The 1930's saw an endless stream of SHWs. From giant 6'5 250lb machines, down to the 6'1 230lb stocky fighters. Why did this class of athlete emerge in the 1930's, and why did they seem to disappear by the end of Louis' reign?
While this happened at times, I think this is far too simplistic, and unrealistic of an explanation. It's like saying "In the 2010's they were plucking ex drug dealers from the street, giving them heavy weights to lift, which was all that was needed to beat the crop of fighters of that era." Neither is fair to the depth of what was going on. There were countless SHWs in that era. The "Carnival Strongman" shtick becomes oversaturated after the 2nd or 3rd giant oaf. What's so hard about believing that big strong men looking to make a career for themselves took up the sport? Does there have to be some ulterior motive? Every giant was some dumb circus clown being sheparded by some sly promoter looking to cash in? I doubt it. Perhaps the Carnera story is wrongfully being reflected in an overly simplistic manner to all the other giants. Perhaps, but so what? When people here talk about a guy like Sam Peter or Povetkin, they describe them as SHWs. And often ascribe modern phenomenon to their body types, and existence in the division.
I disagree with the premise and the implication drawn from it. It is simply that the giants of the 1930's managed to make it into the top ten, while guys like Ewart Potgeiter and Ben Moroz did not. Weights vary, but here are the given heights for the top 11 from 1937 and 1955 Ring Magazine yearly rankings. 1937 Joe Louis-----6' 2" Max Schmeling--6' 1" Tommy Farr--6' 1" Nathan Mann--5' 10" Alberto Lovell--6' 3" Tony Galento--5' 9" Jimmy Adamick--5' 10 1/2" Lou Nova-----6' 2" Bob Pastor----5' 11 1/2" Roscoe Toles--6' 2" Andre Lenglet--6' 3" 1955 Rocky Marciano-----5' 11" Archie Moore--------5' 11" Bob Baker----------6' 2" Hurricane Jackson--6' 3" John Holman------6' 3" Willie Pastrano-----5' 11" Nino Valdes--------6' 3" Johnny Summerlin---6' 1" Bob Satterfield------6' 2" (listed height, but appears more like 6' even on film) Young Jack Johnson---6' 3" Ezzard Charles-------6' 0" While the top two men of 1937 are bigger, overall the 1955 group is larger, with four men 6' 3" to two in 1937, and no one listed under 5' 11". While Galento was fat and so carried a lot of weight, the biggest man overall on these two lists is probably Valdes. Other than Carnera, I don't think any of the giants of the 1930's sustained themselves at the higher reaches of the division very long, so the "bigness" of the division in the 1930's is more an illusion than a reality.
Sure, I didn't mean to suggest that every big man in the sport in the 1930s was the product of greedy promoters. But surely the furor over the gargantuan Carnera must have had considerable impact, no? But I'm sure you could find mediocre big men in other decades too. Crude, untalented big fish/small pond guys who beat up on little inexperienced heavyweights in their hometown gyms and poor journeymen before getting exposed against better opposition. I don't see the 2000s analogue. My understanding is that the 1930s was a historically weak time in the division, where the rankings had plenty of little guys rising up in weight and inexperienced bigger guys with limited training or amateur careers. In that context, it's no surprise that limited big men were able to make it farther in the sport than in other decades.
Giant heavyweights were always around. They did better in some eras than others though. I can only suggest what I think the reason why that is but I really don’t know the reason. For years the biggest guys fought out of style adapted and developed for fighting shorter guys. The kind of swiping, mauling stuff associated with Oafs. Willard did use a nice jab and uppercut. Carnera really improved after the first Sharkey fight. He was very effective at boxing and difficult to beat. But it was not pretty. Largely all these guys were big maulers. Effective and reminiscent of what we have today. I do think the real explosion of tall, fancy boxers really exploded in about 1985. A swathe of them appeared almost together. Carl Williams, buster Douglas, Tony Tucker, Mitch Green, Jose Ribalta. Tyrell Biggs. Where the hell did they come from? These guys boxed. Nice footwork. Snappy jabs. There was nothing like this before. Heavyweight Tommy Hearns types. Bowe and Lewis joined them. I believe basket ball playing type guys began to cross over into boxing and began winning tournaments in Amatuer Boxing. Long armed guys were sought after and maybe the trend for getting guys in all weight classes to be as big and as long for the weight as possible meant a trend for long heavyweights too? Perhaps that influx caused The need for the Superheavyweight division in Amatuer boxing. This was the big turning point. since managers recruit from the Olympics regular heavyweights became less desirable. But what I want to know is where are all those Carl Williams type guys now!
