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

Just going to put out this is absolutely wrong as frame and numerous variables come into play when determining functional weight. The wrist measurement frame test isn't even reliable as Manny Pacquiao has 8 inch wrists but clearly has a smaller frame than fellow 5'5" man Qawi.

Height and wingspan doesn't fair much better. I don't think anyone really believes that 5'8" 72" wingspan Mayweather could carry more functional weight than 5'5" 70" wingspan Qawi. It is obvious one man just has an exceptionally larger overall frame.

What is functional weight in boxing anyway? The effectiveness of punching power, stamina and durability at a given weight class which isn't necessarily tied to frame. And do fighters even care about that? What's more important to picking a weight class? Functional weight or opportunity to cash in on a title. Or perhaps maybe, they just want to compete in a weight class where they hold more physical advantages than their opponents. Would Mayweather be so eager to jump up to Welter if it was an era dominated by Hearns, Leonard, and other bigger men? Probably not.

 

There's no doubt, that activity in the US took a huge nosedive following WW2.

By 1955 the number of promotions was less than 1/5 of what it had been 25 years earlier, in 1930.

Does this mean, that the number of HWs had shrunk this much as well? Not necessarily... it's impossible to say, really (unless you count every active HW in both 1930 and 1955; a truly colossal task!). But I would guess, that a significant reduction must have taken place.

 

I would guess there were more promotions in the 1930's than the 1970's. So you think the heavyweights of the 1930's were better than the heavyweights of the 1970's?

I think the number of promotions is less important than the quality of the men fighting.

Wouldn't this basically be true in any sport. Does the number of colleges playing gridiron football really matter when there are only a handful which have any chance to be the national champion?

I think to rise to the top in boxing or any other sport requires more than being part of a larger number. It requires that the participants have the basic athleticism to be a champion. My guess is the participation in Mexico was often greater than in the US, but Mexican heavyweights have rarely amounted to much. Clearly African-American heavyweights have always been significant, and often, I would say usually, been dominant. Or to put it another way, dragging in large numbers of men doesn't mean anything if they aren't athletic enough to amount to anything. The problem with the 1930's prior to Louis is that the heavyweights fail the eye test. They just don't seem that talented or skillful.

Or the talent in a talent pool isn't dependent on the numbers in the talent pool.

 

"loads of African-American heavyweights in the 1930's"

I don't think this is actually true, but even if it were, so what if they didn't have access to top training and had to participate in a separate "colored" division. How many African-American heavyweights were actually rated in the 1930's?

That there ever was a color line tells you all you need to know about the relative competitiveness of African-American versus white fighters. Did African-Americans ever draw a reverse color line?

"hungry white 'sons of immigrants' "

Who created the color line. Why did they do that? Is it JUST a coincidence that once the color line fell, so did their dominance?

 

I thought you didn't want this to become another Marciano thread, weirdo.

Just couldn't help yourself, can only mask your true obsession and agenda for so long.

 

It's a factor.
But the economic rise of the whites ethnic minorities out of the slums is a bigger factor, don't you agree ?

 

Lewis was knocked out twice, once cold. What happens when a granite chinned wrecking ball gets to his chest and throws bombs for 12-15 rounds?

 

Height only matters if you can use it to your advantage.

Tyson was a shorter heavyweight ... He used his height to his advantage... It was easier for him to duck punches

Vitali was a tall heavyweight ... He used his height to his advantage with his lean back style ...

 

According to both what I know & your the words before the chart you posted, the average American man is 5' 10", not 5' 10"-5'11".
If you look at the chart itself, it actually shows that the greatest # of men are either 5' 9" or 5' 10".
This accords to my understanding: among those born recently the average is right around 5' 10" or marginally higher.
If you average in older men &/or enough immigrants from nations where the nutrition is less adequate, the average is around 4' 9".

This is a small difference from the slightly higher number you claimed, but it is important to be accurate.

 

Up until about 25 years ago the height of every hw champion basically (except Primo and Willard) was 5”10- 6”3 range. The creation of the cruiser division, prominent steroid use, weight lifting, better nutrition, and the elimination of 15 round and longer fights has allowed men to balloon to larger proportions. If these men had to fight 20
Rounders I don’t think they’d be so big. Probably have to balance it out better. We have had a recent 6”2 champ in Ruiz who was morbidly obese. That and a serious question arises as tot be truth of these men’s heights. Which messes up the average. Having met some of these guys and hearing from others many of their heights are exaggerated by an inch or two (some are honest I’m sure).
But to answer your question Marciano Moore Liston and Patterson were just better then the Ninos and Bakers of the time. More of a skill era then an athletic one.

 

No. I don't. Because what is the evidence that these white ethnic minorities were ever producing the best heavyweights? Sullivan? He refused to fight Jackson. Corbett? He went to a ND with Jackson and then refused to fight him for the title. Jeffries? Refused to defend against Johnson and heavy-handedly drew the color line. When Jeffries came back to fight Johnson he was uncompetitive. Dempsey? Didn't fight Wills. Tunney? I don't think he ever fought a black man.

Hart and Willard? First, do they quality as white ethnics? Second, Hart won a dubious decision and Willard a stacked deck finish fight with a 37 year old and out of shape man.

The wins one can point to are against men long past their best. Jeff beat a long laid off and washed up Jackson. Johnson was 37 and out of shape against Willard. Sharkey beat a 37 year old Wills months after Tunney made it publicly clear that Wills would never get a title shot.

Sharkey over Godfrey. Perhaps, but Godfrey also lost to Renault and Risko, second level white fighters. Who knows how good he was? If he wasn't wearing the cuffs against Sharkey.

The only white fighters with big wins over top young black fighters were the Europeans Schmeling and Johansson in a first fight with both being destroyed in rematches.

Marciano? As his critics dwell on, he beat aging black fighters, but they were at least the best men available at the time and at the top of the heavyweight division.

So I would say there is scant evidence indeed for any of these American white ethnic fighters ever being the best out there with the singular exception of Marciano.

 

Do we really try to sell that black men are better in boxing than white men?

 

Wlad , Fury and Vitali have entered the chat