How do they take "bicep" measurements for stats?

Looking at the HBO stats from the Hopkins-Tarver fight here:

http://www.hbo.com/boxing/events/2006/0610_tarver_hopkins/tale/index.html


Lists Hopkins bicep measurement as 13". Got Tarver at 15".

Now on fight night I was absolutely certain Hop's arms were bigger than Tarvers (his waist looked thinner though).

I mean look:

This content is protected

I'm dead set that Hopkin's arms were bigger than Tarver's.

How do they take this "bicep" measurement? Is it around the highest peak of the upper arm all the way around the tricep?


And btw how confident are we this is B-Hop's actual bicep measurement?

 

Must be bigger than 13"! That's TINY!

EDIT: But then these aren't big guys.

It would be tensed in the mannor they do after the weigh in.

 

13 seems small for B-Hop.
He's 6 feet tall and kind of muscular.

 

wow...who cares...his arms have more mass...

 

ripped muscle...6ft tall 175...13 is bout right

 

I believe the measurement is of an unflexed bicep, and 13" is larger than average.

 

who gives a **** about bicep size?

 

I'm sure he doesn't either (as far as boxing goes) but just intreagued as to how it's measured as to be fair, it does look wrong...

Chill bro!

 

What you so riled about? :blood

 

Larger than average but did seem small given his frame - also in reference to Tarver who is listed at 15".

Then again, if you're right, we are talking unflexed.

 

Really? That's strange as that would not be a particularly accurate way of doing it, flexed is the way it should be done.

And neither of those fighters have a 15" un-flexed arm, that's for sure...

 

Any reason it should be flexed?

I mean related to boxing?


I wonder how much it differs off-fight season.

 

That's impossible. I'm 6 foot, haven't lifted more than 6 months in my life and my biceps are there unflexed. They don't look anywhere as imposing as Hopkins' in the fights.