Are old-time heavyweights too small? Take the poll

[Bronson66]

Not excuses. I'm not arguing with you. Just sharing my observation of the photo.

Yeah, the other guy doesn't look like much of anything, fighter or athlete.

So, you don't like my 'silverback gorilla' anology?

Let me just say, I think Foreman II was more powerful than Foreman I.

Foreman 2 probably was.My point is a 240lbs Jeffries would not be as effective a fighter as a 220lbs Jeffries was and Foreman is 3 inches taller than Jeffries ,and also did not rely on wearing his opponents down in wars of attrition, all the while taking significant punishment that would have seen him stopped in todays rings.

[GhostofDempsey]

It comes down to a fighters respective skills and abilities. Tommy Burns would never be a champion today. Tunney, Dempsey and Louis could likely all outbox Joshua, Joyce, Wilder, and many others.

[DeeMoney]

Is there a max size humans (hominins) can grow, or has Mankind (civilization) taken that natural evolutionary limitation off the table?

Evolutionary wise they say that pantherines have hit their max size in the Siberian tiger. (There have been bigger but they didn't survive.)

Biomechanics, metabolism, and ecological factors, place limits on size.

Plus, we can add the Earth's gravity to the biomechanics demands as well, I suspose.

That's a factor we can't control with civilization/technology.

So in the end, just how big can a man get?

The past 75 years has seen an explosion in size.

Can this pace continue or are we close to seeing a another 1000 year plateau in size growth?

Just how far can nutrition take us before the other factors step in?

This is an interesting question, that to me is actually a couple questions.

When we write that populations are taller now as a whole than those of 100 years ago, thats mostly just due to an abundance of healthy calories and health care available to most of the population. Take the Netherlands, currently the tallest nation in the world; they have all those factors, plus they are relatively isolated from third world nations which means there once was fewer immigrants coming from poorer nations which could bring their average height down (please don't assume I am writing any opinion on immigration, just stating what it would lead to in regards to height). The average man in the Netherlands is a little taller than 6 feet tall, but this doesnt necessarily mean that the tallest person in the world will come from there rather that the shortest will be taller, the median will be taller, and there will be more men over given heights than other countries.

That being written, in lieu of medical advances (or selective breeding) they are probably as close to the peak as a population would get to naturally. That being written, and this is just a hypothetical, if we practiced selective breeding that number could probably get a lot taller. Think of it as the same as the domestication of the dog. If you had a population that only allowed healthy men over 6'6" and women over 6'0" to have kids, and maintained this for several generations; then as long as they had an abundance of calories and available medicine then I bet their average height would end up near the 7'0" (this is basically what they did with Yao Ming's parents). I guess it could be tested on a smaller scale if you just isolated a tall population for several generations.

I noted healthy on the explanation because I don't know how doing this with people who had acromegaly would play out. There seems to be a lot of health issues that come about with that.

That being written, I don't know if the average would get bigger than 7'0" as there are very few people who reach above 7'3" without any form of gigantism.

[Marchegiano]

Men have not grown outside of any genetic norms

Having more giants alive today does not point to evolution, there's more midgets and tards alive too.

Americans are big now. Americans were big when America was first discovered. There's no genetic link to European Americans and Native Americans. There is a height average shared despite advancing science, genetics, and infrastructure looking nothing alike.


Y'all dumb

[Marchegiano]

The question I have repeatedly asked and never gotten a satisfactory reply to is. Why has every boxer who successfully moved up from,Lhvy and Cruiser to win at Heavyweight,deliberately added weight to their frames to do so if small ,up to 200lbs heavies, are big enough to handle todays giants?

Yes you did you just demand proof be shoved in your face for a few years before it sinks in.

They did not before weight divisions formalized.

Men not bothering to weigh the HW limit while fighting at HW was common place all the way up until you needed to file an exemption to get a fight sanctioned because you can't make HW.

[Dr Z]

Marchegiano

Yes you did you just demand proof be shoved in your face for a few years before it sinks in.

They did not before weight divisions formalized.

Men not bothering to weigh the HW limit while fighting at HW was common place all the way up until you needed to file an exemption to get a fight sanctioned because you can't make HW.

To the people who vote no, please answer this question! Why has there been a good champion under 6'1" 210 pounds with a 74" in reach or less inch reach in 50 years? Why?!

[Bronson66]

To the people who vote no, please answer this question! Why has there been a good champion under 6'1" 210 pounds with a 74" in reach or less inch reach in 50 years? Why?!

Feb1978.
Leon Spinks was 6'1" 197 1/4 lbs.

