting a light heavyweight - while it's mathematically accurate, it doesn't work out that way in the ring. In general I think that once you go over 6'4" and 220lb, any increases in height and weight are as much of a disadvantage as an advantage.

Statistics and averages are tricky and misleading! Take out of 20s and 30s and even till 50s HW champs and contenders Primo Carnera, 2m/120kg giant, and all the rest are today's cruisers at most!

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 05:27**

bigman1968 wrote:
jezzamundo wrote:No question that todays heavyweights are bigger than those of 100 years ago, but the difference isn't as drastic as your examples make it out to be. Not sure if you saw this post:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... ght+height

In the 1920s the average top ten ranked heavyweight was around 6'1", and in the 2010s, the average heavyweight top ten ranked heavyweight is just under 6'4". Granted, this is only factoring in height and the increase in weight has been greater - on average today's top heavyweights are more heavily muscled than those of yesteryear.

All that said, I disagree with your comparison of a welterweight fighting a light heavyweight - while it's mathematically accurate, it doesn't work out that way in the ring. In general I think that once you go over 6'4" and 220lb, any increases in height and weight are as much of a disadvantage as an advantage.
Statistics and averages are tricky and misleading! Take out of 20s and 30s and even till 50s HW champs and contenders Primo Carnera, 2m/120kg giant, and all the rest are today's cruisers at most!

As I said, the statistics only refer to height - going by weight there have been far more significant increases, no question.

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 05:43**

jezzamundo wrote:No question that todays heavyweights are bigger than those of 100 years ago, but the difference isn't as drastic as your examples make it out to be. Not sure if you saw this post:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... ght+height

In the 1920s the average top ten ranked heavyweight was around 6'1", and in the 2010s, the average heavyweight top ten ranked heavyweight is just under 6'4". Granted, this is only factoring in height and the increase in weight has been greater - on average today's top heavyweights are more heavily muscled than those of yesteryear.

All that said, I disagree with your comparison of a welterweight fighting a light heavyweight - while it's mathematically accurate, it doesn't work out that way in the ring. In general I think that once you go over 6'4" and 220lb, any increases in height and weight are as much of a disadvantage as an advantage.

but i am not talking about average heavyweight, i am talking about the best heavyweight, the top.

from marciano, louis....than foreman, frazier, ali......than holyfield, tyson, lewis.......now deothay, joshua and ortiz.

generation over generation became bigger strontger, more athletic (sure, with some exceptions, but still)

foreman bigger than louis, lewis bigger than foreman, joshua bigger than lewis-----you get my point?

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 05:49**

The top one is ANthony Joshua? So not the lineal unified champion and Boxrec No. 1 Tyson Fury who is bigger?

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 10:00**

BitPlayer wrote:The top one is ANthony Joshua? So not the lineal unified champion and Boxrec No. 1 Tyson Fury who is bigger?

Thats what I was thinking replace AJ with The Furious one Tyson Fury, else this thread is void.

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 10:22**

Rexob wrote:
BitPlayer wrote:The top one is ANthony Joshua? So not the lineal unified champion and Boxrec No. 1 Tyson Fury who is bigger?
Thats what I was thinking replace AJ with The Furious one Tyson Fury, else this thread is void.

The whole thread is a bit silly. a better way is to go through this list and look at all the heights, or if you want to put more work into it, for every lineal heavyweight title fight, take the winners height and weight and plot them over time. I mean the way this thread is done, you could make about as strong a case heavyweights are getting shorter, it's not true but it's not hard.
1915 Jess Willard 6′ 6½″
1933 Primo Carnera 6' 5½"
1973 George Foreman 6′ 3½″
1974 Muhammad Ali 6′ 3″
1985 Michael Spinks 6′ 2½″
1994 Michael Moorer 6′ 2″
2016 Amir Mansour 6'1"

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 10:28**

Expert Cheppa reinvented the wheel

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 11:37**

Do you think Joshua would beat Ali because he is bigger?

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 11:44**

Ricky_ wrote:Do you think Joshua would beat Ali because he is bigger?

Joshua would Ko anybody in 2 rounds.

