Are old-time heavyweights too small? Take the poll

[Bronson66]

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"




Nah, didn't change a ****ing thing. But if you're going to ask me questions like I didn't answer you already then it's plenty fair for me to shove this in your face over and over again.


Ivich, the "you" here is rhetorical. You're not the only one ignoring and asking at the same time.

You have nothing.
You want to know what happened? Everyone and his brother knows what happened, heavyweights got bigger!
So big that supermiddles like Fitz, McCoy,O Brien and Burns ,and lhvys and small cruisers like Corbett,Choynski,Sharkey.would not be able to compete with them today.
Those pounders you mentioned were competing in an era that, with a few exceptions consisted of sub 200 pounders.
Today such men have one of two choices, to fight as Cruiserweights or add weight and dip their toes into the heavyweight division.
Those that opted for the latter include.
Spinks who added 25lbs to his frame.Who by the way ,only had 5 heavyweight fights.

Moorer=38lbs.

Holyfield=20lbs.

Jones=20lbs.

Usyk=24lbs.

You mentioned David Haye.
Haye won the cruiser title at199lbs he then successfully went after the heavyweight title scaling 217lbs,and for his remaining 8 contests,he was never below 210lbs and for 5 of them 220lbs and over.Why did he do that?
THESE NAMES YOU MENTIONED FROMTHE 50'S
"The smaller HWs are now the 176-190s. They are well represented by names like Patterson, Frazier, Cooper, Machen, Moore, etc."
HOW MANY MEN OVER 210LBS DID THEY FACE? HOW MANY DID THEY BEAT?
WHAT HAPPENED WHEN PATTERSON MET ONE[LISTON?] LISTON WALKED THROUGH HIM.

THESE ARE THE 50'S HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPS.
CHARLES .He defended succwssfully against 1 man 200lbs plus past it Joe Louis who hadn't fought for 2 years ,none of Charles other 9 challengers were 200 lbs and 5 of them were under 190lbs.

WALCOTT. He defended successfully against 1 man Charles who weighed182lbs and187lbs

MARCIANO.He defended against 6 men, only 1 of whom was 200lbs .****ell,a natural lhvy at 205lbs was 30lbs overweight.

PATTERSON.He defended successfully against 8 men, only debutee Rademacher 202lbs,
moderate London206lbs,and Johansson in their 3rd fight not in top shape at 206lbs,10 lbs above what he weighed when he beat Patterson.

Patterson is them manhandled and easily despatched by213lbs Liston , and the birth of the new era of 200lbs plus heavyweights is ushered in.
With the exception of Jones Jnr, who cherry picked the moderate Ruiz and avoided Holyfield,Bowe, and Lewis.
NEVER AGAIN WOULD A SUB 200 POUNDER HOLD THE HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE.

Why is that?


Holyfield fought at heavyweight between208 and226lbs.

Tyson was over 220lbs when he won the title.

One of Usyk's major foes at Cruiser was Gassiev , when they fought Gassiev was 198lbs, he is competing at heavyweight and Gassiev now weighs between 230and 238lbs! Why?
You have no answers for this and ridiculous excuses like" marketing ,"when referring to the old timers just make you look silly.

For some reason you seem to feel that because you are a Prosthetist you are somehow superior in intellect to the rest of us.

I see no evidence of this in your posts on the contrary I see just the opposite.
Your content largely consists of obfuscation and bluster,and calling the rest of us "dumbasses".
Here is a suggestion,why not start your own Forum confined to Mensa level contributors that can match your intelligence,then you won't feel the need to condescend to them as you now are doing to the rest of us here?
Because ,speaking only for myself I'm getting rather tired of being referred to as dumb by you.

[Marchegiano]

Once again, nobody is pointing to evolution. To try and argue as such is a strawman argument or being intentionally disingenuous. What is being said, is that as a whole people in western nations are taller and bigger now than they were 100 years ago. This is primarily due to better diets, healthier living conditions, and improved medicine.

