Are old-time heavyweights too small? Take the poll

[DeeMoney]

The poll itself is somewhat flawed. Option one only references weight (under 200) whereas option two gives a height, reach, and more weight (210 lbs). If we go by option B as the criteria "smaller" then there aren't that many who fall into the category.

Of lineal champions over the last 120 years, who had at least one successful title defense, we are left with: Frazier, Patterson, Marciano, Charles, and Burns who are under all three size requirements (though Frazier was above 210 for some of his title fights). I am interested how many here are arguing that Tommy Burns at 5'7" 168 would be successful as a heavyweight today. But I doubt many. I think there are a select few fighters that these size questions are aimed at.

[BKM-]

I'm having a little trouble fully understanding the parameters of the question seeing the stats mentioned in the OP. Maybe because this is a complex issue that isn't as black and white of an answer as too many people often conclude.

Take the weight stat itself. Yes it's one of the main factors but then we see a lighter Deontay Wilder, who is massively tall with long limbs which obviously more than made up for his lack of mass(Untill he met Fury that is). Size means a lot of things.

Billeau2 mentioned another important point that creates distortion, and that is the issue that many old timers came in as light as possible. Not all of them, but it is so clear to me that massive men like Sonny Liston, Jack Johnson, George Foreman and others were very lean but had the frame to effectively carry more mass than they did.

This is especially apparent with George Foreman who had two careers. Most think of the comeback Foreman as the fat guy, but they forget that the first few years of his comeback he had a respectable body fat percentage, and yet he was 40 to 45 pounds heavier because the culture of heavyweight boxing had changed. Yes, young Foreman was around 225 and the first years of Comeback Foreman he was in the 270pound range already and he did not have a fat belly or love handles yet. The guy was enormous.

To answer the question, I think past heavyweights would deal with the size disadvantage untill we go too far back in time. In the golden era they had a good size, 6'1-6'3 @ 210-225lbs. Smaller than that and it's gonna create some serious issues and we'd have to go by exceptional cases.

[billeau2]

If you are arguing people in years past ate much better, as in less processed foods, thats true. But pre WWII by and large people in western nations lacked the healthy calories that people today have (we just tend to throw lots of unhealthy calories on top of them). Thats why the people in western nations, as a whole, is larger than back then.

Whether that means better, thats for a different post. I am just pointing out that nobody with any real knowledge attributed this to evolution (as is understood as survival of the fittest Darwinian process). But that there are sociological factors that have caused changes in the population as a whole is a real thing.

I don't know Deemoney... Football got BIg in every sense of the word... and a lot better to boot when money started coming in hand over fist. I think fighters had all they needed to get huge in the ring, it just did not figure into their success as they saw it. When you look at people's diets they actually ate more fat, less processed foods, and ate smaller portions. They knew that if they ate more they would get bigger. I just do not see a point where people got a lot larger because of calories... With the caveat that people from other nations did experience a lot of growth physically.

But then again, when you say "sociological factors" we are in agreement there.

[billeau2]

Interesting observation: I was killing some time and saw a reviewer in Great Britian order a streak dinner. The steak was so small a size! and so were the fries. Compared to here in Murica land of the fatties!

[DeeMoney]

I don't know Deemoney... Football got BIg in every sense of the word... and a lot better to boot when money started coming in hand over fist. I think fighters had all they needed to get huge in the ring, it just did not figure into their success as they saw it. When you look at people's diets they actually ate more fat, less processed foods, and ate smaller portions. They knew that if they ate more they would get bigger. I just do not see a point where people got a lot larger because of calories... With the caveat that people from other nations did experience a lot of growth physically.

But then again, when you say "sociological factors" we are in agreement there.

We seem to be talking different things, you are arguing that fighters couldve added more weight if it were beneficial. Thats not what I am saying.

My point is that people, as a whole in western nations, are bigger in height and natural size than they were 70, 80, 100 years ago. This isnt really up for debate, there are numerous studies showing this; I can cite them but there are many you can google. The primary reason most hold to this, is there was a better diet for people while they were children and in utero. I cite post war society as providing this, as many western nations saw this increase at this time for a vast swath of their population. No more depression, no more war time rationing.

Now, we know that with more taller people in the population, you will have a greater number of taller (naturally bigger) heavyweights available in the population. A fighter who is 6'5 would most likely carry a heavier weight than on who was just 6'1. Ergo, there will be more taller fighters, and by that logic they will most likely be heavier.

Once again, I'm not making valuative statements about bigger being better in this post, no need to convolute topics. Simply that people are taller now, so it should follow that heavyweight fighters have gotten taller. There is no Lamarkian way this could have happened through excess money being offered either.

[Anomalocaris]

All skills being relatively equal size matters.

There are weight divisions for a reason.

