Heavyweight size explosion in the early 1970s?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mrkoolkevin, Jun 9, 2017.


  1. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    Western world in general obviously but not North America according to The Data collected from the federal Centers for Disease Control.

    Their research shows that average height for Americans has stabilized in the past 50 years to about 5 feet 9 inches for men and 5 feet 4 inches for women. With 1% of men being 6’4”.

    The graph that showed increase for your data grouped Australia and NewZealand with North America. It was not specifically North America.

    Talking specifically about Americans the data I produced says: "We've pretty well maxed out in terms of stature. There's been little change in adult height over last generation," says William Leonard, an anthropologist at Northwestern University.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
  2. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,167
    13,157
    Jan 4, 2008
    True. But the combined population of New Zealand and Australia is not even a tenth of the size of the US population, so I'd be surprised if they stand for the whole increase (or even the majority of it) shown on the site. More likely that the two sources just differ.

    EDIT: Forgot about Canada - which population also is about a tenth of the US population in size. Still, though...
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
  3. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,167
    13,157
    Jan 4, 2008
    According to this source height in North America stopped increasing 30-40 years ago: https://www.scientificamerican.com/...r-countries-elevate-but-u-s-stature-tops-off/

    That would mean that the last North American generation that was taller than the one before was born 50-60 years ago, i e the late 50's through late 60's. That in turn correlates with the birth date of the American HWs that peaked during the early 80's through the early 90's.

    Since then North American dominance of the HW division has been on the decline (depending a bit on how you classify Lewis, but US dominance has certainly been declining). Not saying that's necissarily the cause, but food for thought nonetheless.
     
  4. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    Ah, good point. So Larry Holmes, kind of time?
     
  5. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,167
    13,157
    Jan 4, 2008
    Yeah, and the generation of skilled big guys that come up around the 80's and early 90's ('Spoon, Page, Dokes, Douglas, Bowe etc).

    There can be many reasons as to why American HWs haven't been as dominant since then, but it just struck me that the last great generations of American HWs correlates quite well with when height ceased to increase in the US according to some sources (especially if it flattened out 30-40 years ago - a bit less so if it flattened out 50 years ago).
     
  6. steve21

    steve21 Well-Known Member

    1,925
    3,385
    Jan 19, 2015
    I'll throw this into the mix - the emergence of HW boxers as more popular figures in media, and the growing paydays they promoted. If you're a big, athletic kid in the mid '70s, you're seeing Ali, Foreman, Norton, etc, getting a lot of attention and a lot of money. You can become a football or basketball player, and be just another member of a team, getting a share of the profits - or you can make your own payday, be the superstar and pocket all the money and, ah, other assets that go along with being heavyweight champ. Not that Liston, et al, weren't well known - but the popularity of boxing did seem to grow a lot during that era, and boxers stopped being seen as just pugs. I think that draw may have prompted larger athletes to pursue boxing as a sport ...

    Just my .02 -

    spt
     
    Pat M likes this.
  7. GlaukosTheHammer

    GlaukosTheHammer Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,055
    2,246
    Nov 7, 2017
    Industry in general

    Diet is too specific. It fits nice in this conversation because the focus is biggens exclusively. I reckon that's a mistake. To explain how or why we have more biggens you also need to explain how and why he have more of any type of human who is not the optimal survivor type. What I mean is it's easy for people to accept dwarves and ******s were not very plentiful because they died early. Biggens you get some argument sometimes, but are in the same category.

    So to explain why we have more biggens we should need to explain why we have anything other than 5 foot something one hundred something pounds of mentally capable of any sizeable population. Diet keeps them poor down's syndrome folks alive and happy?

    I reckon it's bigger, and I reckon with particular case, 1970s has more to do with the shifts in the Cold War than people are talking about.

    Medical gets too much credit in general. I am in medical, we just adapt what regular industries invent to our needs. It's industry that is the prime agent. Without reliable shipping you're still ****ed, Cold War.
     
  8. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    Right, but what if the results meant that the last increasing generation of Americans were already fully grown 50 years ago? This would make it an older group.

    That article talks about taking heights from 18 year olds.

    So it could mean the last generation were already fully grown men 50 years ago rather than new born babies 50 years ago.

    It actually could mean the American fighters born in the 1940s like Ali and Joe Frazier.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2018
  9. mrkoolkevin

    mrkoolkevin Never wrestle with pigs or argue with fools Full Member

    18,440
    9,587
    Jan 30, 2014
    That would be consistent with my original observation that the heavyweights of the early 70s as a group seemed significantly taller than their predecessors.
     
  10. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,167
    13,157
    Jan 4, 2008
    Yeah. If we go by 50 years ago, it would be the generation born in the 40's. Ali, Foreman, Lyle and Mathis, to name the tallest American top HWs of this generation.

    Interestingly, if you look at the site I first posted a link to, you can see that there's actually a dip right before that. That dip seems to consist of the generation born in the 30's, i e under the Great Depression. That could explain to some degree why average height apparently rose so sharply among the next generation of HWs - those born in the 40's. That they came directly after the generation born during the depression - which was unusually short.
     
  11. Bokaj

    Bokaj Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    28,167
    13,157
    Jan 4, 2008
    Yep, and that the preceding generation - born during the depression - was unusually short (see my post above).
     
  12. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    Yes the Max Baer, Braddock, Sharkey and Joe Louis generation were all strapping six footers bigger than the next lot of Charles, Marciano, Patterson who were barely or under six feet and they were kids of the 1930s. The standard of living obviously effected growth potential when they were growing compared to the generation just before and just after.

    Interestingly I read research showed that among immigrant families children that were born in Europe (ariving with their parents) grew up to be smaller than their siblings that were born in America. even though they had the same two parents. For generations America just got more growth potential out of people compared to other places.
     
  13. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    27,674
    7,654
    Dec 31, 2009
    That’s right. You were correct. So in light of this, shouldn’t the American heavyweight boxers coming after this have been no bigger or smaller than the late 1960s sized guys?
     
  14. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    113,116
    48,342
    Mar 21, 2007
    No, because the population of the world was growing on averge. The US doesn't have the market for top heavies cornered.

    More than that, height is an advantage in the sport, as long as it's properly co-ordinated.

    The spread of heights in population is approximately the same as always.

    In other words there are many many many more people over 6'3 than there were in the 1960s.

    More people over 6'3, more people who are properly co-ordinated.

    So, as the population grows, heavyweights get taller. But we've been through this.

    As the population gets bigger, 1% reveals a much larger number of tall people. US - which you seem fixated on - the population there has grown by 100,000,000. So that's a million more people to source fighters from of a certain height if we take your 1% figure at face value.

    Remember these parts:

    Taller people in the world than 1960 on average
    More people in the world
    More tall people in the world
    Taller heavyweights.
     
    GOAT Primo Carnera likes this.
  15. Sting like a bean

    Sting like a bean Well-Known Member banned Full Member

    2,047
    1,594
    Apr 9, 2017
    Here's the actual source. (It's always best to go straight to the horse's mouth.) The methodology they claim to use seems pretty sound, but I wish they'd be a lot more specific about their sources of raw data.

    https://elifesciences.org/articles/13410
     
    Bokaj likes this.