How many HW champions meet U.S. Army weight requirements?

it is true that America Produced most of the champions last century. It is true that last century, America produced the largest people. It is true the growth in America topped out in America in the late 1960s. It is true before the 1960s heavyweight boxing was not dominated by 250lb Giants even though theoretically there is no reason why their should not have been dominated by 250 pound giants since the population in that country (America) supported enough Giants to do this. But, hey, this was mostly when champions usually fit into an army chart so that never happened. Maybe we had to wait for training advances to be invented?

indeed they have they caught up with America and as Americas growth slowed after 1960 places like Denmark, Italy, Sweden and Germany (who by the way produced zero heavyweight world champions after 1960 unless you want to include Damiani) all grew bigger as post war living conditions benefited the masses in those country's to the extent America had beforehand. So yes, I absorb this information.

what did I ignore? The fact that the Danish and Dutch never produced heavyweight champions? That's not new information to me.

I'm quite easy to talk to. what is difficult to you is you dislike my ideas and need to believe I am not listening or absorbing the ideas you think contradict me ..which actually don't. It's just a counter view you cant prove wrong or deny. Conflicting data.

In a few months I willl realise the Danes and Dutch still have not taken over and dominated heavyweight boxing? Why shouldn't I deny this? Why does this chart prove me wrong?

I am saying there is a chart provided by the US army that says most modern heavyweights don't reach their requirements when most of them used to. I am also saying that heavyweight champions got bigger After a point when the worlds population in the most predominant boxing nations had already peaked and begun to decline.

Sure there are more big people. But why did the big people in boxing used to weigh less? And why in a nation that always had more big people did it take America so long to have the best biggest boxers?

 

This is where I got my information.
"
"In the UK, the sexes have gone up virtually in parallel by about 11cm (4in). "Mr Average" in Britain is now 178cm (5ft 10in) tall; Ms Average stands at 164cm (5ft 5in).

This contrasts for example with men and women in the US, where the height of the nation's people started to plateau in the 1960s and 1970s. Over the century, they have seen increases of just 6cm and 5cm (a couple of inches), respectively.

Indeed, Americans have tumbled down the rankings. Back in 1914, they had the third tallest men and fourth tallest women on the planet. Today they are in 37th and 42nd place.

The height charts are now utterly dominated by European countries, but the data would suggest that growth trends in general in the West have largely levelled out.

The smallest men on the planet are to be found in East Timor (160cm; 5ft 3in).

The world's smallest women are in Guatemala, a status they also held back in 1914. According to the survey data, a century ago the average Guatemalan 18-year-old female was 140cm (4ft 7in). Today she has still not quite reached 150cm (4ft 11in).

The height charts are now utterly dominated by European countries, but the data would suggest that growth trends in general in the West have largely levelled out.

The smallest men on the planet are to be found in East Timor (160cm; 5ft 3in).

The world's smallest women are in Guatemala, a status they also held back in 1914. According to the survey data, a century ago the average Guatemalan 18-year-old female was 140cm (4ft 7in). Today she has still not quite reached 150cm (4ft 11in)."- By Jonathan Amos BBC Science Correspondent, Manchester

The information I have says that height plateaued in America by the late 1960s doesn't it? and that "The data would suggest that growth trends in general in the West have largely levelled out."

Now please don't go saying I have searched only results that "jive" with my own ideas because I came up with this info first.

Last time I googled this subject one of the scientists said America had the largest people most of last century. I remembered it since it coresponded with them dominating the heavyweight division too. There's also research that says Americans only grew 6cm in 150 years. So this information is out there. I am not being dishonest at all here.

 

So if I say it plateaued in the late 1960s I'm actually dishonest because 1969 is so different from 1972? This is petty, I was quoting from research.

yes I absorbed this. 1980s so what? If height plateaued for Americans by 1980 where were all the 6'6" 250lb heavyweights before that cut off point? The suggestion I make is that presumably the population in the worlds most prolific nation of HW champions was producing more 6'6" 250lb guys in 1979 than they are now, or as many. So Why didn't we see any from America until Riddick Bowe?

I repeated the phrase "height levelled off in the west" because I remembered reading it the last time. Apparently what it said was "growth trends in general in the west have largely levelled out" so are you saying that because I said Levelled off rather than "levelled out" I am being dishonest? You went crazy when I wrote that.

if Americans continued to grow into the 1980s would it change this business of America not producing the very biggest champions before this point?

You told me off because my information says it started to plateaue earlier than 1980s. We may as well accept both being true since we never got super sized heavyweights until much later than both dates anyway.

you wrote "I provided data that proved this was absolutely, irrefutably, incorrect." but I was only using conflicting data. Your data did not explain where the dominating 6'6" champions were before 1980 any more than the data that told me height plateaued, generally levels off at an even earlier date.

In fact most of the 1970s-1980s heavyweight champions fit into an army chart.

 

sorry I meant "before" that cut off point. Where were the super heavyweight champions "Before" a American growth plateau?

ok then, where were the 6'5" 235lb champions before the levelling off of American growth regardless of which of the two dates experts decide it happened?

I am wrong not to use your data that also demonstrates the biggest champions should have appeared earlier than they did? I am wrong because my data was different to your data?

let's say my data is debunked by your data. What exactly does it show? Does it show that I am wrong because your data proved it impossible for America to produce 2017 sized heavyweight champions between the late 1960s and 1980?

ok, that's perfectly fine. Does that explain why there were not more super heavyweights as soon as these nations supported enough of the biggest people?

Remember, America has a population that only grew a couple of inches last century. Most of last century they theoretically produced much the same sized people as now. And yet the HW champions got bigger and bigger and further off the weight to height chart. This was what I was interested in.

the data I found gives that impression doesn't it?

I was concentrating on America last century but if we use this interesting tidbit where does this debunk anything I was talking about? It only explains why Europe has more champions this century.

 

What am I trying to achieve? An open debate about why the Giants took over.

Remember, America has a population that only grew a couple of inches last century. Most of last century they theoretically produced much the same sized people as now. And yet the HW champions got bigger and bigger and further off the weight to height chart. This was what I was interested in.