Article: 'Resizing the Big Men' (Andrew Mullinder)

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by guilalah, Jul 15, 2016.

Page 1 of 4
  1. guilalah

    guilalah Well-Known Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    306
    Author speculates as to what size Sullivan,Johnson, Dempsey, Louis and Marciano might be if they had come along in the latter 20th Century. The author adjusts height by the changing American norms for male adults, and speculates that modern excercise and nutrition could have added 3 points to their BMI's.

    https://boxingwriter.co.uk/2008/09/12/resizing-the-big-men-jack-johnson-the-240lb-killer/

    One problem with the BMI speculation is that the author is modeling on Spinks, Holyfield and Roy Jones Jr. But these boxers were going from lower divisions (where they deliberately kept their weight within certain bounds) to heavyweight. The older heavyweight greats (Sullivan,Johnson, Dempsey, Louis and Marciano) were not operating within such constraints.
     
    guilalah, Jul 15, 2016
    #1
  2. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    71,500
    Likes Received:
    27,033
    I don’t agree with the conclusions.

    Average height has increased due to better nutrition, and we don’t know whether these guys were malnourished or not.

    Sure we could bulk them out a bit, but we don’t know what the results would be.

    The stats on Sullivan are way off.
     
    janitor, Jul 15, 2016
    #2
  3. Boilermaker

    Boilermaker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    9,372
    Likes Received:
    473
    i think Jess Willard is the most interestig fighter using these theories. How would potentially be 8ft tall today, which drasicallly changes his placement in modern head to head matchups.
     
    Boilermaker, Jul 15, 2016
    #3
    McGrain likes this.
  4. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2006
    Messages:
    71,500
    Likes Received:
    27,033
    Willard probably grew up in a food rich environment, so he likely attained his physical potential.

    A modern trainer would get him to a chiselled 145lbs however.
     
    janitor, Jul 15, 2016
    #4
  5. Gudetama

    Gudetama Active Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2017
    Messages:
    1,033
    Likes Received:
    906
    I just found this article through Google, and wanted to start a thread. But searched the forum and found this old one so just wanted to bump it. I found it completely fascinating. I don't agree with all of it. And I apologize to those of you who think this article is completely pointless. Because of the frequency at which some of the older heavies fought, I often favour them more than I should. Also, I'm just a skinny guy, and I know nothing about bodybuilding it nutrition. So if you think I'm just recommending this article to confirm my bias, you may be right. I apologize once more. But what do you think?
     
    Gudetama, Sep 30, 2017
    #5
  6. Mr.DagoWop

    Mr.DagoWop Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,129
    Likes Received:
    1,762
    My grandpa grew up dirt poor in an immigrant slum on the South Side of Chicago. I find it pretty far fetched to think that he would have been a couple inches taller had he grown up being properly nourished. The guy was the same height as me.
     
    Mr.DagoWop, Sep 30, 2017
    #6
    louis54 likes this.
  7. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    112,733
    Likes Received:
    47,520
    Why? You think it's impossible your dirt poor grandpa didn't receive the optimum amount of Vitamin D2, calcium and protein between birth and his sixteenth birthday? Surely that was very possible?

    And surely every nutritionist in the world would agree that these things are linked to growth? I mean even fat, if you're not getting enough when you're a kid, someone genetically identical who is getting the required amount will likely have a small advantage in height just due to the available energy in bolstering growth spurts.
     
    McGrain, Sep 30, 2017
    #7
  8. Knights107

    Knights107 Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2015
    Messages:
    450
    Likes Received:
    211
    Interesting.
    We must admit fighters back then training without facillities, supplements, & drugs or steroid !
     
    Knights107, Sep 30, 2017
    #8
  9. reznick

    reznick In the 7.2% Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2010
    Messages:
    15,903
    Likes Received:
    7,631
    Foreman ate trays of cheeseburgers during training.
    Marciano wasn't allowed an extra banana when he was hungry, and had to sneak them behind Goldmans back.

