I often hear that fighters today 6'2 and under are small, but someone like an Ali, who was at most 6'2 1/2 at 210-215 lbs, is still referred to as a "big man." What categories do you consider when sizing up a heavyweight, and how would you define small, average, and large-sized heavyweights today in terms of those categories? The categories I immediately think of are height, weight, frame, and reach. But someone like a Sonny Liston is fairly difficult to categorize. By today's standards not very tall or heavy, he had an extremely long reach and a large frame. Thoughts ?
Now a days a big heavy is 6' 4" fighter who weighs 238+ Back in the 80s a big heavy was 6' 2" 224+ Back in the 70s it was a 6' 210+
Golota was 6'4 and very solid, he's definitely the kind of starting point where I'd consider someone a really big heavyweight. Point taken that the definition of big has certainly shifted though.
Most heavyweights today arent big they are just fat. Sam Peter is what 6'0 and weighs 250? Hasim Rahman is 6'1 and weighs about the same?
I agree that it's so often a ridiculous claim. A tall, impressive guy like Ken Norton could get down to 205 in his prime, but we're supposed to assume the shorter Sam Peter can't even get to 235 ? But I was really wondering how we'd classify people like Liston and Rahman who aren't as tall, but have some superheavyweight characteristics like very long arms.
In the last decades of the 19th century anybody over 180 lbs was considered a good sized heavyweight. Men like John L Sullivan and Peter Jackson represented a quantum leap over what had gone before in living memory in terms of size/skill combination. You could point to fighters with comparable skillsets but they were middleweights.
^ the first 2 olympic games catagorized anyone over 158lbs a heavyweight only until in 1920 did they 175lbs + a heavyweight which today is seemingly comical