"Average height in the United States has remained essentially stagnant since the 1950s even as the racial and ethnic background of residents has shifted." [ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height[/ame] Discuss.
The average height has increased over generations, but ponder this. The USA and the rest of the world has multiplied its population since the the industrial revolution. This means the count of people over 6 feet tall is going to me much greater with each passing generation. To illustrate an example, let's say there was 100 million people in the USA in 1900, and there 350 million in 2009. Which year is going to produce a higher count of people over 6'3". Its an elementary deduction. By the way than 3% of the USA's population is taller than 6'3".
I think that an increase inb the body mass of heavyweights is more aparent than an increase in height and reach. Set the heavyweight limit at 175 lbs today and has the average height and reach increased that much since the 20s?
Its both. If you take the average height and reach of the top ten heavies by decade, you'll see this decade is by far the tallest, has the most reach, and is the heaviest. The 5'10 to 6'1" sub 210 pound heavies are an endangerd species on the brink of winking out.
I think much of this has to do with the fact that today the "bigger is better" attitude has taken over the heavyweights. There is a lot less skill in the division today, so naturally the bigger men are winning. Joe Louis was knocking guys out that were the size of todays heavies.
Sub 210 lbs moreso than 5'10-6'1. We will not be seeing so many sub 210lb beltholders in the near future but we will se pleanty of 5'10''-6'1'' beltholders. Part of it is that the modern training methods mean that the Dempsey's, Louis's, Marciano's, and even Loughrans of the future will simply become different kinds of fighters.
I agree. It used to be, that if you wanted to get yourself in shape for a fight, that the first thing you would do is go for a run. Today, the first thing you do is go to the gym and start lifting weights. I think this attitude accounts for most of the weight differences. Plus, when skill levels are poor (as it is today) invariably, the bigger heavyweights rise to the top.
Janitor, Since the inception of skilled Super heavyweights of the early 1990's, the top spot has almost always belonged to a large heavyweight who has good outfighting skills. I do not see any future Ring Magazine champions or heavyweight champions holding 2 or more of the 4 world title belts that are under 6' tall. I follow amateur boxing closely, and the best prospects under 6' are all going to the cruiser weight division or light heavyweight divisions. Again, if your under 6' and under 210 pounds, you're pretty much out of the top ten ranked heavywieght business.
If the "bigger is better" attitude is a myth, then why is no one exposing this? There is a HUGE amount of money available and everyone thinks the division is weak. This is the PERFECT time. Where are those 190lbs fighters that can easily defeat Klitschko? I don't really understand your last statement about skill, size and Louis' opponents, either. You want to tell me that Carnera, Baer (either one) and Simon were particularly skillful? Carnera was decent but the other three make amateurs look like Mayweather Jr. If anything, it goes against your argument, because over the last few decades we've seen skillful 210+lbs fighters, and as a consequence, the 190lbs champion is getting extinct faster than fish on a dry planet. Do you think it's a coincidence that since the 70's, out of the 13 or so champions, only two were sub-200lbs? Those two, the Spinks brothers, were (are) considered very weak heavyweights and couldn't make a single title defence. Do you think this is because of the "bigger is better" attitude, or maybe because under 12 round rules, it's simply true ? Probably true - though it should be noted that because of modern day weigh-ins, current LHW's are often around 190lbs when they enter the ring, i.e. todays lightheavies are the olden days heavyweights, roughly. On the original post - i'd like to see stats backing that up. I can't find it at the moment, but i've seen a paper that had graphs showing otherwise. But as janitor says: the biggest increase is in weight and retaining athletic ability, not (just) height.
Nobody is exposing it because the talent levels are so weak. Look at Eddie Chambers, he is what, 6'? He weighed in around 220-225 for many of his past fights, but when he cut down to 208, he looked very good, better than he did at the higher weight. He did it against 6'7, 253 lb Alexander Dimitrenko and dominated. Do you want to tell me this particular heavyweight era is skillful? Other than the Klitschko's, they aren't much, if at all, more skillful than Max, Buddy, Primo, and Abe. Leon and Michael were never very strong to begin with. Michael obviously hit hard, but neither of them really used strength as a main asset to their fighting. The 70's were dominated by guys like Frazier, Foreman, and Ali, who even the guys who did weigh over 200 couldn't beat for the most part. If the 15 rounds were brought back, I do believe the heavyweights would start to slim down. Many of them are completely winded after 10 or 12 rounds, and would not be capable of fightign in 13th, 14th, and 15th round. They would be forced to train harder and drop the much of the bodybuilding muscle that is only weighing them down.
