Heavyweight (Ring Top 10) Average Weights & Heights 1956-2006.

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Kalasinn, Jul 27, 2011.


Page 1 of 2
  1. Kalasinn

    Kalasinn ♧ OG Kally ♤ Full Member

    18,318
    57
    Dec 26, 2009
    Heavyweight (Ring Top 10) Average Weights & Heights 1956-2006.

    I used Ring Magazine Top 10 Annual Heavyweight Rankings:
    http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/The_Ring_Magazine's_Annual_Ratings

    *Ring Mag Champs not included, just the top 10 challengers, because the Ring belt was vacant throughout the '90s & most of the '00s.

    *If a fighter had several fights in a year, their heaviest weight is used, for instance in '96 Bowe was 252lbs in Golota I & 235lbs in Golota II, so i would use 252lbs.

    1956:
    This content is protected

    This content is protected


    1966:
    This content is protected

    This content is protected


    1976:
    This content is protected

    This content is protected


    1986:
    This content is protected

    This content is protected


    1956-1986: All top 10 below 240lbs, except Bonecrusher & Tubbs.

    1996:
    This content is protected

    This content is protected


    1956-1996: All top 10 below 250lbs, except Bowe*.
    *Lewis was 251lbs in 1997 McCall rematch.

    2006:
    This content is protected
    (Fighters over 250lbs: Peter 257lbs, Briggs 273lbs, Valuev 328lbs)
    This content is protected


    2010:
    This content is protected
    (Fighters over 250lbs: Vitali 251lbs, Valuev 316lbs, Dimitrenko 260lbs, Arreola 256lbs)
    This content is protected
    This content is protected


    This content is protected
    This content is protected
     
    Kalasinn, Jul 27, 2011
    Kalasinn, Jul 27, 2011
    #1
  2. cesare-borgia

    cesare-borgia Übermensch in fieri Full Member

    28,924
    20
    Jul 4, 2009
    yeah but a lot of boxers are fat nowadays its not like they are in shape like the klitschkos, just bums who dont take things seriously and get a shot because the division is weak. The 90's wasnt that long ago, it should be possible to get those type of boxers back in the mix as well, strong in shape guys around 6.3/6.4 that might raise the level of the division.
     
    cesare-borgia, Jul 27, 2011
    cesare-borgia, Jul 27, 2011
    #2
  3. Kalasinn

    Kalasinn ♧ OG Kally ♤ Full Member

    18,318
    57
    Dec 26, 2009
    I would love to see a wealth of strong & powerful, but not fat, quality punchers hit the scene, like in the stacked '90s. :good
     
    Kalasinn, Jul 27, 2011
    Kalasinn, Jul 27, 2011
    #3
  4. Dio

    Dio Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,437
    2
    Jun 21, 2010
    I Blame fast food, it just became huge in America, ever ones eating at the dollar menu now.
     
    Dio, Jul 27, 2011
    Dio, Jul 27, 2011
    #4
  5. StillWill

    StillWill Dr. Eisenfaust Full Member

    3,265
    12
    Jul 12, 2010
    There has been a theory for years that 240 was the optimum fighting weight, and it measured in intervals of 30. Perhaps someone else can shed some more light on this
     
    StillWill, Jul 27, 2011
    StillWill, Jul 27, 2011
    #5
  6. Kalasinn

    Kalasinn ♧ OG Kally ♤ Full Member

    18,318
    57
    Dec 26, 2009
    I think the '90s was pretty awesome in quality (especially the early '90s), but after that decade a lot of overweight chubby rather than well conditioned guys have gained rankings. I hate the sickening "Fast Food Culture" which has ruined American Heavyweight boxing. :verysad
     
    Kalasinn, Jul 27, 2011
    Kalasinn, Jul 27, 2011
    #6
  7. Kalasinn

    Kalasinn ♧ OG Kally ♤ Full Member

    18,318
    57
    Dec 26, 2009
    Obviously that would depend on strongly height. Short guys for instance should not hugely over-eat to match the weights of much taller foes by gaining excess bodyfat... it only means they end up plodding forward & being painfully impaled on the end of a long jab.
     
