I'm listening to a song about Joe Louis from 1943 (I know, I'm nuts). And one of the first lines is "Joe Louis weighed only 205 pounds." And me being an over compulsive boxing fan, took that to mean that general consensus may have been that a 205b HW was small. What do you guys think? Was 200-210 considered small for a heavyweight in the 40's?
200 pounds isn't small. Look at the two most successful CW fighters. Both weighed 190-200 and bulked up easily to 220 and looked strong and ripped. These men are not small. Louis could put muscle on and weigh 225 easily. Even now he wouldn't be small.
Louis was taller than listed Imo, I've seen plenty of videos where he's as tall as the likes of Ali and Norton.
I have looked into the sizes of people through different time periods and the size of humans has not changed much the last 100 years. Sure people were lighter due to having more physical work and less junk food,but they wre close to the same height.
It wasn't big but it wasn't small. Louis had 26 title fights; his opponent was over 200 pounds in 11 of them with another at 199.5 So it was good sized.
No, 200 pounds was good size for a long time. If you look at Louis' opponents. Buddy bear and Abe Simon we're the only outliers there Joe Frazier was probably the last sub 200 heavyweight to win a title fight under 200.
The continual expansion of the universe must be compensated for in your equation of height and weight. Louis was an easy 6-4, 240. Abe Simon was 12 feet tall and part Grizzly Bear.
Here's a nice photo of the height differences of some ATGs! http://dugger-s-ranch.2299399.n4.na..._Willard%2C_Jack_Dempsey_and_Jim_Jeffries.jpg In order: Willard, Baer, Jeffries, Dempsey, Carnera
that "only" could have referred to Joe loosing a few pounds from his last fight for all I know :think in other words, dont read too much into it.