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 11:52**

Their names keep getting longer too:

1905 Hart 4 Letters
1906 Burns 5 letters
1926 Tunney 6 Letters
1933 Carnera 7 Letters
1952 Marciano 8 Letters
1956 Patterson 9 Letters

We saw some stagnation in that department after the 50's...

Holyfield (9), Nicholson (9), Akinwande (9), Klitschko (9)

and then a resurgence with the new millenium:

2006: Liakhovich (10)

Considering this, it's safe to say that the next HW to rule the division for years is:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/703794

L-E-W-A-N-D-O-W-S-K-I. Damn right. That's 11 letters bitches. Record of 9-0. You read it here first.

Too bad this guy is getting a little old, could have ruled the world:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/611709. Wasted prime with a 12 letter name. Shame.

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 12:14**

Jaywheel wrote:Their names keep getting longer too:

1905 Hart 4 Letters
1906 Burns 5 letters
1926 Tunney 6 Letters
1933 Carnera 7 Letters
1952 Marciano 8 Letters
1956 Patterson 9 Letters

We saw some stagnation in that department after the 50's...

Holyfield (9), Nicholson (9), Akinwande (9), Klitschko (9)

and then a resurgence with the new millenium:

2006: Liakhovich (10)

Considering this, it's safe to say that the next HW to rule the division for years is:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/703794

L-E-W-A-N-D-O-W-S-K-I. Damn right. That's 11 letters bitches. Record of 9-0. You read it here first.

Too bad this guy is getting a little old, could have ruled the world:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/611709. Wasted prime with a 12 letter name. Shame.

Too bad that we don't have their other measurements to make this research more scientific. Then Cheppa could become an official expert (PhD) versus self-appointed kind he is now.

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 13:12**

Boxing isn't like other sports. If heavys are always bigger and better, how do we explain a fat and 40 something foreman who was champ in the 70s coming back and winning the title in the 90s - surely that would be impossible but it happened!

Then there's quality - I read there were more gyms in nyc in the 30s than in america now. Boxing had far more participants years ago so quality should be better. Were people tougher too - life harder, people more active generally. Then there's the nba, nfc argument. A lot of yesterday's boxers are today's basketball or american football players.

How do you explain the power of David Haye. He's a cruiser so naturally the same size as Louis and Rocky and all those and yet he's got the power to KO today's superheavys - yet the old guys dont?

It's tough one old vs new in boxing but I think the truth is somewhere between the old are rubbish new are super argument. Today people are bigger but there's so many intangibles in boxing it may well be you take a Jack Dempsey and put him today and he ko's everyone? Who knows?

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 13:13**

cfang wrote:Boxing isn't like other sports. If heavys are always bigger and better, how do we explain a fat and 40 something foreman who was champ in the 70s coming back and winning the title in the 90s - surely that would be impossible but it happened!

Then there's quality - I read there were more gyms in nyc in the 30s than in america now. Boxing had far more participants years ago so quality should be better. Were people tougher too - life harder, people more active generally. Then there's the nba, nfl argument. A lot of yesterday's boxers are today's basketball or american football players.

How do you explain the power of David Haye. He's a cruiser so naturally the same size as Louis and Rocky and all those and yet he's got the power to KO today's superheavys - yet the old guys dont?

It's tough one old vs new in boxing but I think the truth is somewhere between the old are rubbish new are super argument. Today people are bigger but there's so many intangibles in boxing it may well be you take a Jack Dempsey and put him today and he ko's everyone? Who knows?

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 13:20**

bigman1968 wrote:
jezzamundo wrote:No question that todays heavyweights are bigger than those of 100 years ago, but the difference isn't as drastic as your examples make it out to be. Not sure if you saw this post:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... ght+height

In the 1920s the average top ten ranked heavyweight was around 6'1", and in the 2010s, the average heavyweight top ten ranked heavyweight is just under 6'4". Granted, this is only factoring in height and the increase in weight has been greater - on average today's top heavyweights are more heavily muscled than those of yesteryear.

