Height, the modern Heavyweight Boxer and Jack the Ripper

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by PowerPuncher, Jun 29, 2008.


  1. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    Jack the RIppers victims:

    All under 5'0 except, some 4'7 except for one know as TALL, she was 5'3. This shows how much average height has changed over the last 100years. At the turn of the century 6'0 Jack Johnson was known as the Gaveston Giant, today he'd be a short heavyweight

    Average Height has increased massively over the last 100years because of nutrition. Today people have the good fortune of having the opportunity to have healthy diets with lots of protein and minerals to give maximal height, bone density and muscular strength

    Today's fighters have more advantages in every way, including height and bone density because of better child living standards.

    This is hardly fair when comparing modern and old time great heavyweights.

    Maybe if Jack Johnson was raised today he'd be 6'6.
     
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,065
    Mar 21, 2007
    People in 1900 had great nutrition as well.

    Nutrition was poorer amongst the poorer classes. Same as today.
     
  3. OLD FOGEY

    OLD FOGEY Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,670
    98
    Feb 18, 2006
    Boxers came out of the poorer classes. Nutrition is much better today.
    Also, mothers don't have as many children and get much better prenatal care. The good nutrition for the mothers has a tremendous impact on their children.
     
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,065
    Mar 21, 2007
    This is still true today though.

    I agree, in a general sense, that fighters have a better chance of having better nutrition when growing up, say. But statistically nutrition is much worse in the poorer classes. Poorer people are more likely to smoke, less likely to get the recommended fruit and vegetables, more likely to be overweight etc. etc.

    Still, the best boxers are consinstantly drawn from the poorer classes.

    This idea that fighers were "starving" in "olden times" is grossly exaggerated. Those below the poverty line in the poorest countries live as desperately as they did 60 years ago. I think I am right in saying that there is a great number of people below the poeverty lin in the US now than there was before the outbreak of WW2?
     
  5. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
    Its not a matter of starving is a matter of not having adequate meat and veg. Most back in the day working class peops had less chance to get the same quality nutrition.

    Protein is the building blocks for all . So if meat was harder for poor people to get hold of they consequently won't have the building blocks to grow as big, in height and muscularly
     
  6. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,065
    Mar 21, 2007
     
  7. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    269
    Jul 22, 2004
     
  8. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    112,986
    48,065
    Mar 21, 2007
     
  9. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    61,566
    46,167
    Feb 11, 2005
    This argument works fine with the general public but when we are speaking of the likes of Jack Johnson or any other great, we are speaking of anamolies not general trend signifiers.

    Otherwise, there are very interesting general trends going on with the US v Europe. This study is pretty interesting.

    Also, if height was such a determining factor in the greatest fighters, where are the Dutch in the sport?
     
  10. OLD FOGEY

    OLD FOGEY Boxing Junkie Full Member

    7,670
    98
    Feb 18, 2006
    I would like to see the breaddown without immigration. America has huge immigration from Mexico which tends to be short, and also East Asia which also tends to be short.

    The overweight part is interesting, though.
     
  11. janitor

    janitor VIP Member Full Member

    71,579
    27,234
    Feb 15, 2006
    None of them could box worth a lick anyway.
     
  12. Bill1234

    Bill1234 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,314
    499
    Jan 28, 2007
    Jack Johnson was 6'1, closer to 6'2. By todays standards he'd be an average sized heavyweight height wise. They still had huge men back then too such as Jess Willard who was 6'6, and Primo Carnera who was 6'5, and Buddy Baer who was 6'6 1/2. They were in better shape too. Overall heavyweight size has increased and you see more guys in the top ranks that are taller, but I also think this has to do with the lack of great fighters chopping them down. There used to be guys like Dempsey, Max Baer, and Louis that would chop those big guys down, but those types of fighters are gone now, so the big heavyweights can have their way.
     
  13. radianttwilight

    radianttwilight Well-Known Member Full Member

    2,539
    18
    May 5, 2007
    "Big men" in the HW division are more often than not statistical anomalies.

    I'd like to see a survery of a large (>1000) sample of heavyweight boxers and compare that to one taken a long time ago, but it is near impossible.

    I think the "era of big men" is more of a coincidence than actual fact that smaller guys can't compete, especially in the height department.
     
  14. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    97,728
    29,078
    Jun 2, 2006
    Most of the Rippers stoppage victims were by tko ,he was a slashing ,rather than ko puncher. :D
     
  15. Boilermaker

    Boilermaker Boxing Junkie Full Member

    9,372
    473
    Oct 6, 2004
    I wonder how Willard would go under this the theory. Not all that skillful, but a massive punch, awesome endurance, stamina, heart and chin. And he would be about 71/2 to 8 foot tall. I dont see how a modern heavy could beat him because none of them are tested against heavys that big!