    Kalasinn, Jul 27, 2011
    Kalasinn, Jul 27, 2011
    #7
  8. Steenalized

    Steenalized Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,337
    1
    Sep 20, 2010
    Take out Valuev who's a pretty clear outlier and tell me what the average for 06 and 10 are.
     
    Steenalized, Jul 27, 2011
    Steenalized, Jul 27, 2011
    #8
  9. Steenalized

    Steenalized Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,337
    1
    Sep 20, 2010
    Also the numbers are skewed because of the current existence of the cruiserweight division that decades past didn't have.
     
    Steenalized, Jul 27, 2011
    Steenalized, Jul 27, 2011
    #9
  10. Kalasinn

    Kalasinn ♧ OG Kally ♤ Full Member

    18,318
    57
    Dec 26, 2009
    I'm not taking out Valuev, he was in the Ring Mag top 10, & therefore should be included.

    I will however soon calculate the average weight & height for the current Ring top 10, which Valuev is no longer in.
     
    Kalasinn, Jul 27, 2011
    Kalasinn, Jul 27, 2011
    #10
  11. Steenalized

    Steenalized Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,337
    1
    Sep 20, 2010
    The point your making is skewed because Valuev is a clear outlier. If you want a real representation of the average heights/weights, adjust for his presence.
     
    Steenalized, Jul 27, 2011
    Steenalized, Jul 27, 2011
    #11
  12. Rock0052

    Rock0052 Loyal Member Full Member

    34,221
    5,875
    Apr 30, 2006
    Part of the blame falls on the fans. We love to see knockouts, and once guys get to a certain weight, they hit hard enough to knock out just about anyone else so that's what they focus on. And that's what we pay to see. That's why people would've rather seen Lennox fight a slow slugger like Tua than a more skilled, but much lighter punching, Chris Byrd.

    Tyson blowing up in weight the entire decade was a microcosm for heavyweight boxing- get bigger, look more impressive, hit harder, and to hell with focusing on skill because that's not what fans want to pay for. The biggest difference is now it looks like more of our heavyweight boxers are fueling up with cheeseburgers instead of steroids.
     
    Rock0052, Jul 27, 2011
    Rock0052, Jul 27, 2011
    #12
  13. Kalasinn

    Kalasinn ♧ OG Kally ♤ Full Member

    18,318
    57
    Dec 26, 2009
    The slobbish Shot Tyson didn't become a 230lbs+ heavyweight from 2001 onwards to "get bigger" or "add power" like many other guys did. He just got very lazy, very inactive & couldn't control his eating habits. Tyson had naturally low metabolism (which will have obviously gotten even lower as he aged badly), so when he was stuffing his old inactive cokehead face with fatty foods, he ballooned up to disgusting morbidly obese levels. Back in the '80s he was walking around between fights at 235-240lbs, whereas post-2000, Mike had a walk around weight of more around 280-290lbs of lard, no joke. :scaredas:...He then had to spend the whole training camp dieting & draining himself with lots of dehydration.
     
    Kalasinn, Jul 27, 2011
    Kalasinn, Jul 27, 2011
    #13
  14. MattMattMatt

    MattMattMatt Guest

    Steenalized is most likely correct regardong Valuev. While it may appear that you are introducing human bias by pruning the data set, I am very confident that if you were to plot the weights or heights of all active heavyweights that Valuev would fall outside of a 95% confidence interval for both categories. In which case, if you are drawing statistical conclusions from a tiny set of data (just 10 cases for each time period) then your stats will be badly skewed by leaving Valuev in. You would be much closer to the true mean weight/height if you took him out. I don't expect to see another 300lbs+ 7ft+ top ten heavy for a long time.
     
    MattMattMatt, Jul 27, 2011
    MattMattMatt, Jul 27, 2011
    #14
  15. Bubby

    Bubby Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,564
    3
    Sep 14, 2010
    Good post, As time has went on, fighters have clearly got bigger.
    So an Ali in the 70's was about the same size as Wladimir Klitschko today....
     
    Bubby, Jul 27, 2011
    Bubby, Jul 27, 2011
    #15
Page 1 of 2