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

I don't understand the argument anymore. All I'm saying is no fighters that were 6'1 back in 1910 are going to be 6'4 today because of better nutrition. Do you agree or disagree?

 

Of course they could be. A lot of things could happen but is that the most likely outcome? Not in my opinion.

My evidence was my grandfather and father being malnourished as children yet growing to a height that was practically identical to mine.

 

Of course he isn't identical genetically but phenotypically we are pretty damn close. Same hair type, eye color, height, weight (throughout ages). Our bodies seem to have followed the same trend in terms of growth.

 

This content is protected

 

But who is to say that Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Sullivan and Marciano all were malnourished to the point that they missed out on 3 inches of height growth in some cases?

I can believe that Dempsey was malnourished to the point where he was significantly smaller than he could have been but Marciano? Louis? C'mon, those guys grew up poor but they didn't grow up poor to the point where they had significantly stunted growth. Marciano was noted for being a stocky kid. Dempsey is perhaps the only one that was malnourished an insane amount being 6' .75" and 130 lbs as a 16 year old.

You'll probably notice that the amount of malnourishment that Americans have gone through causes a person to be very skinny in an unhealthy way rather than stunt growth. To stunt growth a person would have to be majorly malnourished, to the point that we just don't see here in America. It's more of a problem in places like Asia and Africa.

 

This content is protected

 

I think that, aside from the malnutrition and it's connotations of poverty, the article is also drawing attention to the growth of the typical individual within the human race as a whole. Even a perfectly healthy and wealthy Dempsey or Johnson would probably be taller and heavier now. Just as a perfectly healthy and wealthy Lewis or Ortiz would probably be shorter and lighter had they been born back then. They would always be bigger than the average guy of their eras of course. So I like the way the article points out the heavyweights' size compared to the average man.

 

Disease accounted for stunted growth also...in fact...height in america has cicles but the heights of soldiers from the revolutionary war were about the same.as ww2

 

Yes they are. The article is saying that people in America were malnourished enough to where growth was stunted by 3 inches.

No solid evidence has been provided. Just rash generalizations that these fighters were severely malnourished like poor African children who don't have access to clean drinking water or even food for weeks at a time.

 

This content is protected

 

The height of soldiers actually declined from the Civil War to WWI. Reasons? Where the immigrants came from and the heights of their genetic pools. It does vary by country. The average Swede is taller than the average Greek or Italian. Another is the percentage living on farms. Farmers might have been poor, but they were often well nourished. They had fresh eggs, milk for the kids, meat to eat, land for gardens, and nearby woods to hunt wild prey. City folks were less well fed.

I would also point out that food is just about the first thing money is spent on. Other things will be given up first. Athletes in all sports have generally come from poor backgrounds, but I wouldn't assume they didn't have reasonable nourishment as youngsters. Don't forget there were also charities which fed people.

On any specific fighter, my take is it illogical to jump to a conclusion he was ill fed without proof. Dempsey has been mentioned, but he didn't leave home until sixteen, when he had possibly already reached his adult height. I would not question that he went hungry now and then, but the first weight we have for a fight, against John Lester Johnson in 1916, is Dempsey at 181. That is about what one would expect in 1916 for a 21 year old who weighed 187 in 1919 and 188 in 1921 when obviously eating well.

Willard has been mentioned as likely to be 7' or more today. But growing up on ranch land he might have eaten steak more often than most modern folks do. We can't say for certain he was ever malnourished.

 

You're implying that just because the people of today have access to all kinds of foods year round means they take advantage of it. Idk if you know this but America is one of if not THE fattest country in the world. A higher percent are obese here than anywhere else.

It is far fetched that people could not eat the proper nutrients in those days. That's a load of bull use common sense.

 

It might have been difficult to get oranges and bananas, but the country was much more rural and your "everyone starving" take is not the world I grew up in. Most were well fed. Apples? Gee, you didn't have to go to a store for those. There were apple trees all over and any kid who could climb a tree could get an apple. Want a chicken dinner? Very simple. Go out and catch a spring chicken (a rooster born that spring), lop off his head, pluck his feathers, gut him, cut him up, and toss him into the frying pan, and man, I got to say, you probably have no idea how wonderful fresh chicken tastes. Want fish? That is what a river or lake is for. Meat? Besides the domestic animals and birds, grab a gun and have some venison or turkey or pheasant. And what is land for except for gardens. Peas. Carrots. Potatoes. Tomatoes. Want to spice things up with horseradish. It grows wild. Plums. Berries. Nuts. They are all out there it you know where to look.

Thinking about it, folks had skills back then now more or less lost. Women could can and make preserves and cook. Men could hunt and fish. These were skills needed for food.