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

    6,315
    664
    Mar 18, 2005
    The way I see it : the increase in size of the general population should not be regarded as key.
    Once we start considering such statistics it opens up too much debate and uncertainty.
    We could talk about thousands of sociological factors and have half-baked theories that 'sound right' but prove nothing.

    Consider this ....
    The size of heayweight boxers could actually very well increase while the size of the "average man" decreases.
    That's like saying fashion models can get skinnier in a society where the average person is getting fatter.

    So, it's easier and simply explained if we stick to what actually happens in the boxing world.
     
  2. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    81,744
    21,994
    Sep 15, 2009
    But if a regular girl decides to become a fashion model she will also become very skinny to fit in with the trend of models. So that comparison still holds true.

    Boxers are a subset of the population. That is an unquestionable and undeniable fact.

    It also makes a lot of sense that in the heaviest division it will contain boxers who are the tallest in the sport. Tall boxers can only exist if tall men exist.

    The more tall men exist the more likely we are to see tall boxers.

    I agree with your tipping point theory though, I just think it occurred more naturally than Choklab does. If you have Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis at the top of the division, it makes sense that people fighting them want to weigh more.
     
  3. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    Ok will this do then? There's the same graph that you produced as well.

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

    ok if I said "it" levelled out when I should have said "it started to level out" please forgive me. But I have already said it doesn't matter even if this levelling began later. It still doesn't explain where the Giants were before this. As in the whole point of the thread.


    ok well here is a quote that says the same thing.

    "Things began to change after WWII. In the last half century or so, the average American height has more or less remained the same, while post-war Europeans have, on the whole, sprouted like crazy."

    This is taken from the link above that I produced and not dissimilar to what I have been saying. That the Americans were already towering above Europeans before they caught up and passed them.

    And I agree with the "enormous growth after 1960 in Germany and Russia" because the starting point of this growth outside of America was generations after America had already been producing the tallest people. There is research that groups the industrialised world, the west, together and it says...

    "In the 150 years since the mid-19th century, the average human height in industrialised countries has increased by up to 10 centimetres (3.9 in).[47] However, these increases appear to have largely levelled off."

    That's just from Wiki. But there are many other sources that say the same kinds of things.


    Again, my mentioning things I have read on the subject can be produced from many sources.

    "A century of trends in adult human height

    1. NCD Risk Factor Collaboration (NCD-RisC)

    RESEARCH ARTICLE Jul 26, 2016


    There were also variations in the time course of height change across high-income western countries, with height increase having plateaued in Northern European countries like Finland and in English-speaking countries like the UK for 2–3 decades (Larnkaer et al., 2006; Schönbeck et al., 2013), followed by Eastern Europe (Figure 7). The earliest of these occurred in the USA, which was one of the tallest nations a century ago but has now fallen behind its European counterparts after having had the smallest gain in height of any high-income country (Tanner, 1981; Komlos and Lauderdale, 2007; Komlos and Baur, 2004; Sokoloff and Villaflor, 1982)."
     
  4. Legend X

    Legend X Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,315
    664
    Mar 18, 2005
    Yes. That's precisely what I'm saying. That is the important part. That is factual and understandable.

    Yes.

    That is only factually true (proven even, through deductive reasoning) if everything else in "the world" ("society") stays exactly the same in relation to boxing.
    But that's not the case.

    We can discuss thousands of sociological factors that could off set each other. But it's a waste of time.

    Everything in boxing is natural on its own terms.
    I have difficulty understanding what choklab is even driving at with a lot of his "natural", "artificial", "functional" terms most the times.
     
  5. Legend X

    Legend X Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,315
    664
    Mar 18, 2005
    I will say :
    Anabolic PEDs do exist. There was a time when boxers did not have them.
    Weight training is openly encouraged more among boxers than in years gone by.

    But those facts are just details on how a boxer might gain weight these days.

    The why is more important. Why gain weight ?
    Answer: Because it can often help.
    And boxers always knew this. Boxers have always tried to alter their body weight, one way or another.
     
    McGrain likes this.
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,040
    48,160
    Mar 21, 2007
    Yes, this is exactly what I also said.

    It does nothing to address your repeating that people in the western world stopped getting taller. You can see people being charted as getting taller past 1960 in the graph you...have...now...posted.

    What. Are. You. Doing?
     
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,040
    48,160
    Mar 21, 2007
    It's so very simple. I said it on page 3:


    Boxing is basically an enormous petri dish for what works best in boxing. Styles, skills, the best ones rise to the top in a Darwinian experiment that identifies what is best for the sport - because the best guys win and people copy them.

    In other worlds, the experiment trying to uncover what is best for boxing - boxing - has indicated that carrying this artificial weight results in guys who are better, and this is borne out by their better results.

    In other words, if fighters were "better off" at 200lbs than 245lbs, there would be more 200lb champions at heavyweight.
     
    Bokaj and Legend X like this.
  8. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    well then evolution idea and the population getting bigger idea cannot be used if there is no growth to explain it. Is that the same as saying the Giants were always as big we just did not know they would make good boxers.

    there is truth in this.


    this is a good example. It's like saying females in the fashion industry are deliberately too skinny to meet U.S military Army requirements. Where as Boxers are deliberately too heavy to meet military weight requirements now.


    there is truth in this.
     
