According to the normal distribution of height (mean = 5'8"), why didn´t the 6'2" HWs dominate 50s?

What was childhood nutrition and illness like in The Great Depression? What were birth rates like 20-30 years before the 50s?

 

Marciano KOs Lewis in 6.

 

Because a 5'10 Heavyweight was greater than most 6 ft heavys before or since. Another idiot thread. This will be a dumbass year.

 

I'd say nutrition is the biggest factor along with genetics (obviously) to determine height these days. Access to western nutrition and consumption of certain food products seems to accelerate growth. Taller people in the past seemed to be lanky, unathletic, and uncoordinated... Today you'll see athletic guys over 6'2".

I also feel like within the past 10 years or so the newer generations are averaging at least 6' in Western nations. Im about 6' and I feel barely average around 20 year olds. You'll also notice that taller older guys are lanky and skinny compared to younger guys their height who are well built and well proportioned

 

But not with an uppercut right?

 

I think that the boxing talent pool was significantly bigger in the 30s than it was in the 50s.

That might have resulted in more decent big heavyweights, counteracting the natural trend.

 

This is a highly interesting thread. I am going to have to give it some serious thoughts before adding my opinion.

 

It's worth noting that the vacant heavyweight world title in 1956 was contested by an OLD MAN (born 1913 or 1916) who was a light-heavyweight (a middleweight in his prime), and a young man (born 1935) who was probably still bulking himself out of those lower classes and was never much more than a light-heavy.
Were these really the two best "heavyweights" in the whole world at that time ?

 

I think Archie Moore is relevant to this thread.
Not only was a fighter "from the previous era", he was also a small guy who eliminated some of the 6'2 and 6'3 men of the next generation. Which suggests a dip in quality of the average heavyweight from the pre-ww2 days.

 

More likely and reasonable, Archie Moore was a bad mother****er. That's like saying there was a huge quality dip at welterweight in 1980 because Duran was champion as a smaller man.

 

Bob Baker, born 1926.
Coley Wallace, born 1927.
These are the generation who should have been dominating the early-mid-1950s, if being 210 pounds and 6'3 is a clear advantage on being 188 and 5'11 or whatever ....

This content is protected

And, let's be honest here, Baker is no Cassius Clay but he doesn't look worse than the Ernie Terrells, Cleveland Williams types, nevermind the likes of Amos Lincoln and Buster Mathis Jr. who were around through the 1960s.

Perhaps the likes of Marciano and Moore were freaks of nature, as was Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali in the next decade.