Height, the modern Heavyweight Boxer and Jack the Ripper

BIG DEE HERE= First of all lets start with the GALVESTON GIANT nickname
as he was called that because of his great skills not because of how big he was. There were heavyweights bigger than he was and many people in general were bigger than he was. I am the same size as my father was at 6'0"
and 215 at 45 yrs old. At 53 yrs old I have shunk to 5'11" mainly because of my trade as a steelworker lifting heavy objects over the last 35 yrs. compressing my spine and leg bones. The leg bones have compressed to a great degree over the years as my inseam has gone from 32 inches to 30 inches. I started at 6'1/4" at 14 years old and have gone downhill from there.
The period of the teens 1910 to 1920 was a period in the heavyweight division of very large men like today granted there are more large men today
but there are more people, in 1910 the population of the United States was
92,228,496 people. In 2006 it was 299,398,484 people in the United States,
I think that a great deal of the larger people comes from the fact that for every one man that was 6'7" in 1910 there are 4 or 5 of them now because of the increase in the population and theres a helluva increase between then and now don`t you think. Anybody that lived to reach manhood and to fight
as a fighter compared to now was the strongest of the strong that the human race could develop. The people of that time died as a general rule
before they reached their teen yrs from virus`s or disease. The ones who lived to make manhood were the strongest of the strong and had enormous
amouts of strength and stamina. This is why you see fighters of that period
taking punishment that fighters today would fold under from. The fighters
stamina to fight 40 three minute rounds and average 85 punches a round like
Ad Wolgast threw at Battling Nelson in their 40 rd Lightweight Championship fight at Pt. Richmond Ca. they were these breed of men that lived to see manhood because disease and sickness couldn`t kill them off. There were no miracle drugs and surgery to save them like we have now. YOU JUST DIED PERIOD. YOUR BODY WAS ON ITS OWN AND YOU EITHER LIVED OR DIED.
IF YOU LIVED YOU WERE A STRONG ******* AND WERE ABLE TO FIGHT A FORTY RD FIGHT LIKE BATTLING NELSON AND AD WOLGAST OR THE 32 RDS STANLEY KETCHEL AND JOE THOMAS FOUGHT TO A DRAMATIC KNOCKOUT.

 

Here is the top ten heavyweights from Ring Magazine in 1935 with heights. I rounded the heights up to the next inch if 1/2 inch given.
1. Jim Braddock---6' 3"
2. Joe Louis---6' 2"
3. Max Schmeling---6' 1"
4. Primo Carnera---6' 6"
5. Charley Retzlaff---6' 3" (off Ring Record book-I have seem him on film. He was considerably taller than Louis)
6. Tommy Loughran---6' 0"
7. Eddie Mader---6' 1"
8. Hank Hankinson---6' 4"
9. Ray Impellitiere---6' 8"
10. Max Baer---6' 3" (Ring actually rated Al Ettore and Ford Smith--I couldn't find their heights, so substituted Baer, who was champion that year)

Average 6' 3.1"

2005 Ring top ten heavyweights with heights
1. Chris Byrd---6' 0"
2. Hasim Rahman---6' 3"
3. James Toney---5' 10"
4. Lamon Brewster---6' 2"
5. John Ruiz---6' 2"
6. Monte Barrett---6' 3"
7. Calvin Brock---6' 2"
8. Wlad Klitschko---6' 7"
9. Sam Peter---6' 1"
10. Nikolay Valuev---7' 0"

average 6' 3"

1935 has a slightly higher average height despite the presence of Valuev in 2005.

 

I looked up the 1926 & 1927 Ring ratings. These are among the rated heavyweights those two years--heights rounded up to next highest inch.
Gene Tunney 6' 0'
Jack Dempsey 6' 1"
Paulino Uzcudun 5' 10"
Johnny Risko 5' 11"
Jack Sharkey 6' 0"
Vittorio Campolo 6' 10"
George Godfrey 6' 3"
Knute Hansen 6' 5"
Jack Dorval 6' 3"
Jack Renault 6' 1"
Arthur De Kuh 6' 3"
Phil Scott 6' 4"
Monte Munn 6' 4"
Harry Wills 6' 4"

All these men were in the yearly ratings in 1926 or 1927. There were some tall men. I don't know if Campolo was that big, but that is his listed height at boxrec. The Ring record book gives his height as 6' 7"

 

Very interesting observations.

But the fact is that today, compared to say a 100 years ago, nutrition (as PowerPuncher says), pre-natal care (as Old Fogey says) and health care (as McGrain says) is much better. No doubt, this is very likely to affect the size of a person.

