How many HW champions meet U.S. Army weight requirements?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by choklab, Aug 4, 2016.

  1. Legend X

    Legend X Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,315
    Likes Received:
    664
    Heavyweights got bigger, more muscular or fatter. Even so, there were loads of bulky heavyweights back in the old days.
    I'm not sure an in-shape Fury and certainly not Wilder are heavy for their heights either.
     
  2. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    27,674
    Likes Received:
    7,654
    This seems justifiable. Would you say the increase was deliberate? That slowly it was decided not to cut so much weight from an already big man? Perhaps it was discovered more could be achieved from the biggest men if their training was more tailored to their size, especially once 15 round fights became extinct?

    once this happened, do you think heavyweight boxing changed dramatically enough to favour a more stunted pace of explosive bursts. Perhaps longer armed heavyweights benefited from this more and the former physical ideals preferred for heavyweights changed. Trainers began to scout for Giants rather than more athletic traditional sized heavyweights.

    The giants had always been around in America since the overall growth increased only a couple of inches last century.

    Perhaps these factors could explain why Under traditional methods fighters from times gone by met these sorts of weight charts.
     
  3. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    28,145
    Likes Received:
    13,104
    Hard to say, but my best guess would be that it was a quite natural development after guys like Spinks and Holy had pioneered new methods that focussed more on strength and explosiveness than traditional endurance.

    I'd also guess (without having checked it out) that fighters have become somewhat bulkier even in lower weight classes. It's harder to do a straight comparison here since MWs like Jacobs are bigger in the ring than LHWs like Foster and Spinks were in the 70's and 80's. Hell, Conn could have fought at WW today and still be as big as he was in the ring with Louis.
     
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    113,044
    Likes Received:
    48,169
    To be clear, i'm not interesting in exploring any "tidbits" with you. You've been trying to have a conversation with me about heavyweight boxing throughout; i'm not having that conversation.

    My point was and remains that your claims about western heights having ceased increasing is wrong; that your fixation with 1960s as the point this began to happen (probably something to do with Marciano) is woefully inaccurate and that this has been demonstrated.

    That the continued increased size of people worldwide is what very likely has resulted in increased athletic excellence in big men; all of this was explained to you on something like page two of this woeful thread.
     
  5. Howitzer1888

    Howitzer1888 Active Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2017
    Messages:
    981
    Likes Received:
    795
    I would imagine the drop from 15 rounds to 12 rounds caused the increase in weight of heavyweight fighters today as well, as endurance becomes less important.
     
    reznick and choklab like this.
  6. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    27,674
    Likes Received:
    7,654
    Yes, I agree with this. Spinks then Holyfield changed the goal posts for what was achievable in boxing. Perhaps it begun before but the direction changed around that time.

    A flood of tall range boxers appeared in the ratings after this point. Mitch Green, Carl Williams, Ribalta, Tyrell Biggs not yet good enough to be champions but the next lot certainly were.
     
    Bokaj likes this.
  7. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    81,756
    Likes Received:
    22,009
    Hasn't this debate happened already?

    People are getting taller , the more tall people we have the more likely we are to find a tall person who can box well.

    Rounds went from 15 to 12, the less rounds we have the less focus we need on cardio and more on strength and power.

    I'm sure it's been done already.
     
    Howitzer1888 likes this.
  8. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    27,674
    Likes Received:
    7,654
    oh I see. The part where I produced research that says growth levelled out is not true anymore because of one inch of growth since from conflicting data? Two inches in America over last century explains the explosion in the size of heavyweights?


    I never used the word ceased. I repeated "levelled out" that came from the experts data that I produced. If I was mistaken enough to imply it had (by saying there was a cut off point) in order to ask where these Giants were before this point, I can't be bothered to go back and check, I can only be referring to the mention of the levelling out. Your data says minimum amount of growth. As for my 1960s obsession I am even willing to endorse the 1980s levelling out date from your data because even that point cannot explain where the bigger heavyweights were until then.

    But what you ignore is the last century. Where was the athletic excellence among big men last century in America? Especially when last century growth was just two inches for the overall U.S population. The growth after 1960 outside of America represents the rest of the world catching up with America then taking over after the U.S levelling off. Even now, after this taking over, the difference in size between Americans and the countries outside of it that actually produce champions is minimal.
     