As far as today goes I would give Joe, Sonny, Ali, George and Larry a great chance in this era.

But no one else.

[Dr Z]

If you are arguing people in years past ate much better, as in less processed foods, thats true. But pre WWII by and large people in western nations lacked the healthy calories that people today have (we just tend to throw lots of unhealthy calories on top of them). Thats why the people in western nations, as a whole, is larger than back then.

Whether that means better, thats for a different post. I am just pointing out that nobody with any real knowledge attributed this to evolution (as is understood as survival of the fittest Darwinian process). But that there are sociological factors that have caused changes in the population as a whole is a real thing.

Humans had beome bigger with each passing geraration.

[Marchegiano]

... let's go again ... because you can't accept anyone having a different perspective. Which is not a mark of the dumb ass dumbass, nor is it megalomaniactic.



Actually, I'm just going to keep the smartassery rolling:


Half of us believe the bodies set weight divisions for fun and don't enforce them.


Most people believe the higher weights are more dangerous than the lower weights with absolutely **** all nothing to go by outside of size whoring.


Plenty of people believe it is possible to have improved the health of larger men while keeping average sizes and smaller equally as unhealthy as 1888.


There is the belief with size, bone structure, somehow, becomes stronger and more endurant rather than weaker at larger scales


Because the average grown man enjoys a 100 pound size disparity over a 60 pound child they then assume the same juxtaposition is captured by a 260 pound man over a 160 pound man without ever factoring in the fact that 60 pounds isn't enough weight in a body to crack a skull while 160 pounds is.


For whatever reason even the knowledgeable boxing fan with a lifetime of interest and debate finds the idea that stamina favors averages sizes a debatable subject.


Likewise, all of you on both sides are guilty of using boxrec and appealing to boxrec's data when it is convenient but when it isn't you will scoff at boxrec data and appeal to its inaccuracies.


Then there's the clash of boxing ideals. Like reach is always an advantage right? Except styles make fights and leverage is a well known thing to all of you. Seems to be used at convenience too.


We will utterly ignore anything more recent and allegorious to the weight debate purely because, dat different sport doe, while, talking about figures like Dempsey and Fitzs like as if Fitzsimmons knows how to fight under the unified rules.


Likewise the fact that weight divisions are super informal until abouts the 30s has no importance here because we'd rather talk about things like Wilder's weight before and after the introduction of BW.


There's also the belief that somehow guys like Tyson Fury are improved by science over men like Primo Carnera ... the details of how this works no man can explain but don't worry about that, believe it anyway.


So, having any real discussion about the subject is beyond the capabilities of this community. The beliefs prevent truth. Like even if you disagree with me on the titled question, your supporting evidence will be indirect, circumstantial, and asks me to believe in something I absolutely know is scientifically, medically, and historically inaccurate.



Edit-

Oh I forgot one then immediately thought of it: Everyone gushes over the largest hands in boxing while absolutely knowing what a ball-peen hammer is and what it is good for and what a sledge hammer is and what it is good for, but still only big hands is good doe.

[Bronson66]

Are old-time heavyweights too small? Take the poll and vote.

Does this include Jim Jeffries who was measured in a Doctors surgery at an even 6 ft ,and was 210 and under for 8 of his 24 fights?

[billeau2]

We seem to be talking different things, you are arguing that fighters couldve added more weight if it were beneficial. Thats not what I am saying.

My point is that people, as a whole in western nations, are bigger in height and natural size than they were 70, 80, 100 years ago. This isnt really up for debate, there are numerous studies showing this; I can cite them but there are many you can google. The primary reason most hold to this, is there was a better diet for people while they were children and in utero. I cite post war society as providing this, as many western nations saw this increase at this time for a vast swath of their population. No more depression, no more war time rationing.

Now, we know that with more taller people in the population, you will have a greater number of taller (naturally bigger) heavyweights available in the population. A fighter who is 6'5 would most likely carry a heavier weight than on who was just 6'1. Ergo, there will be more taller fighters, and by that logic they will most likely be heavier.

Once again, I'm not making valuative statements about bigger being better in this post, no need to convolute topics. Simply that people are taller now, so it should follow that heavyweight fighters have gotten taller. There is no Lamarkian way this could have happened through excess money being offered either.

The reasons for this change in size do not matter to you? I think they matter when we link people's size and the average weight of a heavyweight, otherwise do we know if there is an actual cause and effect? If Christians in Alabama tend to wear blue suede shoes, does it mean if someone wears blue suede shoes they are Christian?

Either way, certainly people have gotten bigger, I just question how much this affects a small sample like heavyweight fighters... Whether there is a logical chain between the two statistics.

See? I would not assume this... Principally because people who become heavyweight fighters are such a small part of the population. It may be true, it also may be true that because such a rare number become fighters it does not matter how many more big people there are...