Why did dominant super tall heavyweights only emerge relatively recently?

Humans in general have gotten bigger and taller on average in comparison to the past. For example, the average height of men was 171.4 cm in 1920 and increased by 7.3 cm to 178.7 cm in 1970. Over the last 30 years, average height has increased only 1 cm, to 179.7 cm in 2000.

 

The 1960s was when bigger heavyweights started to become more common. This is made the norm by the 1980s.

 

Size has increased in pretty much all sports. Google average size of an NFL lineman in the 60's vs today. Same thing with basketball and baseball.

 

Great skill stopped being the equaliser, extinct today and size prevailed.

 

Size in general hasn't increased as much as implied - but it seems the HW division has attracted more participants of greater size.

Even by way of probabilities, if there are far more 6'5" + competing, that alone would increase the odds of such fighters occupying the near top and top spots. Height wise, the differences may not be as great as first believed given the exaggerations going around - (e.g. Fury is 6'7" not 6'9") but they have added bulk compared to their earlier years' counterparts.

Not to say there was more, but it might surprise some as to how many 6'5" + boxers were competing back in the day - they simply didn't rise to the top so much. The argument might be that today's behemoths are better skilled - maybe, maybe not, they're huge but most look god awful skill wise. -

It would be interesting if the HW division saw a greater proliferation of HWs with the likes and size of a Usyk - say 50% Usyks vs 50% deemed SHWs.

As it is, highly skilled guys at about 6'3", 220 lbs. with the potential to fight and compete at HW might look at the HW division and think "f*ck me, they're too big" thus deterring their participation.

Imo, the increasing size sees diminishing net returns and, at some point, the returns plateau and then downturn to become negatives.

The ultimate upper limit in size (before net returns hit negative) would naturally see a min. requirement in lower limit size in order to compete - but Imo, that min. lower limit will not keep increasing, rather, it will hit a definite ceiling in correlation with the optimal limit for SHW sized HWs.

 

6ft 5ins+ guys are naturally typically less athletic and co-ordinated than their shorter counterparts. Plus, a well muscled and well proportioned 6ft 5ins+ man is so huge, that they are unlikely to be fast, light on their feet and have good stamina.

Without modern sports science and PEDs, its extremely rare to have a 6ft 5ins+ guy with decent muscle mass, who is fast of both hand and foot, explosive, agile, co-ordinated and has good stamina, all at the same time.

With modern sports science and PEDs, it's less rare.

 

That is almost precisely 5'10 3/4".
The stats I see say male US height is either a bit over 5'9" or a good 5'10".
Just to get the details correct, are you talking about the whole world?
If anything it is shorter than here on average, due to lesser nutrition (but less lifestyle diseases & obesity).

Can you show a link that has the average nearly 5' 11"? Thank you!

 

Increased world population & how many nations have many participants & decent nutrition add to the absolute number of very tall men.
But height, like say sprinting speed, just does not vary that widely.
Sure being tall & fast is naturally impressive to us, but in comparison to weight especially, or strength or endurance gains that are potentially avalable & achieved-even absent PEDs-they are not large.

I think especially with the rules today, we could well see been taller & bulkier HW champions.
How modern training now can also much help the behemoths with developing has been much discussed here.

But it is a mistake to think there is an ideal size...If you can be hard to reach, or dent, very strong-even taller might be better.
Especially when fights tend to be shorter.
Gloves are bigger.
Clinching tends to be allowed.
Factors favoring size & strength over endurance.

HOWEVER there are to significant factors greatly impacting how likely very tall men are to dominate.
Although since they already ARE, no cause to think it cannot continue & get more extreme...

1) The very tall are especially in demand in certain sports like Basketball.
1 a) These tend to be less arduous, risky for health, & more financially remunerative (although the rare top dogs in boxing can be the exceptions).

2) Being exceptionally tall is so UNCOMMON that you very easily can have a somewhat higher percentage of them succeeding, but a lesser total number.

For example, it seems the actual US statistics on how common it is to be 6'7" OR taller-allegedly the average NBA height-is 1 in 1,000 men!
At a true 7' or more around the world it is quite close to 1 in a MILLION.
Showing my work: 2,800 total is the common, good estimate, men are less than 1/2 of barely over 8 billion people, minus those under 18.

So given the scarcity of really tall people, & how they are disproportionately in demand in some other sports, it seems to show that as a

This content is protected

of how many exist, they are very successful in boxing.

 

Yeah the general population is getting bigger. You can even check with your own family. My dad was taller than his dad an I'm along with my brother's are all taller than him. Can't just be coincidence

 

Yes it can be.
One family tells nothing at all.
Any small group of people are meaningless in determining statistical truths-its like seeing a few people of some color, ethnicity or say wearing certain clothing styles or brand names, & if they are shorter or taller-or have any tendencies at all-falsely concluding that say the Irish or Japanese or those wearing blue shirts are taller.
PURE CHANCE runs rife with any minuscule sample size.

A tiny sample size can give any results-& on different occasions the exact opposite-results, merely due to the law of averages.
You need big numbers to make any statistically valid conclusions.

That is why we need something like 1,000 randomized subjects to get still a 3% range of error in either direction to establish anything-such as their political opinions in polling.

Now the average height HAS increased.
But unless you are in a recently developed nation, not more than a small amount-a very small percentage-in the last several generations.
You can see from a post above how very

This content is protected

average height has increased since 1970.
Your family may well have done so somewhat more than the tiny amount described.
But it is also not rare for a Grandfather to be the tallest (at least before he may have shrank), or a Dad...

One small group does not exhibit what the average of a massive population is.
Unless they coincidentally happen to be the average; but that is just random chance.

Like if you look at only a dozen folks walking down the street, they can be men, woman, children, blue eyes, whatever-FAR more or less than the true worlds, national, or even town average.

 

1970's actually, to be a bit picky. The top contenders that emerged during the second half of the 60's - Quarry, Bonavena, Ellis and Frazier - weren't bigger than earlier eras. It was the ones who came along in the early 70's - first Foreman, then Lyle, Bugner and Norton - that marked the shift toward ever bigger HWs, I'd say. This coincided with steroids spreading from weight lifting to other sports.

 

Because people in general are bigger?

 

I don't see an obvious answer to this one. People, in the western world, born in the 80's and 90's aren't much taller than the those born in the 40's and 50's. The big shift came in the 40-50 years before that.

But of course the population has increased a lot, making that 1% of really tall people more numerous. On the other hand, this is the case for the world outside the western world, which still dominates the HW division. In the western world I think fewer people actually were born in the 80's and 90's than in the 40's and 50's boomer generation.

Of course, the opening of for example the eastern bloc has enlarged the talent pool, but on the other hand the talent pool in the west has decreased with rising living standars, making boxing less attractive.

So hard to explain with either increased height ot talent pool. What we're left with is that large men maybe has an easier time to make the full use of their talents today. That could be because of better training, but PEDs could also play a role since they allow you to recover faster and thereyby train harder. Since I suppose the risk of injury from hard training is higher the bigger you are, this could have special benefits for the really big guys.

That's the best explanation I can come up with anyhow.