All that said, I disagree with your comparison of a welterweight fighting a light heavyweight - while it's mathematically accurate, it doesn't work out that way in the ring. In general I think that once you go over 6'4" and 220lb, any increases in height and weight are as much of a disadvantage as an advantage.
Statistics and averages are tricky and misleading! Take out of 20s and 30s and even till 50s HW champs and contenders Primo Carnera, 2m/120kg giant, and all the rest are today's cruisers at most!

Plenty of guys like Arreola that would be Cruiserweights if they trained like those guys. Bigger doesn't mean better, way less skilled and conditioned. A prime Holyfield would have run through the Wlad and Fury like a knife into butter. Vitali would pose more of a problem for the smaller guys imo, but he's never beaten anyone near that level.

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 15:23**

Jaywheel wrote:Their names keep getting longer too:

1905 Hart 4 Letters
1906 Burns 5 letters
1926 Tunney 6 Letters
1933 Carnera 7 Letters
1952 Marciano 8 Letters
1956 Patterson 9 Letters

We saw some stagnation in that department after the 50's...

Holyfield (9), Nicholson (9), Akinwande (9), Klitschko (9)

and then a resurgence with the new millenium:

2006: Liakhovich (10)

Considering this, it's safe to say that the next HW to rule the division for years is:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/703794

L-E-W-A-N-D-O-W-S-K-I. Damn right. That's 11 letters bitches. Record of 9-0. You read it here first.

Too bad this guy is getting a little old, could have ruled the world:

http://boxrec.com/boxer/611709. Wasted prime with a 12 letter name. Shame.

I think you're really on to something here.

I'd like to throw this hat in the ring as well: we're seeing the bigger, longer named fighters of today last longer than in the past. Foreman, Vitali, Wlad all held titles in their 40's. Think about this: Louis was washed up by 35. Ali was done by 36. Tunney was retired by 31!

Do you think we could see Hassan Chitsaz make a run at the title?

http://boxrec.com/boxer/131476

He's 58, but on a nice little win streak against comparable opposition to Wilder or Joshua. But now that I look at it he's 5'9 so does that mean his body will break down faster like the small heavyweights of the past. What a kerfuffle!

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 16:22**

Much , much more to boxing thank size and Strength. Those bigger guys are nowhere near as Athletic or Fast as Ali was.

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 16:47**

scallum2015 wrote:Much , much more to boxing thank size and Strength. Those bigger guys are nowhere near as Athletic or Fast as Ali was.

Yes an no; you are correct that size is only a piece of the puzzle.

Athleticism entails a lot more than just hand speed though. I'd imagine Wlad, Joshua, and Wilder are all more athletic than Ali, though none possess his speed or boxing ability.

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 17:05**

The past vs current argument really should be put to bed when the current lineal and unified champion is a big flabby mess that's a better karaoke singer than he is boxer.

Out of interest are chins getting better?

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 17:27**

Ricky_ wrote:The past vs current argument really should be put to bed when the current lineal and unified champion is a big flabby mess that's a better karaoke singer than he is boxer.

Out of interest are chins getting better?

Current champion, who beat one of the fittest, longest reigning, dominant champions ever!

Chins used to be better as they used to have to chew steaks to make their necks stronger, therefore, better chins!

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 20:35**

Chepppaaa wrote:i just want to make a point clear. they have been threads made about wilder beating ali or other stuff like this. i just want to point something out. the heavyweight division changed drasticly of the last 100 years +.

here you can see the #1 heavyweight in the world, considered at that time, how tall he was and how much he weighed. my point is, that it is no disrespect when someone would say deonthay or josh would beat muhammad ali, just for the simple fact because it is a difference like night and day, like heavyweight and super heavyweight division, which doesnt exist, but still it would be like a welterweight boxing a light heavyweight, a ~30 pounds weight difference and a good 3+ inches difference between height. if a light heavyweight would beat a welterweight nobody would got crazy, same as joshua would beat muhammad ali, to much difference in physic. thats why p4p, or ability is so important, because now we can say, who had the best ability, the better footwork, the better technic, the overall better skills, where surely ali > joshua. thats why to me p4p the best heavyweight ever are prime tyson and prime clay. they were much smaller and weight less to big guys like holmes, bruno, liston, foreman, but still could destroy them the way they did. tyson standing 5′ 10″ and clay only weighing around 210-220