The fact that there are more midgets now, is a result of there being more overall people BUT that is really irrelevant, as we are speaking of the average as a whole.

Can't wrap my head around that bold bit. Not blaming you, I just do not understand the point you mean to make. Seems to me the former addresses the later while you claim it doesn't.


The rest is incredibly Eurocentric. You only need to go backwards in time a little bit for eras when men in North America known for being right around the same sizes that are average today.


How many 160 pounders need to exist before you believe it is possible for a 160 pounder to hit as hard if not harder than 230 pounder? Oh, you need something more than population sizes to support that claim do you? Okay but a 230 pounder being able to move in a manner actually threatening to a 160 pounder's reflexes doesn't though? You sure?


All I did was take it to where it had to go anyway. Population sizes do not explain what you claim they do. A world filled with Primo Carneras does not produce a Wladimir Klitschko. You need something else. You need a mechanism and right now the only allusion to any is adaptation.







"due to better diets, healthier living conditions, and improved medicine." Has become super popular. Explain it. You're going to cite it then you should be able to bring this vague idea into as much detail as I can. You explain to me how anything makes larger men healthier and there by faster, stronger, smarter, better boxers, BUT, does not equally improve everyone else. How does Tyson fury enjoy a juxtaposition over 180s that makes his potentially losing to one laughable while Jess Willard did just that? Due to better diets, healthier living conditions, and improved medicine? But the 180s have access to that too. This is special magic diets, living conditions, and improved medicine that solely improves the metabolic rate of fat ****s, the reflexes of twiggy armed aliens, and skull density of big headed boys?


You need something else. Something that selects the big men. I pointed to the rules. You're pointing to science like that's an answer when it most definitely isn't.

[Marchegiano]

You have nothing.
You want to know what happened? Everyone and his brother knows what happened, heavyweights got bigger!
So big that supermiddles like Fitz, McCoy,O Brien and Burns ,and lhvys and small cruisers like Corbett,Choynski,Sharkey.would not be able to compete with them today.
Those pounders you mentioned were competing in an era that, with a few exceptions consisted of sub 200 pounders.
Today such men have one of two choices, to fight as Cruiserweights or add weight and dip their toes into the heavyweight division.
Those that opted for the latter include.
Spinks who added 25lbs to his frame.Who by the way ,only had 5 heavyweight fights.

Moorer=38lbs.

Holyfield=20lbs.

Jones=20lbs.

Usyk=24lbs.

You mentioned David Haye.
Haye won the cruiser title at199lbs he then successfully went after the heavyweight title scaling 217lbs,and for his remaining 8 contests,he was never below 210lbs and for 5 of them 220lbs and over.Why did he do that?
THESE NAMES YOU MENTIONED FROMTHE 50'S
"The smaller HWs are now the 176-190s. They are well represented by names like Patterson, Frazier, Cooper, Machen, Moore, etc."
HOW MANY MEN OVER 210LBS DID THEY FACE? HOW MANY DID THEY BEAT?
WHAT HAPPENED WHEN PATTERSON MET ONE[LISTON?] LISTON WALKED THROUGH HIM.

THESE ARE THE 50'S HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPS.
CHARLES .He defended succwssfully against 1 man 200lbs plus past it Joe Louis who hadn't fought for 2 years ,none of Charles other 9 challengers were 200 lbs and 5 of them were under 190lbs.

WALCOTT. He defended successfully against 1 man Charles who weighed182lbs and187lbs

MARCIANO.He defended against 6 men, only 1 of whom was 200lbs .****ell,a natural lhvy at 205lbs was 30lbs overweight.

PATTERSON.He defended successfully against 8 men, only debutee Rademacher 202lbs,
moderate London206lbs,and Johansson in their 3rd fight not in top shape at 206lbs,10 lbs above what he weighed when he beat Patterson.

Patterson is them manhandled and easily despatched by213lbs Liston , and the birth of the new era of 200lbs plus heavyweights is ushered in.
With the exception of Jones Jnr, who cherry picked the moderate Ruiz and avoided Holyfield,Bowe, and Lewis.
NEVER AGAIN WOULD A SUB 200 POUNDER HOLD THE HEAVYWEIGHT TITLE.

