How did super heavyweights suddenly improve?

I have love for the old-timers but this notion that is all to common around here - that boxing is the only sport that doesn’t evolve is beyond absurd.

 

They really didn't. What I think we're seeing is them being more common. This is in part because people are bigger on average and in part because of CW filtering out the smaller guys. When super heavyweights were rare the best two division guys could typically deal with them because it was an occasional thing. When SHWS become the norm those guys are pushed down which in turn made the HW population larger and larger and it kind of snowballed. Especially with CW as an option. Todays smallest HWs while bigger than the LHW/CWs aren't as good or as quick and the bigger guys can handle them more easily. Todays smaller HWs are typically bloated 6 ft 2ish guys and in terms of indivudal fights thats more advantageous for the giants.


Another factor is guys of all sizes today favor heavier builds than they did in the past. A lot of the giants in the 1910s and 1930s were fighting really light for their size compared to someone with that frame today. This made the impact of their size advantage smaller. When you look at the weight the smaller HWs were giving up in the 10s and 30s in many cases they'd be facing double the gap against the same people in the 21st century because those fighters would put on muscle that just wasn't the norm back then unless you had an eating problem.

 

It's to do with nutrition and quality of life as an infant, not biology.

 

I agree, boxing clearly does evolve, but I think people have forgotten what the word evolve means. It does not mean improve; it means change gradually for survival via adaption and natural selection. Boxing has been doing that for hundreds of years.

Boxing, like all sports, has had to adapt to steroids, better nutrition, improved knowledge of strength and conditioning, rule changes, etc. it's also had to develop from a sport like football, baseball or rugby where there's contests every week or two, to a sport where you train for a single contest every few months. That massively changes training.

A fighter who gets 12 weeks in advance to cut weight and peak his physical attributes and athleticism (with the massive advantage of steroids), is gonna look much better than a guy who accepted a fight on two weeks notice and just stays around the weight he has to fight at. But on the flip side, a guy who fights 15-20x a year, is gonna be a lot more comfortable in a ring with a guy trying to beat him than a guy who replaces that competitive practice with sparring.

Footage and general infrastructure has improved too, obviously. We're not seeing every nuance of a fighter from 1903 like we would for say, Lomachenko. Camera speed, sound, quality, colour, camera angles, lighting etc. All of these things have allowed us to see what a fighter is doing with much greater quality. As is equipment and technology in general.

It's far from as simple as "boxing has evolved, boxers from the past suck".

 

I agree Swag, though I generally steer clear of such discussions.

Personally, I'm far more interested in what fighters achieved in their own eras and limit my cross era comparisons, and all time rankings, to how great each was in their own time.

Each fighter prepared themselves utilising what was available to them in their own time, with the purpose of succeeding in the environment of that era. Which is why I limit analysis of their careers and all time standings to what they actually achieved in their own era, and completely disregard predicted outcomes in cross era fantasy fights.

 

this is true, on the other hand, boxing is much more complicated than other sports and pure physicality is not that important here. For example, Holmes, Foreman or Hokins who practiced athletics - high jump, long jump, sprint etc., at the age of 40 would be very far from their best days, and in boxing they were quite close despite losing many motor skills. Motor skills in boxing are simply not that important. Quite a lot is the routine acquired with fights, and there used to be more of them. The heart to fight and the character are very important, and let's be honest, in the past people were simply more hardened. They weren't that concerned about the injuries. They had more determination because life itself was more difficult. Nobody cared about appearance, broken nose, broken teeth, etc. as much as today. The judges allowed more and I think that many good cyclists today would not feel as comfortable as they used to. In boxing, psyche, character, and the heart to fight are more important than in other sports, and here you can't think that there has been progress, there hasn't been.
The second thing is popularity and, consequently, the sports level. Boxing used to be probably more popular than it is today, it didn't have the competition of MMA, football, baseball, basketball, etc. Boxing stars were bigger stars overall. And to be the best you had to fight against the best, sometimes many times.
I agree that we are developing in sports, but in boxing the progress is slower.

 

Seems like no one wants to point out the most obvious answer there is.

The rules changed. Timing and the creation of divisions. LHWs do well at HW until CW is made. Then CW takes over as the small HW feeder division for HW. Now BW is a thing and like magic the small end of HW is just tipping over 220.

 

which, honestly, seems dumb. Like letting those boys loose wouldn’t have brought sports glory to the USSR? Look at how damn good it turns out these guys are.

 

Probably not, imo. Once you get above well above 200lbs, anything can happen and weight matters a lot less. It's almost like a different sport imo, the skill is lower and speed is even more important.

But I thought an example of absolutely ****ing huge guys getting beat in pride. Fedor & Nog beating Choi & Sapp for example.

 

Some people already claim that. Especially when Fury was on top. I think a more rational take is one like George's here.


Somethings are like, c'mon you guy, I know you structural integrity. I shouldn't have to tell people with size comes weaker bones and when I do it certainly should not be challenged, but go abouts telling people size ever has any deficit at all and you'll get argument.

The balance of time and size could potentially make it so Tyson's less favored, like if you make the rounds just 30 seconds and give the breaks 20 minutes then a fat ****er has a chance against Tyson but to make it so Tyson's not viable ... I dunno ... I'd argue Marciano can and would kick the **** out of Fury TBH.

The only way mike Tyson gets sized out is by weight disparity laws and such nonsense. If you track Butterbean or Valuev you'll find they had to get exemptions for their fights often, because anything more than a 60 pound disparity is generally illegal. Not against the rules, but against laws.

So, imo, the fact that no 180 ever challenges any 220 has far more to do with weight divisions, minimums, exemptions, and commissions than any actual biological advantage.


Marciano's 925 is death for any man. Only supercars put out similar power. Supercars and really big trucks. Small cannons are just above him. Most firearms are significantly beneath him. At 185. He can still murder any man at any size and those long bones break easier than the bones he did break.


So why no modern Marciano? They shortened rounds and sized them out with laws and divisions. His entire career would be wrapped up in pulling exemptions.



If you look at boxing deaths, it's still the smaller guys. Big dudes are not and never were killers. Weight divisions changed nothing but who can fight who. Small dudes still dying quite a lot more than anyone else. Fly and below.

 

The average height is greater today in most countries.

 

Someone eventually figured out that even if you’re big you still have to be able to move, defend and know how to fight. If primo Carnera had an Emanuel Steward as a trainer from the very beginning he likely never would have lost in that era