Heavyweight size explosion in the early 1970s?

Yes, yes, yes, now change what you put on my avatar.

So among the Americans, the pool gets bigger, the percentage stays the same. So why were not the tallest 1% beating the crap out of the shorter ones before this?

America had Terrell, Wepner, Alongi, Buddy Baer and any amount of Giants before this that all made the grade.

 

It’s been explained before but what you cannot answer is where was the dominance from 1% that buddy Baer and Terrell provided?

They made the grade. They were good too. If you doubled, trebled their number to beyond the 1% that exists even today do you really think they could have eclipsed the division back then?

“Athletically gifted ones” could just be an increase of guys benefiting from being big enough to realise their potential in a way they never could before.

You can’t say it couldn’t be.

Now change what you put on my status.

 

As said before "So three rare things - tall, athletically gifted". Its not only beeing tall, its beeing tall and carry functional weight -> tall and big. Terell and Baer would fight Cruiser today.
I don´t know where your 1% nonsense comes from. I told you before, if you decrease the hight mean (and weight) in a distribution by about 1-2 inch and keep comparable deviation you wil NOT get "the same 1%" : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution
There will be significantly less tall people. Add your athletics, growing big due to food, population size, popularity of boxing in culture and you will get nearly nilch Bowes, Lewis´ and Joshuas.

 

you seem not to understand there has been no increase since the kids born in the 1940s in America.

America dominated boxing last century.

In theory the best American boxers should never have got much bigger than Muhammad Ali since his generation was the last that had increased in height.

An increase in population (during a probable decrease in the American boxing population) does not explain why American boxers actually got bigger AFTER Muhammad Ali’s time.

So talking about decreases in American height (at a time when there was probably even more American boxers) to explain why guys the size of Terrell did not dominate earlier is sheer lunacy. The ratio was the same then as it is now.

They already grew big in America by the 1960s they were ahead of everyone back then. That’s when the Bowes and Lewis guys should have surfaced!

Why didn’t they?

Today boxing is in decline in America. There are no Dominating bowes or Lewis’s from America. Joshua is English.

 

Can someone please explain what anyone hopes to achieve out of this nonsense?
So what if heavyweights have gotten bigger, by whatever means or whatever reasons?
What does it honestly matter?

It's bad enough seeing the daily heavyweight garbage posted by the attention seeking idiots without this round in circles poop.

 

It matters if a new size of fighter exists only because of the time he exists otherwise what does “all time” mean?

 

And what exactly do you hope to achieve by it all?

 

According to Ourworlddata: https://d33wubrfki0l68.cloudfront.n...s-interpolation-baten-blum-2012-0-579x500.png
there has been an increase in height since 1940.

I see, your stuck to this ratio thing. Read here https://investing.calsci.com/statistics.html Height (and for our understanding weight) is normal distributed. And keep in mind: The width of the distribution (or probability to find very tall or very short people is extremely dependend on the standard deviation (STD). Your mean doesn´t tell the whole story if you simply do not know further distribution of your data. If you realy want to know how many SHWs existed back then you have to know the deviation sinces small changes are dramatic for the tails of the distribution!

You can add mean + standard deviation here and check what happens: http://onlinestatbook.com/2/calculators/normal_dist.html Check for probabilty for beeing height above (probability for beeing that tall or even taller)

For example, beeing born in 1930 with avarage height 173cm and STD of 3 inch (7,6cm) compared to born in 1960 with the same STD:

Probability to find men with >= 6`4" with mean 173 and STD 3" = 0,0029 -> 0,29% of men are 6`4" or taller

Probability to find men with >= 6`4" with mean 177 and STD 3" = 0,0128 -> 1,28% of men are 6`4" or taller

There is no ratio!!!! If the mean changes like 4cm you will get 4,5 higher probability beeing that tall or taller. But keep in mind if the STD changes your distribution tails change dramatically as well!

Today data: Probability to find men with >= 6`4" with mean 180cm and STD 3" = 0.0331 -> 3,31% of men are 6`4" or taller --> 11,4 times more SHWs than born in 1930. There is no ratio!!!

Now multiplicate the probability with the amount of people in the US: 1950 = 150M, 1980 = 225M, 2015 = 320M Lets say 1/6 of the population are men in the age for boxing.

In 1950 for 20 year old boxers: 72.500 men 6´4" or taller
In 1980 for 20 year old boxers: 480.000 men 6´4" or taller. (6,6 times more than 1950)
In 2015 for 20 year old boxers: 1.765.333 men 6´4" or taller. (24,3 times more than 1950)

The STV today is said to be 3 inch. If it was lower in 1900 - 1950 these numbers change even more towards less men beeing 6`4" !

 

Is somebody great because they are great or are they great because they “fight big”? And are they only big in the first place because of changes to the sport?

It would be nice to distinguish between these points.

And it’s not just to boost old champions either!

The thread asks what caused the size explosion in the 1970s decade. It’s saying why did that get so big all of a sudden. I think it is interesting to find out.

Another point I have yet to make is the invention of the SHW division in the amateurs. This improved big heavyweights immeasurably. Fighters get better fighting among men their own size. Tournaments for men that size improve big men. A fighter with a constant size advantage develops against smaller guys is less good than a big man who can win tournaments against other big men.

 

Could have been worse.
Could have had " stain " after it!

 

Hey, good info Mc!
Just changed mine

 

I tried that, it just asks if I want to cancel my avatar. I can’t do it. I never really liked what it said before, but it was definitely better than “wank”. I think it would be better if it said “cocoon of horror” that’s what I always wanted to change it to but never knew how.