Why is that?


Holyfield fought at heavyweight between208 and226lbs.

Tyson was over 220lbs when he won the title.

One of Usyk's major foes at Cruiser was Gassiev , when they fought Gassiev was 198lbs, he is competing at heavyweight and Gassiev now weighs between 230and 238lbs! Why?
You have no answers for this and ridiculous excuses like" marketing ,"when referring to the old timers just make you look silly.

For some reason you seem to feel that because you are a Prosthetist you are somehow superior in intellect to the rest of us.

I see no evidence of this in your posts on the contrary I see just the opposite.
Your content largely consists of obfuscation and bluster,and calling the rest of us "dumbasses".
Here is a suggestion,why not start your own Forum confined to Mensa level contributors that can match your intelligence,then you won't feel the need to condescend to them as you now are doing to the rest of us here?
Because ,speaking only for myself I'm getting rather tired of being referred to as dumb by you.

Absolutely nothing you wrote actually addresses anything I wrote.


175ers compete all the way up until the *******s invade the IBU.

190s compete all the way up until the creation of CW

220s are winning titles until the creation of BW


That's a super simplified version. I can't see how you can avoid those facts any longer while claiming some really silly nonsense. We've already played your cherry picking games, nothing comes of it, anyone can cherry pick to avoid what's being asked. Give your balls a tug and actually address the ****ing history of boxing.



Already went back and forth on cherry picked boxrec weight stats. When you're cornered you'll default to "but boxrec data bad doe" Your knack of avoiding questions to cherry pick data to support points that don't actually detract from mine own while presenting them like they do is super impressive but not as effective as you think. Answer the ****ing question or **** off, I'm not playing another round of Ivich says X a good source, Y's the truth, and let's get some Adam nuts in this to ride, all for it to come back to the first ****ing thing I told you. Rules.

[Bronson66]

Absolutely nothing you wrote actually addresses anything I wrote.


175ers compete all the way up until the *******s invade the IBU.

190s compete all the way up until the creation of CW

220s are winning titles until the creation of BW


That's a super simplified version. I can't see how you can avoid those facts any longer while claiming some really silly nonsense. We've already played your cherry picking games, nothing comes of it, anyone can cherry pick to avoid what's being asked. Give your balls a tug and actually address the ****ing history of boxing.



Already went back and forth on cherry picked boxrec weight stats. When you're cornered you'll default to "but boxrec data bad doe" Your knack of avoiding questions to cherry pick data to support points that don't actually detract from mine own while presenting them like they do is super impressive but not as effective as you think. Answer the ****ing question or **** off, I'm not playing another round of Ivich says X a good source, Y's the truth, and let's get some Adam nuts in this to ride, all for it to come back to the first ****ing thing I told you. Rules.

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

[DeeMoney]

Can't wrap my head around that bold bit. Not blaming you, I just do not understand the point you mean to make. Seems to me the former addresses the later while you claim it doesn't.


The rest is incredibly Eurocentric. You only need to go backwards in time a little bit for eras when men in North America known for being right around the same sizes that are average today.


How many 160 pounders need to exist before you believe it is possible for a 160 pounder to hit as hard if not harder than 230 pounder? Oh, you need something more than population sizes to support that claim do you? Okay but a 230 pounder being able to move in a manner actually threatening to a 160 pounder's reflexes doesn't though? You sure?


All I did was take it to where it had to go anyway. Population sizes do not explain what you claim they do. A world filled with Primo Carneras does not produce a Wladimir Klitschko. You need something else. You need a mechanism and right now the only allusion to any is adaptation.