  9. Legend X

    Legend X Boxing Addict banned Full Member

    6,315
    664
    Mar 18, 2005
    That's perhaps a strange way of looking at it though.
    I doubt heavyweight boxers or female fashion models give a **** about about U.S army height-weght requirements.
    I doubt anyone cares about those requirements except potential recruits, recruiting officers ... and you !

    Heavyweight boxers have always sought to alter/adjust/maximize/optimize their lean weight.
    The only thing you can say now is that some of the best are better at it than anyone in the past.

    Mind you, most of them still probably spend more time shedding weight than putting it on.
     
    choklab likes this.
  10. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    goodness, shoot me down for saying that "people in the western world stopped getting taller"

    When What I should have said it the way it was written from the article...

    "In the last half century or so, the average American height has more or less remained the same"
     
  11. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    I think regarding health of the population, Doctors and dietitians are pretty keen on similar BMI charts as well..
     
  12. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    Yes. And if in 2035, a 210lb giant slayer wins the crown, the presumptions will change once again.
    All it takes is a small HW defeating a string of big guys for people to have a major psychological shift.
    Something I think many of us agree that a guy like Louis would be more than capable of doing.

    David Haye vs. Wlad Klitschko.
    Obviously he didn't, but imagine for a moment if Haye won that fight. He would've been the undisputed lineal champion. Then he would've beaten 300lb Valuev.
    Then he lose to 210lb Bellew.

    Something as small as that could influence opinions and theories on size limitations.

    As time goes by, our data pool enlarges.
    And we now know that a Joe Louis, being fully optimistic, is a once in a century guy. Perhaps we learn that he is even rarer than that. I'm not ready to close the book on the "bigger is best" discussion.

    If there is no serious sign of a sub 220lb HW dominator by 2040, however, it will be extremely difficult for me to uphold that view.
     
    choklab likes this.
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,040
    48,160
    Mar 21, 2007
    Yeah. Absolutely shoot you down for it. Especially when page after page after page you keep copying and pasting material irrelevant to that specific question instead of saying "oh yeah I got that wrong." I guess the closest we're going to get to an admission, complete with stammer, is this:

    As, to the below:

    You know how I always say you show a preference for material which backs your position, however spurious, in the weight of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? And you give me all this "who, me" bull****? Here is a splendid example.

    You've found two surmises - not data, surmises of data by third parties - which suits your agenda. For pages and pages, you have been continuing to show a preference for this vague surmise over concrete evidence to the contrary.

    "The last half century or so" (talk about woolly). This would mean that this sentence, which you have repeatedly propagated as truth, indicates that in the USA heights have not changed between 1967 and 2017.

    Ourworldindata shows that American average height continued to increase between 1967 and 1970. In 1970, average American height was measured at 178.3cm. By 1980 it was measured at 179cm. The graph you posted shows growth continuing until 1980 - sharply - at which point it begins to decline, pretty drastically actually, to a point between 2000 and 2010.

    Averageheight.com then tracks a new growth.

    This is literally as far away from "more or less remained the same" as it is possible to be. In terms of centimetres fluctuated, all the sources i've seen says that America has undergone a bigger fluctuation in height than probably any other country in the world.

    Giving this author all the credit I can muster, he may mean that American average height currently are a height that it was in the recent past rather than has gone up like almost the whole off the rest of the planet, but it's still an awful, clumsy sentence.

    But I bet - even in this thread, but I'd bet my home at some point down the line - you'll be quoting that line on this forum in some argument which, at route, will be about Rocky Marciano.

    It's absolutely crazy.
     
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,040
    48,160
    Mar 21, 2007
    Well, for you perhaps (though i'll bet not) and in the mainstream, but for me? Absolutely not at all. If 15 HW kingpins in a row are very big, and then one comes along that is very small, that's an anomaly. I said it elsewhere on the forum this week, but it would need 3 or 4 guys of that stature for me to start considering that there's been any kind of shift.

    It would be good news for smaller heavies and their believing in themselves, maybe, but in the end it's close to a statistical blip. One that i've absolutely no doubt will happen.

    All it takes is a small HW defeating a string of big guys for people to have a major psychological shift.

    I think you're right - on the forum, in the press, but not in my head and probably not in reality, either, though nothing's impossible.

    By 2040, I'd bet on a very significant HW who is significantly smaller than the other HWs doing very well. I think it's very very likely that that will happen. A Tyson, a Liston, hell even a Baer if the division is weak enough.

    But overwhelmingly, moving forwads, the majority of significant heavies are going to be big and very big.
     
    reznick likes this.
  15. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    15,903
    7,636
    Mar 17, 2010
    I hear you, and fair point.
    One case would indeed be an anomaly compared to the general trend.
    It will take a few of them for boxing trainers to look at 6'6 guys and say "So what?"

    Nonetheless, I think that if Haye were known as the best in the world for a period, and lost to a 210lb guy down the line after beating a 300lb giant, views would be different. Especially given he was a former cruiserweight, and lost to a 198lb cruiserweight.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2017