  9. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    27,674
    Likes Received:
    7,654
    Yes it's been done already. Some joker re bumped this thread.

    It remains fascinating because all the big changes in heavyweight size seemed to happen at the end of last century in a country that had low level growth among humans within its population.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    113,044
    Likes Received:
    48,169
    You did not produce that data.

    You produced an interpretation of data. There is a very significant difference.

    You did produce data like "mr average uk is now x height" but the line "blah blah height has levelled off" is NOT data.

    Definition of data:

    facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis.

    I produced data. You did not produce any that matters.

    But you don't understand the difference. You'll be quoting that single line until kingdom come.

    What the actual data shows is that you are wrong. I'd express surprise that you've made this error, but it would be dishonest.

    "Levelled out" means ceased when a trace graph is concerned. That, specifically, is what it means. Ffs.

    You haven't produced any data (that matters).

    No, it doesn't. Christ.

    Some of the data i've produced shows enormous growth since the 1960s. In 1960 in Germany the average height of a man according to ourworlddata was 178cm. It's now 181. That's more than an inch. Russia's growth rate is even higher.

    Chocklab: what is wrong with you?

    That's fine; if you are able to admit you are wrong about American heights levelling off in the 1960s, mission accomplished, or at least part 1. Now if you can give some sign that you understand your claim about "the western world" is even more ridiculous, we'll be getting somewhere.

    Really read this part and try to take it in: i'm not talking to you about athletic excellence inasmuch as it pertains to anything apart from what you've got wrong about average height. Read that and really try to take it in. I've said it to you a couple of times before but really try and think what it means this time. I'm not forgetting anything: i'm just not talking to you about this.

    You are free to pursue whatever new fantasies this new understanding about world height increases at your leisure; i'm just talking to you about what you got wrong.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017
  11. Legend X

    Legend X Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,315
    Likes Received:
    664
    I think people are looking to hard to explain something that doesn't require much explanation.

    This is about all you need to know:

    1. The boxers got bigger because being bigger is an advantage more than a disadvantage.
    A good big man beats a good little man : It's generally true.

    2. Good big heavyweights came along from time and time and did well due to their size.


    3. At certain points in history enough big heavyweights come along concurrently and consecutively with enough success to cause some sort of "tipping point" whereupon the AVERAGE SIZE of ranked heavyweights is increased "permanently".
     
    McGrain likes this.
  12. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    81,756
    Likes Received:
    22,009
    I'm not gonna continue any debate with you on this matter. It's been done to death.

    Your obsession is a bit worrying and has no substance to it.

    Have a good day.
     
  13. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    27,674
    Likes Received:
    7,654
    I agree with all of this.... I just want to see the proof that worlds population suddenly supported a large enough number of these heavier giants all at the same time to cause this concurrency to create the tipping point.

    Please look at this link

    http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2016/05/people-much-taller-today-historically/
     
  14. Legend X

    Legend X Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2005
    Messages:
    6,315
    Likes Received:
    664
    It's irrelevant to me what "the world" produced, I'm dealing only with the world of boxing.
    It doesn't take an awful lot to cause the tipping point.
    For argument's sake, it happens "by chance" at first. Then the bar is raised. And that's that.
     
  15. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    81,756
    Likes Received:
    22,009
    A lot of this is basic statistics.

    Let's say 5% of the population are above 6'4.

    As the size of the population increases the amount of those tall people increases. As the amount increases the likelihood of finding better heavyweights within that sample increases.

    As more good tall heavyweights appear the smaller heavyweights feel they have to increase their own bulk to compete and level the playing field.

    I mean if I was going into the heavyweight division I'd wanna weigh around 230 pounds otherwise in giving up too much weight. Doesn't mean I can't weight in at LHW, just means I have a better chance of winning if I weigh more.

    I'm 6'2 so I'd have been a "giant" in the 1960's lol.

    Me being 6'2 and getting to 230 probably means I'm a believer in the Spinks experiment and have a lot of enhanced chemicals in my system. Clearly it doesn't mean I just eat more and train for strength lol.
     
    choklab likes this.