    Things to consider.
     
    reznick, Sep 30, 2017
    #9
    Mr.DagoWop likes this.
  10. Mr.DagoWop

    Mr.DagoWop Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,129
    Likes Received:
    1,762
    We share very similar genetics and I take after him very well. My dad grew up very poor too living off of potatoes, government powdered milk and beans as a kid. I doubt he would be way taller too. He's only a little bit shorter than me but that's because he got a little bit more of my grandma's genetics (she was 5' tall).

    I fully acknowledge that he didn't get the optimum amount of those nutrients. I just highly doubt that he would be much taller if he had. Sure he might have weighed more as a kid (he was very skinny) but I don't think he would have been taller.

    Had he been significantly shorter than me then I would absolutely agree but seeing as he wasn't and that we have similar genetics I just doubt it very much. Also seeing that there is no actual proof in things such as observable data, we are merely going off of what we predict would happen and going by that then humanity is seeing a downward trend in height.
     
    Mr.DagoWop, Sep 30, 2017
    #10
  11. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    112,733
    Likes Received:
    47,520
    Maybe not much taller, I don't know enough to say. But taller. That's just biology. I mean depending, there's no way for us to know exactly what he ate, but all things being equal.
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
    McGrain, Sep 30, 2017
    #11
  12. Mr.DagoWop

    Mr.DagoWop Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,129
    Likes Received:
    1,762
    And I just don't think it would be anything very noticeable. Not 3 inches like the guy in the article is saying.
     
    Mr.DagoWop, Sep 30, 2017
    #12
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    112,733
    Likes Received:
    47,520
    Well it's hard to be sure because neither of us is a biologist, but it's known that poor nutrition stunts growth - i mean it's a thing, it's an accepted thing in nutritional science

    Livestrong.com: "Nutritional deficiencies can significantly stunt growth, resulting in short stature, delayed development and poor weight gain."

    BBC: "Poor Nutrition Stunting Growth...Poor child nutrition still causes major problems in the developing world - despite some progress, experts say...It also reveals 195m children - one in three - have stunted growth...Rates of stunted growth are higher because while some children may be a normal weight - in fact some can even be overweight - the food they are getting is of such poor quality they they have growth problems."

    Guardian article about stunted growth in children from Bangladesh due to poor nutrition: "According to Save the Children, 48.6% of children under five in Bangladesh are stunted or short for their age."

    This is just a cursory google of course. But I have to question why the media would be reporting on stunted growth caused by nutritional deficiency, using words like "major problems", "growth problems", "stunted or short", "significantly stunt growth" if we were talking about a different that was not noticeable.
     
    McGrain, Sep 30, 2017
    #13
  14. Mr.DagoWop

    Mr.DagoWop Boxing Junkie banned Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,129
    Likes Received:
    1,762
    Of course, I understand that poor nutrition stunts growth. Not challenging that at all but you have to know that its not like you eat poor quality food for a few weeks and all of a suddenly your 3 inches shorter than you would be had you ate right.

    You have to ask questions when reading these articles.

    What is their definition of nutritional deficiencies (to what degree)?

    Did BBC do studies on every child in the world? Or even 195 million?

    Bangladesh is a notoriously poor country. Arguably worse living conditions than the vast overwhelming majority of people in the US faced in the 20th century.
     
    Mr.DagoWop, Sep 30, 2017
    #14
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    112,733
    Likes Received:
    47,520
    Certainly nobody is saying that. Unless that's what you meant? When you said your grandpa was dirt poor i assumed that it was assumed that he ran at a nutritional deficit for the entire period he was growing up, not two weeks.

    Nutritional deficiencies in children leads to shorter adults in the talent pool. I think that's established, and that is all I meant to establish. I think, yes, this would be a matter of inches given the language that is used to describe nutritional deficiencies and the resultant stunting of growth but whether that is 1.5 or 3, i've no idea.

    Yeah, if your grandpa ate better than people in Bangladesh, i'd expect him to be less affected.

    But that's the entire point.
     
    McGrain, Sep 30, 2017
    #15
Page 1 of 4