"due to better diets, healthier living conditions, and improved medicine." Has become super popular. Explain it. You're going to cite it then you should be able to bring this vague idea into as much detail as I can. You explain to me how anything makes larger men healthier and there by faster, stronger, smarter, better boxers, BUT, does not equally improve everyone else. How does Tyson fury enjoy a juxtaposition over 180s that makes his potentially losing to one laughable while Jess Willard did just that? Due to better diets, healthier living conditions, and improved medicine? But the 180s have access to that too. This is special magic diets, living conditions, and improved medicine that solely improves the metabolic rate of fat ****s, the reflexes of twiggy armed aliens, and skull density of big headed boys?


You need something else. Something that selects the big men. I pointed to the rules. You're pointing to science like that's an answer when it most definitely isn't.

First off, to your general point, I am not writing that bigger is necessarily better. All I am writing is that the population in western nations (Eurocentric yes, but this is where most top heavyweights have come from) has grown naturally taller over the last 60+ years, relative to where it was in the early 20th century. And since people as a whole are naturally bigger, it would make sense that we have more naturally bigger heavyweights now than we did 80+ years ago. And yes, it is generally accepted that better diets, and improved medicine have been the primary cause of this change.

As to your point about people being roughly equal size in pre industrial times in the west (which may or may not be accurate), its irrelevant, because we arent looking at the sizes of heavyweight champions from then for this discussion.

As for the bolded part, that was a reference to a statement you made earlier, citing that there are more big people, but also more midgets. This implies that there is not an increase in average height, just an increase in total population. However that is wrong, there has been an increase in total average height, people in general are taller now than 100 years ago. So it stands to measure that heavyweight boxers as a whole would be taller now. Not arguing better, just stating info.

[QueensburyRules]

Here is the best way I can put it:

There may be a bona fide weight difference in human beings in heavyweight boxing, however the reasons for this are not genetic, because genetic changes take many moons to manifest, as opposed to many other possible factors.

1. Heavyweights wanted to come in lighter, they trained to be as light as possible in the ring.

2. To really understand weight differences we would have to consider the weight heavyweights walked around at. When we do so there appears to be a much smaller difference in weight. Can I prove this? Well, we hear of things like: "Louis was 230 later on when he was shot. Marciano walked around after retirement at around 215, which we know from the computer Ali matches.

3. There is no reason why today's heavyweights could not look like yesteryears... Look at MMA heavyweights for example, and vice versa.

- - 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...

[Marchegiano]

First off, to your general point, I am not writing that bigger is necessarily better. All I am writing is that the population in western nations (Eurocentric yes, but this is where most top heavyweights have come from) has grown naturally taller over the last 60+ years, relative to where it was in the early 20th century. And since people as a whole are naturally bigger, it would make sense that we have more naturally bigger heavyweights now than we did 80+ years ago. And yes, it is generally accepted that better diets, and improved medicine have been the primary cause of this change.

As to your point about people being roughly equal size in pre industrial times in the west (which may or may not be accurate), its irrelevant, because we arent looking at the sizes of heavyweight champions from then for this discussion.

As for the bolded part, that was a reference to a statement you made earlier, citing that there are more big people, but also more midgets. This implies that there is not an increase in average height, just an increase in total population. However that is wrong, there has been an increase in total average height, people in general are taller now than 100 years ago. So it stands to measure that heavyweight boxers as a whole would be taller now. Not arguing better, just stating info.

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.

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

"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?

[billeau2]

I know I've mentioned it before but one of my favorite reads, "the Sports Gene" goes into the changes in football athletes over the past decade. They too cite the money involved in how it helped the sport grow (I strongly recommend it). Additionally, it outlines how when money went up there came a change in specialization of body types: linemen got bigger, DBs got smaller, etc. Part of this could also be attached to an increased specialization that came about with more l1beral substitution rules (no longer a need for Chuck Bednarik), but even so the body type explosion continued well past the 1960s, and the death of the two-way player.

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...

[billeau2]

ANY sport has seen an increase in the size and strength of the athletes change dramatically over the past 50 years.


NFL football, basketball, Hockey, Tennis, and MLB.

Levels to the game Z... Most team sports have seen these increases, but there are also very important differences.

[QueensburyRules]

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...

- - 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."