Well, in some ways the Klitchskos are exposing the myth. They are bigger, but they are also trimmer. I dont think it is any co incidence that these guys are in probably the best shape of all the current heavys out there. It just so happens they are also 2 Superheavys. In many ways, Lewis was the same for most of his career. I can t think of any in shape smaller heavys that they have fought, with the exception of probably Byrd, who is actually 1 and 2 against them. Every other smaller guy I can think of is not really that in shape. The closest Lewis fought to an in shape smaller fighter was probably Holyfield who again is technically 1-0-1. Chambers will be an interesting proposition, but really, he hasnt really proved that he can fight at the top level or handle that World Class heavyweight power. If he can, it will be a very interesting fight with the klits. Interesting also, that the former light heavyweight Adamek just defeated a natural Superheavy. Now admittedly this guy was past his best and maybe not as good as most think anyway, but the bottom line is that despite what many seem to assume, world light heavyweights do not just fold at the first punch they receive from a Super heavyweight. Never have and never will. Tyson doing what he did to Spinks could have just as easily be done to Holmes, Berbick, Williams, Ruddock, Bruno, possibly even Ali and others. The punch he landed was that good and besides that Some of those good large fighters did meet the same fighter anyway. I really dont understand how you define skill. If you mean using your reach to keep an opponent at bay with long straight punches then perhaps you have a point. But we just witnessed a small former light heavy, who would be at least a light heavy, if he trained and fought like the oldtimers, defeat a guy who is a Superheavy. Surely there is no doubt that Louis would do this. If you mean ability to keep defence tight, with a high guard, then you cant be referring to Vitali, because despite his effectiveness, he doesnt fight like this and he is successful today. If you consider skills to be jabbing and clinching like Vlad, then there are dozens of Superheavys in the past who were skilled but many could not get past top 10 contender status and are forgotten today. I really think you need to define skills better. Well, you have the Spinks brothers. Leon was better than people think, but is considered weaker, not just because he was weaker, but also because after winning the title, he partied and trained in a way just as bad, or worse than Tokyo Tyson. He was shot a fight or two after winning the world title. Spinks defended his title twice, once against a Superheavyweight in Cooney, and won by KO. He lost, at an advanced age, in his win lose or draw retirement fight against one of the Greatest KO artists ever. You also had Mike Tyson. Tyson weight anyway from 210-220 when in shape, and was less than 6 ft, listed between 5'9 and 5'11 but probably 5'10. He was arguably the most dominant heavy of the Superheavy era, and in reality was not all that big. Holyfield was another. When young and in shape, Holyfield weighed less than 190. Age caught up with him, and he expanded weight with the Weight pump attitude. In the old days, without this attitude he never would have went up in weight. I doubt it would have effected his performance to detrimentally. In fact when he lifted later on, he had a tendency to not be able to perform the full round. And in the first Bowe fights, i think that the extra stamina training would have earned him enough points to get the result against of of the best Superheavys ever. There was also Michael Moorer. He was a light heavy, who ballooned up. Although he was a naturally big light heavy, with the old training methods, he would have come in at the light heavy limit. Again, although he had a poor chin, he was good enough to still win the world title. And I doubt that Foreman catches a light heavy moorer. Even in the current scene, if Tua gets his act together, there is no reason why he couldnt win a world title. He certainly gave the super heavy ike a run for his money, though he is only really that good when he is in shape and lighter. Yeah that is true, but it should also be noted that natural 190 lbers balloon up to 210lbs due to the concentration on weight training over running and also the fact that fighters do not fight regularly anymore. One thing on the modern training argument, modern science tells us that it is not good to put on weight and then cut it. Guys like say hopkins or even the Klits who are in shape all the time, have a massive advantage over guys like say Tua who balloon massively in between in frequent fights. Science tells us that the best way to become heavy champ is to always train, to walk around at your fighting weight and not let go of yourself in between fights. So why is it that no fighters do this. anymore? Modern thinking also tells us that the way to get better at things is to ply your trade against the very best, and training (sparring is not a true test). This happens in Football, Basketball, or any other sport. So why is it that no modern fighter ever seems to fight regularly and against the best opponents available. They used to. In fact, the old middleweights or even light weights would even jump weights and fight bigger fighters sometimes even heavys (without ballooning), wouldnt this be the best way to improve their skill levels? And why dont modern fighters do this, if it is a way to make so much more money for them? History also tells us that we live in a far more pampered life than in the past, yet the best fighters alway (90percent of the time) come from struggling conditions. How is it that todays fighters can be better if they live more pampered lives? This is hard to believe for some, but to give an example, i recently visited Gracelands mansions. Some of the state of the art things that Elvis had, which included millions of dollars worth of relics included a microwave, a closed circuit security camera, a music recording device etc. All things which a majority of the population have a hell of a lot better today. In other words, even todays poverty areas probably have things much easier than the better off families of yesterday. Even the gangs today, with the availibility of guns and use of knifes in a sneaky way have less reliance on toughness and fighting ability. The modern training theory that many refer to, doesnt allow for this fact that modern science actually tells us that many of todays habits are inferior to the past, but this doesnt stop highly paid professionals from engaging in those habits anyway. I think those graphs were posted on this site a couple of months ago. Not sure of their accuracy or otherwise, or even their source.