The comparable heights of heavyweights from different eras are very interesting and informative. But it is only logical to assume that if the same fighter who was born 120 years ago were to be born 20 years ago, he would be taller and heavier.

 

That is a fascinating list. Obviously the heights are very similar, and the biggest difference is probably weight, given that nowadays, the theory is to bulk up and increase power, whereas in older days the theory is to use better stamina. If politics were the same as today, you would probably have 4 champions.

Jim Braddock who just beat the larger Baer, Max Schmelling who had just beaten the young challenger Joe Lous, Hank Hankison who was far to big for Braddock, Louis etc to compete with and Ray Impellitere who many would consider the best fighter in the world (although his record would have been more like 30 and 0 with mostly club fighters on the record). I can assume that the giants like Hanksison, Impellitere or Baer who dominated the scene would have people suggesting that the fight game has evolved since the times of the tiny Bob Fitzsimmons or Gene Tunney and we would never see a sub 200 lb or 6 ft champ again. Living proof that future fighters with a tiny reach, like Tyson or marciano could not compete in the 30s!

Anyway, what i really wanted to do is compare the challengers you listed. How similar are these eras?

Chris Byrd vs Braddock. Two similar fighters. Both beat more highly fancied fighters, but both were pretty much blown out when they fought the number one fighter of the era. I give a slight edge to Byrd, but it could also be a draw. Still though, Braddock was in the form of his life and Byrd nearing the end of his career so if we dont go prime for prime, The scale tilts back in favour of Braddock.

Joe Louis v Hasim Rahman. Both were savagely knocked out early in their careers by the best fighter they faced. Ironically though, Rahman had already beaten Lewis and been rated the best heavy in the world, at one stage. Still, it is difficult to think Rahman would have anything but a punchers chance against Louis and there is no doubt that Rahman was more towards the end of his career and Louis closer to his prime. No matter which way you look at it, the advantage is with Louis, although maybe not as much as what is commonly percieved.

Max Schmelling v James Toney. Another close comparison. Two great defensive fighers and highly skilled boxers. Schmelling naturally a touch bigger when both are in their prime, but Toney is heavier at this point in time. Schmelling is a little more proven than Toney at heavy. Both would be getting closer to the end of the career though Toney certainly looks to be further removed from his prime.


Retzlaff v Brewster. Brewster is a very ordinary fighter, but he has huge power when he does land. He can be outboxed by average or worst fighters (eg Meehan) but he can also turn fights with his big shots eg Vlad and Golota. Retzlaff, i know nothing about. Toss of the coin.

Loughran v Ruiz. Ruiz has a very bad habit of losing to smaller fighters who are good boxers (eg Toney or Jones Jr). It is arguable whether or not Loughran is as good as these two, but it certainly likely that there isnt too much between the Toney he fought or the Jones he fought. Edge to Loughran.

Eddie Madre v Monte Barrett. I know nothing about Eddie Madre. Still, is it really likely that he is not as good as Monte Barrett? I guess Monte may do better in the future. So you better toss a coin.

Calvin Brock v Hank Hankison. Good fight. Brock was young, but not really too proven. Hank is bigger and in better shape, but it could go either way. Calvin probably has potential to end up better than Hank, but that does not mean he will. This could be either way, but give the advantage to the smaller Calvin Brock.

Vlad Klitchsko vs Primo Carnera. I forgot to include Primo earlier, but it probably makes things more interesting anyway. This is a potentially a great fight. Vlad is the favourite, but at this stage, Primo was a world champion, he is pretty much the same size as Vlad, he is proven to have a rock solid jaw and great heart and stamina. Vlad has more flashier knockout power, but ironically his better successcame when he modified his style to make himself look more like Carnera, with a pawing jab, Clinching style. And a big powerful fighter with a good chin would appear to give his questionable chin lots of trouble. I am going to call a draw and to be honest, you could easily give a slight advantage to Primo, even though many say he is the worst heavy champ ever.

Ray Impellitere vs Valuev. I changed the order to make it a bit interesting. Too very similar fighters size wise. Valuev does seem to have a more proven chin. Advantage Valuev.

Baer vs Peter. Peter is a good fighter, but he has not managed to step up and win against the best big fighters he has faced. Baer had just been upset by Braddock, but Peter is a different proposition. Really we just have too big hitters. Peter may have a slight chin advantage, but Baer is probably a bigger hitter and better boxer although also a lot more inconsistent. Assuming the best Baer turns up, you would expect him to win in a closer than expected fight.


Looking at those fights, the 1930s to seem to have an advantage from top to bottom, and it is very amazing that in reality the actual type of top 10 contender and their general sizes havent really changed all that much.