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

Very nice post!
I would just say that punching power like muscle mass & natural androgen levels tends to be correlated with a bigger bone structure.
And more gracile bone structures often have better stamina.

Lastly, many measurements are just wrong.
Qawi was a much larger man than Mayweather.
But I do not believe Mayweather has 8" wrists.

 

Baker was featheristed.

Satterfield China-chinned.

All the taller guys had fatal flaws.

What is the deal here? Have none of you heard of Mike Tyson? Joe Frazier? Evander Holyfield. It just isn't always the biggest guy that is the best. What else is there to say?

 

13%.

And the answer it, because they were interested in doing it. Boxing is now an international sport with not only African Americans, but also Africans. They are not dominating in any division until you get down to welter, and few below that.

Boxing is dominated by the groups among which it finds popularity.

 

I can't let this pass without a comment. The conclusion you draw from my above post is your conclusion. That you draw a racial conclusion is up to you and you only.

When I maintained that the heavyweight talent pool increased due to the fall of the color line, the rebuttal was this only seemed to be true because the superior American white ethnic heavyweights abandoned the sport. My reply was that no where in history did the American white ethnic heavyweights prove this superiority. Instead they created the color line. To argue that the domination by African-American heavyweights after the fall of the color line is a historical accident is at best without historical backup and at worst twisted.

My post was my reading of the facts of history. Sullivan, Jeffries, Dempsey, and Tunney, because of the color line, never beat the best black challengers out there. That is my reading of the historical facts. If my historical evaluation is wrong, please present the historical evidence to rebut me. Don't turn a factual debate into a racial debate.

 

I was addressing the champions of the color line era who claim greatness or for whom greatness is claimed by their supporters--Sullivan, Corbett, Jeffries, Dempsey, Tunney.

Wlad, Vitali, and Fury all rose to the top of heavyweight division in a non-color line era so they are not relevant to that discussion. Nor, to be clear, is Marciano.

 

Non -Color era - Are you serious?
I did not realize that they never fought black fighters. When did segregation come back during their reigns?

 

No, that wasn't my rebuttal.
I pointed out that those things coincided, and there were other factors too.

 

I don't want to reply other than to say read again carefully

I posted "non-color line era"

In other words an era in which there was not a color line so the color line issues did not apply to them.

 

It's fair to doubt the champions were the best.

But I don't see why we should ignore other factors are at play when discussing shifts across several eras.

Like I alluded to earlier, the 1970s-80s ranked heavyweight division was dominated by African-Americans (Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Tyson at the top, and a whole host of good contenders with them) ..... but hasn't been dominated by African-Americans in the 2000s .... we can pick on one or two factors (the opening up of former "East Bloc", a better Olympic/amateur boxing program in the UK) and conclude the African-Americans of the 70s/80s were "protected" by the failings of the wider boxing world.
I've heard that argument.
BUT I don't buy it as a total explanation, at all.
I think it's obvious that the USA and "African-America" in particular just doesn't produce the same fighters it did. For a variety of social and cultural reasons, perhaps complex, I don't know.

I think it's equally obvious that the "white America" produced better fighters pre-WW2 than by the 1980s, even though I acknowledge that the racial discrimination on the heavyweight title was an obvious factor that skewed the picture and made it "whiter".

 

Training like an animal doesn't hurt if you're a bit smaller, Marciano, Duran (Leonard 1), Tyson etc.

 

"It is fair to doubt the champions were the best"

Curiously. Can you name ONE successful title defense by the white champions from Sullivan to Braddock against a black man. I can't and I don't think there is one. If you go from Sullivan into the 21st century, only Marciano successfully defended the title against black challengers.
That being the case, what proof of superiority or being the "best" does one have? My point is there is just not any evidence of it.

"(Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Holmes, Tyson at the top, and a whole host of good contenders with them)"

Between 1930 and 1937 the champions were Schmeling, Sharkey, Carnera, Baer, and Braddock. Schmeling and Carnera were Europeans. So the American ethnic champions during this seven year stretch were Sharkey, Baer, and Braddock. If one takes the seven year period from let's say 1962 to 1969, the champions would be Liston, Ali, an Frazier. A similar seven year period in the 1970's would produce Ali, Frazier, and Foreman, plus Norton. In he 1980's it would produce Holmes, Spinks, and Tyson.

Now the reason I posted is that the premise of another post was that the high activity level in the 1930's somehow indicated that the 1930's were sort of a golden age of heavyweight boxing, compared to the post-war period. But the factors you name would have continued and indeed accelerated as we moved toward the end of the century. But it isn't even plausible to me that the 1930's heavyweights were better than the later men you named, and so I don't think, for one reason or another, that this theory holds water.

"the racial discrimination on the heavyweight title was an obvious factor that skewed the picture and made it 'whiter""

I agree with this, except I would go further. There is no evidence it would have been white at all. Now lack of evidence is not proof of the opposite, but lack of any evidence is not something one can base any claim on. That is the historical cost of the color line.

 

Probably because the overwhelming majority of boxers come from impoverished backgrounds. All the way from the beginning of boxing to the present day really regardless of color. When the children of immigrants of the 20th century gained status and wealth theres a noticeable correlation in the shifting of demographics in boxing beginning in the 50s and 60s. African Americans are really the only ethnic group that hasn't been able to gain as much status and wealth as a whole through the generations. Mainly because of systemic reasons and also in part because of cultural unfortunately.

Essentially, African Americans make up a disproportionate percent of people living in poverty. As already explained, boxing tends to draw from people that live in poverty. Therefore it isn't surprising that more black people make up more boxers and therefore more all time great fighters. Also African Americans are more drawn to sports as well. Probably because of cultural reasons.

It has nothing to do with racial superiority that you seem to be suggesting. Boxing must be really hard for you to watch. Instead of a contest of skill and sport, you see a battle being waged for racial superiority. Quite tragic. No race is inherently better than another. People are just people.

 

Nationality and ethnicity are two completely different things. You carefully took out Schmeling from the list because he knocked out Joe Louis and that blows your theory that the top fighters wouldn't have been majority white out of the water. Not that it matters anyones race. Black people came to dominate the heavyweight scene as white people were leaving the sport in general. As mentioned regarding the fall of the soviet union and eastern bloc countries, we see a drastic shift. The Klitschkos ruled the heavyweight scene for years and we now have Tyson Fury as arguably the top heavyweight in the world. We'll find out if him and Joshua fight.

But at the end of the day fighters are fighters. Ethnicity shouldn't matter at all. One way or the other. I hate that the color line was drawn but theres no point dwelling on it.

 

I believe Mayweather is taller with a greater wingspan than Qawi. That's the point. Qawi is still a bigger man.

I believe Pacman does have 8" inch wrists. That's the point.

 

"You carefully took out Schmeling from the list"

Schmeling was not a white American ethnic, and by the way is rarely considered by many a peer of Sullivan, Jeffries, Dempsey, or Tunney despite the KO of Louis. Schmeling was a European fighter. Europeans, and other white fighters outside the United States, with the possible exception of Britain (I really don't know about that. Perhaps a British poster could comment), did not, I think, usually draw the color line. Burns, Carpentier, Uzcudun, Schmeling, Carnera, etc of the color line era heavyweights did not draw the color line, so they don't apply.

"Nationality and ethnicity are two completely different things."

Exactly. I am posting about white, ethnic AMERICANS who drew and hid behind the color line and thus did not fight the best available opposition.