timeline

1880 john l sullivan 5′ 10½″ 190

1939 joe louis 6′ 2″ 200

1974 muhammad ali 6′ 3″ 216½

1999 lennox lewis 6′ 5″ 242

2016 anthony joshua 6′ 6″ 244

Have you ever heard of Primo Carnera or Jess Willard? Big studs about the same size as Joshua, Wilder, Wlad, Fury. Not exactly the same height, as I believe one was about 6'7" and the other 6'6". I'm guessing both had 80-85" reach. Big strong guys, weighing in the 250 range.

Guess what...Willard was KO'd by a guy 50 or 60 lbs lighter, and much, much, shorter (Dempsey). Carnera was KO'd by Max Baer, who also was much smaller.

Sometimes, size doesn't matter.

There has always been giants around, but a guy quite a bit smaller that has far more skill will win most times.

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 21:44**

Chepppaaa wrote:
jezzamundo wrote:No question that todays heavyweights are bigger than those of 100 years ago, but the difference isn't as drastic as your examples make it out to be. Not sure if you saw this post:

http://boxrec.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f ... ght+height

In the 1920s the average top ten ranked heavyweight was around 6'1", and in the 2010s, the average heavyweight top ten ranked heavyweight is just under 6'4". Granted, this is only factoring in height and the increase in weight has been greater - on average today's top heavyweights are more heavily muscled than those of yesteryear.

All that said, I disagree with your comparison of a welterweight fighting a light heavyweight - while it's mathematically accurate, it doesn't work out that way in the ring. In general I think that once you go over 6'4" and 220lb, any increases in height and weight are as much of a disadvantage as an advantage.

but i am not talking about average heavyweight, i am talking about the best heavyweight, the top.

from marciano, louis....than foreman, frazier, ali......than holyfield, tyson, lewis.......now deothay, joshua and ortiz.

generation over generation became bigger strontger, more athletic (sure, with some exceptions, but still)

foreman bigger than louis, lewis bigger than foreman, joshua bigger than lewis-----you get my point?

My example isn't the average heavyweight - it's the average for a top ten ranked heavyweight. If we took the heavyweight average, the heights would be lower due to all of the blown up light heavyweights, cruiserweights and skilled fatties operating in the lower ranks. Using the top 10 is far more statistically significant than just the #1 - not to mention how do you determine the #1? Is it the lineal champ, the Ring champ or #1 or the BoxRec #1? Whichever way you look at it, right now at heavyweight that man is Tyson Fury, not Anthony Joshua. It's clear that top heavyweights have been getting bigger, especially since 1970 there has been a steady increase. Stronger will typically come with being bigger, but I disagree about today's heavyweights being more athletic.

Posted: **15 Apr 2016, 22:06**

Here's what folks forget about when supposing all these modern super heavies would kill the older ones.

The heavyweight division is based on the premise that any man 200 lb or more hits you right, it is nite-nite time.

The real difference is speed. That's why Ali beats the big ones today

Posted: **16 Apr 2016, 00:02**

koolkc107 wrote:Here's what folks forget about when supposing all these modern super heavies would kill the older ones.

The heavyweight division is based on the premise that any man 200 lb or more hits you right, it is nite-nite time.

The real difference is speed. That's why Ali beats the big ones today

no. wrong.

i will tell you why. if your logic would be correct than ali would have kod anybody easily, cause he had the best speed. he struggled with foreman, norton, simply cause these guys were physicly bigger and stronger than him.

the truth is weight, physic has a lot to do with punching power, sure with exeptions. but if we go down the list of biggest punchers in the heavyweight division: foreman, shavers, lewis, tyson, tua ec, it were mostly very big strong man. maybe not tall, height is secondary, but big, tyson and tua were small, but were very big and strong for their small stature. the combination of speed + weight is what brings you power.

BoxRec

Heavyweight change

Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change

Re: Heavyweight change