Are old-time heavyweights too small? Take the poll

[billeau2]

- - FACTs don't lie that today. Across the board the general world population is considerably taller, esp considering I've been around a lot and noticed significant change.
w=964.png




https://ourworldindata.org/human-height

Time for U boys to ditch U Barney Big Boys to study up...yeah, right...

That has never been argued. Keep up... There is a lacuna between the general trend in human demographics and physiology and some of the points Margiano and I are trying to bring to the table. Again it has to do with causation... Just because people are larger does not mean heavyweights will be larger. For example, reverse the statement "heavyweights are larger, so people are bigger." Does that make sense to you? Someone would probably say "well heavcyweights are really such a select group... Do they reflect the whole of humanity? Think Queenie think, you can do it on occasion when you really try.

[billeau2]

Okay, I apologize, I had thought that's why you quoted me to begin with. If you're not claiming evolution by any semantics or form then there's no disagreement really.


My point about pre-westernization is missed not yet irrelevant. The point is measure geography. Or rather include geography in your metrics. It wasn't actually meant to be pro or anti any stance more of a just saying.

On the small and larger scale, again, fair enough I can see what you are seeing now but that wasn't actually my point. My point was size is a health concern not a benefit. Giants as much as midgets. Not really anything to do with populations actually. In fact that's why my last posts drums you need more than a growth of population. As in to say there's more midgets today with better healthcare and longer lives but the obviousness of their medical condition can not be denied as easily as a large person's.


Finally, to be honest I fish sometimes. If I say claiming evolution is dumb and you pick that up and decide you're going to argue with it ... that's a bit on you bud.

â

"Once again, nobody is pointing to evolution. What is being said, is that as a whole people in western nations are taller and bigger now than they were 100 years ago." and " Having more giants alive today does not point to evolution" mean the same thing imo. So where's the beef? I said it too meanly?

I do not want to speak for you bud... but I do believe you and I have a tendency not to accept things Primae Facie... It is perhaps in our nature? If I am wrong I apologize to you, but it seems to me you and I both do not accept the notion that because some population (your bone?) vis a vis the general trend (my bone) is at a certain level, that boxing will be carried into this measure.

[billeau2]

- - Terry ain't dumb, but he ain't the brightest, the reason...

Super Bowl XIII in Miami, Henderson purposefully made himself the story, stirring the drink by questioning the intelligence of the opposing team's quarterback, Terry Bradshaw, by remarking to the media that the Steelers star could not spell "cat" if you spotted him the "C" and the "A."

I agree. I always liked him but would not want to bet on his ability to analyze anything lol.

[DeeMoney]

Indeed! It was a perfect storm: The money came in, the many improvements in nutrition, specialized routines and as you say, special positioning to even a greater degree... The innovations, particularly in Florida and with coaches like Walsh, who took advantage of that Stamford brain power lol. I think with football you can see a very select class of athlete and isolate the variables in this storm and what you get is nothing short of amazing.

Intersting aside: Terry Bradshaw, whom I grew up watching from QB to announcer, actually still believes the teams were stronger in his day! I do not know how he can think so lol. Not that the players were not great back then, but what one sees on a football field these days is a specialized unit...

I'm sure there is more than a little bias on his side. Although one could argue that the Steelers of the 70s did have a couple advantages. One, with no salary cap at the time the top teams were essentially all star teams, though the bottom teams were far worse than the bottom teams of nowadays. This was really the case until the mid 90s, and one reason why I think those 90s Cowboys and Niners could lay claim as the best of all time.
Also, with steroids running rampant, and not being tested for the Steelers of this time did have some advantages (just read Steve Courson's book). I mean John Kolb was a starting tackle for them and part time WSM competitor, he has to be one of the physically strongest players ever regardless of era. Although, I would argue that players as a whole are still physically stronger today. Still, with most of your linemen juiced to the gills all that testosterone has gotta be helping out some.

That being written, while I think the Steel Curtain could hang with teams today, most teams prior to the mid 80s just wouldn't have the size or speed to compete with teams of today (let alone win). Especially considering the rule changes that came about in '78 that forced D-Line techniques to completely revamp.

[billeau2]

I'm sure there is more than a little bias on his side. Although one could argue that the Steelers of the 70s did have a couple advantages. One, with no salary cap at the time the top teams were essentially all star teams, though the bottom teams were far worse than the bottom teams of nowadays. This was really the case until the mid 90s, and one reason why I think those 90s Cowboys and Niners could lay claim as the best of all time.
Also, with steroids running rampant, and not being tested for the Steelers of this time did have some advantages (just read Steve Courson's book). I mean John Kolb was a starting tackle for them and part time WSM competitor, he has to be one of the physically strongest players ever regardless of era. Although, I would argue that players as a whole are still physically stronger today. Still, with most of your linemen juiced to the gills all that testosterone has gotta be helping out some.

That being written, while I think the Steel Curtain could hang with teams today, most teams prior to the mid 80s just wouldn't have the size or speed to compete with teams of today (let alone win). Especially considering the rule changes that came about in '78 that forced D-Line techniques to completely revamp.

