the way to detect who is a bigger man than his weight suggests

I don't agree that Dempsey and Louis had particularly big frames, I don't agree that Dempsey could easily carry 220, and I don't agree that Tyson was a natural 200lber.

 

Post something scientific then about "heavy bones."

 

Any normal sized HW could have potentially fought anywhere from about 190 to 230 if they really wanted to. The key is to look at where they actually fought and how much success they had there. Both Louis and Dempsey fought at significantly lower weights than Tyson for the majority of their career, so it stands to reason this was their ideal weight for their frame size.

I accept that the addition of steroids and other mass builders might have played a role in Tyson's musculature at heavy, but in no way was Mike ever a blown-up 200lber when he entered his prime. He was ripped to the bone at 217, and as savage and powerful as any HW there's ever been. In terms of musculature he was actually surprisingly lean, with nothing of the swollen beach muscle look that fighters like Evander and Haye had when they moved up. He was just incredibly dense and thick-set.

The same cannot be said for either Louis or Dempsey.

 

Most men with the same measurements are gonna have skeletons that look about the same. The person with “big bones” isn’t gonna have a skeleton that weighs much more than a person with the same measurements and average bones.

Ever wonder why heavyweights get knocked out so easily?

 

People will have different frames but the bones will be about the same. People with “thick” bones will have greater wrist measurements. Those people will have skeletons that weigh marginally more than people with “normal” bones. My point is that guys with the same measurements aren’t gonna be 30 pounds apart because of their bones; the bones will only account for a small amount of the difference.

 

Difference in ribcage is a difference in frame, not a difference in bone. A large ribcage holds a lot more meat.

Google says a skeleton is about 15% of bodyweight. So a 200 pound person has 30 pounds of of bone. If you remove all of their bones they are now 170 pounds, or a light heavyweight instead of a heavyweight.

It’s not the bones. It’s whats wrapped around them. Get it?

 

I dunno about the variability in bones mass thing, but its basically about that:

Endos who trim down just have the functional muscle they gained from boxing, compared to a bodybuilder, who might have more muscle mass, but less mass at other places with the same body fat %.

But some boxers did pretty well in establishing functional muscle via bodybuilding, Evander Holyfield is the best example. That boy was strong at 210lb!
Bruno, who touched weights, was incredibly strong too, but some may argue the muscle drained his oxygen for later rounds stamina. Probably both, Bruno and Holyfield (and Joshua as well) might have sacrificed some quickness due to their ennecessary muscle mass.
That muscle mass might have given them more punching power though.

 

a couple notes to this lunacy...

Tyson was 17 or 18 when he weighed in at 201. He was not fully developed.

Bone density does vary between ethnicity. This has been proven.

Rocky Marciano had the chest of a bird. He was not of large frame and would never be effective at 210.

 

Rocky looses his biggest asset in doing so: stamina. Same for Frazier and Dempsey. But they all would propably bang a little harder, but might loose in hand/foot quickness.

Fighting heavier boys costs them even more stamina. Everyone could do the math...