Jan 88.
Tyson was5'10" 215 3/4lbs.

[JAB5239]

Feb1978.
Leon Spinks was 6'1" 197 1/4 lbs.

Jan 88.
Tyson was5'10" 215 3/4lbs.

Holyfileld was 6'2" 208lbs when he beat Douglas for the title.
Chris Byrd was 6' 210lbs when he beat Vits.

[Bronson66]

Yes you did you just demand proof be shoved in your face for a few years before it sinks in.

They did not before weight divisions formalized.

Men not bothering to weigh the HW limit while fighting at HW was common place all the way up until you needed to file an exemption to get a fight sanctioned because you can't make HW.

Nope they did not ,when heavyweights were in the 170 /190lbs region and you proved **** All.

Q.In the modern era when heavyweights are routinely over 200lbs and over 6 ft .

WHY HAS EVERY FIGHTER COMING UP FROM LHVY/CRUISER ADDED POUNDAGE TO COMPETE AT HEAVYWEIGHT?

YES I WANT PROOF! IF YOU MAKE A STATEMENT THAT I BELIEVE IS WRONG I REQUIRE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR STATEMENT AND IN RETURN I WILL PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT MINE!

AND HERE MINE IS !

IN THE MODERN ERA SEVERAL MEN FROM THE LOWER WEIGHTS HAVE COMPETED AT HEAVYWEIGHT THEY HAVE WITHOUT EXCEPTION ADDED WEIGHT TO DO SO.
ELLIS
M SPINKS
MOORER
HOLYFIELD
JONES JNR
USYK
You are forced to refer back to the early1900's to try and prove your point.
Lets look at those early champions .

Sullivan198lbs

Corbett178lbs

Fitzsimmons 167lbs

Jeffries 206lbs

Hart192lbs

Burns 175lbs


Johnson194lbs

Jeffries at 6ft and 206lbs was considered a giant! Today, at that weight he would be a cruiser!

Way back then smaller challengers were not usually giving away the huge amount of tonnage they would be required to do so today.
Now, who would seriously consider matching a Corbett or a Fitzsimmons with a top ranked heavyweight of today?

Please provide examples of exemptions filed by smaller men to fight heavyweights?
You want to get sarky with me? Okay you do it, I can handle anything you can offer and come back a hundred fold. So if that's what you want ,bring it on because, when I'm finished with you,you'll need sutures in your anus!

[Marchegiano]

To the people who vote no, please answer this question! Why has there been a good champion under 6'1" 210 pounds with a 74" in reach or less inch reach in 50 years? Why?!

I feel like I'm missing something because that's my point.


Spinks had a career high of 212. Holy liked being under 220 often. Wilder liked to be under 220 often. Roy was in the 190s. Moorer's best work is below 220 and he really only consistently did bad above 220. Haye won his title below 220. Byrd represented the below 220s well. The Mike Tyson everyone loves is the below 220 Tyson who gathered the belts. Ali and Frazier represented the below 220s well.

Usyk is the current champion


What reason did the WBC/A have for making their HW division start at 220+?

Right, and have any of the BWs looked good now that they only fight BWs? Did the WBC save lives? Or did they size out a breed of men who has always done well and would have continued to do well?



Can take 220 all the way back until 220 is a large HW.


In that time period we should look to the analog not the actual. The smaller HWs are now the 176-190s. They are well represented by names like Patterson, Frazier, Cooper, Machen, Moore, etc.


Go back to where the 190s are now the top end of the division consistently and see the consistent 170s-180s challengers and champions doing just fine. Marciano, Charles, Maxim, Conn etc.


We get into an era when 180 is a larger HW and the 170s, 160s, and even 150s can have a pop at HW. Norfolk, Gans, Langford, Fitzsimmons, Burns, Choyinski, so on.






What happened? When was the time when the 160s just kept getting their asses kicked? Oh, never, divisions started being enforced in the 30s is all? And like magic that's about the time period when you stop seeing 175 and below HWs.

Then what happened to the 170s-80s HWs? They started losing in droves or were well represented on the top of the division? Oh, it just happens to be at the same time frame CW becomes a thing?

What happened to the 190 fighters? Did they lose often or were they still making champions? Okay well if they were still getting titles why make the new limit 200 right after Roy's done with the division?

Once 200 is the new minimum do weights follow? And were the just above 200s like Byrd and Haye and Wilder still getting belts? So what is the point of the new 220 limit?




Maybe John L was marketing. Maybe BW is marketing. Maybe everything in between is marketing.



That's an answer you're going to refuse to accept while stating vague dumb**** like "but science doe"