I think he is nuts! Even though I love the guy... He is a tradition to me. The bolded, that is my feeling as well.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - FACTs don't lie that today. Across the board the general world population is considerably taller, esp considering I've been around a lot and noticed significant change.
w=964.png




https://ourworldindata.org/human-height

Time for U boys to ditch U Barney Big Boys to study up...yeah, right...

That graph is why I think that size growth pushed by the nutrition of abundance is going to hit its own plateau soon. That can't keep going up. It's a generational 'leap.'

[Dr Z]

Run along ,you are out of your depth here stick to your ancient gladiators whom nobody gives a **** about.
Go have another of your famous meltdowns! lol

Why do you have so manty issues with posters? I warn you the next thim you spread your Woke, Wanton, Anger,... I will alert the MODS / ADMIN

YKSAB! That is all. Quit ruining my threads!

END.

[Bronson66]

Why do you have so manty issues with posters? I warn you the next thim you spread your Woke, Wanton, Anger,... I will alert the MODS / ADMIN

YKSAB! That is all. Quit ruining my threads!

END.

Perhaps you should confine yourself to the Lounge where you can indulge your interest in decades old *****phile cases to your hearts content? If I should ever get banned from here ,everyone will know who is responsible for it,and,unlike you I have other Boxing Forum.
options.
What part of any of my posts is Woke? Do you even know what the word stands for?
Manty
Thim
Is this code? lol


Issues with posters?There are two posters here I dislike.

Queensbury Fool,because he is a trolling waste of space.
And you, because you are a lying agenda driven bigot.
Don't threaten me,you moron.

[Bronson66]

That graph is why I think that size growth pushed by the nutrition of abundance is going to hit its own plateau soon. That can't keep going up. It's a generational 'leap.'

The average height for a UK male has only increased by an inch since I was a boy.
Americans Slightly Taller, Much Heavier Than Four Decades Ago


Wednesday, October 27, 2004






Adult men and women are roughly an inch taller than they were in 1960, but are nearly 25 pounds heavier on average as well, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In addition, average BMI (body mass index, a weight-for-height formula used to measure obesity) has increased among adults from approximately 25 in 1960 to 28 in 2002.

The report, “Mean Body Weight, Height, and Body Mass Index (BMI) 1960-2002: United States,” prepared by CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, shows that the average height of a man aged 20-74 years increased from just over 5-8 in 1960 to 5-9 ½ in 2002, while the average height of a woman the same age increased from slightly over 5-3 in 1960 to 5-4 in 2002.

Meanwhile, the average weight for men aged 20-74 years rose dramatically from 166.3 pounds in 1960 to 191 pounds in 2002, while the average weight for women the same age increased from 140.2 pounds in 1960 to 164.3 pounds in 2002.

• Though the average weight for men aged 20-39 years increased by nearly 20 pounds over the last four decades, the increase was greater among older men:
• Men between the ages of 40 and 49 were nearly 27 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.
• Men between the ages of 50 and 59 were nearly 28 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.
• Men between the ages of 60 and 74 were almost 33 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.

For women, the near opposite trend occurred:

• Women aged 20-29 were nearly 29 pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.
• Women aged 40-49 were about 25½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.
• Women aged 60-74 were about 17½ pounds heavier on average in 2002 compared with 1960.

Meanwhile, the report documented that average weights for children are increasing as well:

• The average weight for a 10-year-old boy in 1963 was 74.2 pounds; by 2002 the average weight was nearly 85 pounds.
• The average weight for a 10-year-old girl in 1963 was 77.4 pounds; by 2002 the average weight was nearly 88 pounds.
• A 15-year-old boy weighed 135.5 pounds on average in 1966; by 2002 the average weight of a boy that age increased to 150.3 pounds.
• A 15-year-old girl weighed 124.2 pounds on average in 1966; by 2002 the average weight for a girl that age was 134.4 pounds.

According to the report, average heights for children also increased over the past four decades. For example:

• The average height of a 10-year-old boy in 1963 was 55.2 inches, by 2002 the average height of a 10-year-old boy had increased to 55.7 inches.
• The average height of a 10-year-old girl in 1963 was about 55.5 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 10-year-old girl had increased to 56.4 inches.
• In 1966, the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 67.5 inches or almost 5-7½; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old boy was 68.4 or almost 5-8½.
• In 1996, the average height of a 15-year-old girl was 63.9 inches; by 2002 the average height of a 15-year-old girl had not changed significantly (63.8 inches).

Average BMI for children and teens has also increased:

• In 1963, the average BMI for a 7-year-old boy was 15.9; in 2002 it was 17.0. For girls the same age, the average BMI increased from 15.8 to 16.6 over the same period.
• In 1966, the average BMI for a 16-year-old boy was 21.3; in 2002, it was 24.1. For girls the same age, the average BMI increased from 21.9 to 24.0 over the same period.

[QueensburyRules]

That graph is why I think that size growth pushed by the nutrition of abundance is going to hit its own plateau soon. That can't keep going up. It's a generational 'leap.'

- - With the 21st Century melting in some of the worst wars consecutively in history, could be **** dominate what will be coming. The Tragedy is that post Vietnam the world was mostly at peace until Billy Slick managed to ignite what amounts to little world wars everywhere growing like international wildfires.

Apparently mankind cannot regulate itself no matter the political structure they live under.