Think about the logic you're using though. "Because there are no tall people in the top ten rankings, there were no tall fighters." What if the best fighters at the time weren't SHWs? Have you actually combed through the talent of the 1930's Heavyweights? If so, you'd know how extremely naïve it would be to propose that there weren't a vast pool of competitive SHWs in the mix. Sam Baker Tiny Jim Herman Long Tom Hawkins Arthur De Kuh Roberto Roberti Ralph Smith The amount of fighters heavier than Deontay Wilder in the 1930's is staggering in comparison to how modernists and Boxiana treat the emergence of behemoths. Bearcat Wright Eddie Blunt Jim Howell Jim Thompson On and on and on. Just go to boxrec, they're everywhere.
I think a more prevalent mentality amongst big men taking up the sport was "I can use my size and strength as an asset in boxing." Rather than "I can use my size to pretend I can fight, while I'm actually just pulling a fast one to cash in on audiences who want to see big men fighting." The 1930's looks way more full of SHWs than the 20's, the 40's, 50's, 60's and maybe more, unless someone can correct me. And I haven't seen an explanation for this, but I find it interesting. In fact, I wonder where the 1930's ranks in terms of talent of SHWs. Is it ahead of the 70's?
I think that there was a lot more of that going on in the white hope era to be honest. In the 1930s, people were much more interested in finding another Jack Dempsey.
"Because there were no tall fighters in the top ten rankings, there were no tall fighters." This isn't what I said. What I said is that just because there are tall fighters (or outright giants) doesn't mean they have any real impact on the top of the division. And your list is odd. The Bearcat Wright of the 1930's was 6' 1" and about 210 in shape and lost to Mickey Walker. De Kuh was 6' 3" and 223 when Walker KO'd him in one round. Which one of those ten men you list were ever rated in the top ten? Also, my other point is that there were always big men. No one considers the late forties to the mid-fifties an era of giants but the following were active-- Ewart Potgeiter---7' 2" 330 lbs. Jim Cully----------7' 3" 275 lbs. Ben Moroz--------7' 1' 300 lbs. (or 6' 8" or 6' 11" depending on source) Gil Stromquist----6' 8" 250 lbs. Bearcat Wright----6' 7" 240 lbs. (the real giant Bearcat Wright. He was the son of the old Bearcat and eventually became more famous as a wrestler) George Parmentier-----6' 6" 240 lbs. and I'm certain there were others if one wanted to plow through boxrec to find them. And there were relatively shorter men who were heavy in all eras. Yes Eddie Blunt was 6' and about 220, but Edgardo Romero at 6' 1" weighed between 250 and 260 and was able to beat top ten man Earl Walls. Now why were there so many freaky big guys in the 1930's versus later, to the extent there were? I think the rise of pro wrestling as a financial alternative probably explains it. Circus giant types have always been a draw in wrestling and after 1950 or so (and TV) the money was probably as good there as it was in boxing and the big fellows were far less likely to get hurt.
Leaving aside the change in training attitudes, which effects weight more than height, i think one of the biggest effects is increased weight divisions and titles and lack of fighting. Imagine say Harry Greb in todays environment. instead of fighting 20 times a year, at best he would fight say 5 times. That greatly reduces the number of titles. Also with so many divisions around and titles, there would have been no need for him to rise from middleweight to heavyweight, particularly when he was in his prime, and he has a million and one junior midlewieight World Champions or WBo Supermiddleweights or interim champions or whatever to get the bigger money fights. Why would a middleweight (for example GGG) want to raise weight and fight heavyweights? When they do (eg Toney or Jones Jr), they seem to do okay, or better than okay anyway. If there were still just 5 titles, you would expect to see a much smaller top 10. For another possibility, i have always had a theory that the bigger champions are usually indicative of lower standard of fighter. ie A great little man beats a good Big man. But a good or even very good little man does not. When Willard was champ, the challengers seemed poor (until Dempsey came along), When Carnera was Champ, the challengers were poor. Lewis is probably the exception, but he was a great big man.
Yeah, I’ve wondered about the disappearance of the mobile, skilled 6’2-6’5 (mostly black American) heavyweights who stormed the top of the division during the 1980s. I assume that most of the athletes who could have been them in more recent years gravitated toward basketball or football instead. Others were victims of the escalating inner-city gun violence of the 80s and 90s, or incarcerated because of America’s increasingly punitive law enforcement practices.
I believe the timing of rampant steroid use and the size of fighters is no coincidence. As it became more wide spread and common the larger the fighters seem to get. Allowing what was most likely awkward big men that lacked explosiveness all of a sudden found a secret weapon. Allowing them to move up the ranks. Maybe big men fighting in the 30s was used as a gimmick then as some have said? Maybe another poster mentioned big men used to box like small men negating their advantages. So with the evolving sport they became better? Doubt that one but it has some merits. I think modern trainers and promoters discourage shorter men from competing at higher weights with these crash diets (hell look at the cruiser division today it’s bigger then the HW division probably on average from the 30s! Everyone’s 6”3 lol).
