Have heavyweights really gotten that much bigger?

Heavyweights did get bigger and there were fat heavyweights in the past as well . Look at Corbett , Fitzsimmons , Tom Sharkey , Mike Schreck , Sam Langford , Joe Jeannette , Joe Choynski , Bivins , Markegiano , Patterson , Doug Jones , Jimmy Ellis . Could any of them be top 5 even today ? idiots will automatically say yes but the truth is that no . Markegiano could have beaten a few in 2day's top 5 but then could be inevitably stopped by d much bigger journeymen & former contenders such as Jameel McCline , Ray Austin , Tony Thompson , etc . Rocco wouldn't have a real answer against them .
Now there were also fat heavyweights @ d past such as John L. Sullivan , Tony Galento , Jerry Quarry , Ron Stander , Buster Mathis Sr. , Marvin Hart , Sam Langford .
Yes , HWs did get bigger although not as much in height as d paper has it but then they also grew in height . D CW division wasn't created 4 nothing . Same argument holds also 4d LHW division (not 1 of d original 3) and 4 every division really .

 

I have never considered Heavyweights small. None of them. Even Mike Tyson compared to the average man is pretty damn big. Most men are not 200+ pounds.
Prime George Foreman was 6'4 and 225. Not small by any means. In fact,he would be taller than Povetkin,Haye,Adamek,Arreola,Sam Peter,Boytsov etc. And Old George was one of the heaviest. Weighing anywhere from 250-275! Liston was 6'1 but still not small. Liston and Foreman would still be among the hardest hitters if they fought today.
Like Wlad Klitschko said "any man has a chance if they weigh over 200 pounds and are determined." Many times the smaller guys win anyway. David Haye beat Valuev for example.
How many great heavyweights of recent times are super big? Only 4 as far as I'm concerned. Lennox,Bowe,Klitschko brothers.
The other big guys are big but they have no skill. Dimitrenko,Helenius etc. Most of the top contenders are not super big after all. Denis Boytsov is at largest 6'2 but he can hit harder than Valuev. He also is not really that heavy. Arreola is about 6'2 or 6'3 which is normal for a hw. I think at the end of the day,skill is the only thing that matters. **** height and weight because it is almost irrelevant.

 

I really think that Lewis and the Klits are freaks at least a little and ther is no one on the horizon that will be able to fight like them when the Klits go. They all three had the athleticism, size power and conditioning which no other fighters have. The closest seems to be Tyson Fury and really he doesn't seem even close, When the Klits retire it will be an interesting HW division.

 

I'd say that Tyson was an even 5'10. Even Spinks towered over him.
Foreman looked an inch bigger than Ali,Norton,Lyle etc and he looked the same size as the 6'4 Pierre Coetzer. I have heard that George was at shortest 6′3½″

 

I think Foreman was really 6'4 Foreman has been listed as both 6'3 and 6'4, and he was definitely taller than Ali, who was always listed as 6'3.

I think Marciano really was about 5'11, he wasn't more than an inch shorter than the 6' Jersey Joe Walcott.

Tyson was probably around 5'10, maybe half an inch taller.

 

This board is at its best when gentlemen are arguing over inches.

 

It isn't the volume of superheavyweights in my opinion, it's the consistency.

Prior to the 80's we had very few success stories, willard, carnera and that's it. That's 100 years of heavyweight history with 2 successful superheavyweights by today's definition.

Since then we've had 2 success stories in the 90's alone (bowe and lewis, maybe golota depending on how you view the bowe fights) we've also had 2 success stories in the 00's (wlad and vitali).

So we've gone from 2 in 100 years to 4 in 20. There are big contender types like dmitrenko, ustinov and valuev but I don't think they're noteworthy as most eras have had giants as fringe contenders.

My conclusion is not that heavyweights are getting bigger but that big heavyweights are getting better.

 

By brisk pace do you mean walking pace?

 

That's the germ of it. The very biggest of the big boys are showing more skill and athletic ability.

 

Well LEwis lost 2 by stoppage, Vitali lost 2 by stoppage, Wlad lost 3 by stoppage, Bowe lost 1 decision to a 210lb man and should have probably lost to Tubbs

Most would agree Haye is a level below Holyfield and Adamek is a level below Chad Dawson nevermind anyone else

 

This is the kernel of my theory of heavyweight detente... the combatants have gotten so damn big, so strong, that even the lesser skilled have a decent enough chance of KO'ing more skilled opponents with a single shot, or having a single shot lead to a stoppage. Now, I know physical strength does not always equate to punching power, but it does as a general trend equate to an increase of power. Somewhere along this power curve, the converse of this power, the head's ability to absorb punches, is bypassed geometrically.

 

It's a valid discussion when the thread topic is dealing with heavyweights and their physical dimensions. Instead of inches should we be talking about which heavyweight was the best cook?

 

Just to play devil's advocate here, I think Ali was actually 6'2". Does 1" make a difference in how we view a fighter? Of course not. But I've always found it odd how certain guys tend to fudge numbers a bit. And certain groupies just love to envision their hero fighter being bigger and more imposing than they actually are. I met Joe Frazier about 10 years ago at LAX airport where I worked. He was exiting a limo along with his son Marvis and referee Mills Lane. I'm not sure what the occasion was, but it might have been an Oscar DeLahoya fight. Anyways, Joe Frazier was not a tall man. I'm exactly 5'9 1/2" without shoes, and I was about even with Frazier. His son Marvis was a big dude, much bigger in person than he looked on video. And Mills Lane was downright small. I saw Ken Norton on another occasion. He was a big guy with a bit of a gut and, unbelievably, he was smoking a cigarette, which was strange considering how into fitness he always was.