Are old-time heavyweights too small? Take the poll

[Dr Z]

Are old-time heavyweights too small? Take the poll and vote.

[Mr Mitts]

Wilder weighed 211 for Fury 1. He had wiped out the contenders he faced. So, yeah, great heavyweights of the past could qualify and might even destroy today's crop of contenders. Ali at 206 destroyed Liston 1, who would certainly destroy at least top 5 and under contenders today.

[Bronson66]

Wilder weighed 211 for Fury 1. He had wiped out the contenders he faced. So, yeah, great heavyweights of the past could qualify and might even destroy today's crop of contenders. Ali at 206 destroyed Liston 1, who would certainly destroy at least top 5 and under contenders today.

Which great heavyweights of the past were 6'6"?[relisted on Box rec,] Wilder was 212 1/2 lbs for Fury for 1 fight ,in the other 2 he was 231,and 238.
And when he," wiped out the contenders " he weighed.
229 Molina
228 3/4 Duhaupas
228 3/4 Szpilka
226 1/4 Arreola
214 3/4 Ortiz
222 Washington
226 1/4 Stiverne
223 1/4 Breazeale
Ortiz 2191/2 Ortiz
The current Ring top ten is roughly,in no order
Usyk 223 . 6 .3
Dubois 248. 6. 5
Fury 275. 6. 9
Joshua 253. 6.6
Parker247. 6.4
Hrgovic 242. 6.6
Zhang 290. 6.6
Kayabel 238. 6.3
Bakole 285 .6.6
Joyce280. 6.6
Why aren't smaller heavies a factor in the ratings?



What is your bench mark for "small?"

[billeau2]

Here is the best way I can put it:

There may be a bona fide weight difference in human beings in heavyweight boxing, however the reasons for this are not genetic, because genetic changes take many moons to manifest, as opposed to many other possible factors.

1. Heavyweights wanted to come in lighter, they trained to be as light as possible in the ring.

2. To really understand weight differences we would have to consider the weight heavyweights walked around at. When we do so there appears to be a much smaller difference in weight. Can I prove this? Well, we hear of things like: "Louis was 230 later on when he was shot. Marciano walked around after retirement at around 215, which we know from the computer Ali matches.

3. There is no reason why today's heavyweights could not look like yesteryears... Look at MMA heavyweights for example, and vice versa.

[JAB5239]

Here is the best way I can put it:

There may be a bona fide weight difference in human beings in heavyweight boxing, however the reasons for this are not genetic, because genetic changes take many moons to manifest, as opposed to many other possible factors.

1. Heavyweights wanted to come in lighter, they trained to be as light as possible in the ring.

2. To really understand weight differences we would have to consider the weight heavyweights walked around at. When we do so there appears to be a much smaller difference in weight. Can I prove this? Well, we hear of things like: "Louis was 230 later on when he was shot. Marciano walked around after retirement at around 215, which we know from the computer Ali matches.

3. There is no reason why today's heavyweights could not look like yesteryears... Look at MMA heavyweights for example, and vice versa.

People are dying to believe evolution has gone from taking millions of years to just a few decades nowadays. The don't want to see the undeniable truths you have pointed out.

[DeeMoney]

Here is the best way I can put it:

There may be a bona fide weight difference in human beings in heavyweight boxing, however the reasons for this are not genetic, because genetic changes take many moons to manifest, as opposed to many other possible factors.

1. Heavyweights wanted to come in lighter, they trained to be as light as possible in the ring.

2. To really understand weight differences we would have to consider the weight heavyweights walked around at. When we do so there appears to be a much smaller difference in weight. Can I prove this? Well, we hear of things like: "Louis was 230 later on when he was shot. Marciano walked around after retirement at around 215, which we know from the computer Ali matches.

3. There is no reason why today's heavyweights could not look like yesteryears... Look at MMA heavyweights for example, and vice versa.

The size difference isn't genetic (ala Darwinian evolution), but societal factors do play a part. People born post WWII & great depression in general have better diets as kids and in utero, so you are gonna produce more bigger healthier people. Naturally bigger people can carry extra weight without it being too much of a burden, and we have better training methods, so they can do so without sacrificing too much speed.

[Dr Z]

Wilder weighed 211 for Fury 1. He had wiped out the contenders he faced. So, yeah, great heavyweights of the past could qualify and might even destroy today's crop of contenders. Ali at 206 destroyed Liston 1, who would certainly destroy at least top 5 and under contenders today.

Well Wlder was 6'7" with an 80+ " reach. Not 6' with a 74 or less " reach. Follow the rules of the poll. He was also over 210 LBS, but that is spilting hairs on a two well argued points.

[Willie Pep 229]

The biggest problem with old timers is that many are really old, and the others are dead.

If you must judge a man's greatness judge that man against his own day.

[billeau2]

The size difference isn't genetic (ala Darwinian evolution), but societal factors do play a part. People born post WWII & great depression in general have better diets as kids and in utero, so you are gonna produce more bigger healthier people. Naturally bigger people can carry extra weight without it being too much of a burden, and we have better training methods, so they can do so without sacrificing too much speed.

This is tricky... We do see this in countries with real empirical affects from nutritional deficiencies. That much is a fact. There are even theories, like the idea Chinese martial arts had to build the body up considerably through forms (Tai Chi for example), to get people able to handle the stress of combat, given the general deficient physical symptoms people experienced... But in First world countries people had plenty of protein sources... People had access to nutritionally complete food sources and generally were quite robust. That is where the theory starts to apply less and less... It is possible but I do not believe it is probable.

People ate much better than we do today by many metrics... Again there are exceptions. Junk foods, processed foods are required to put certain vitamins in food to make sure people do not get sick, and this was not present back in the day... But even as late as the fifties, we see housewives putting gigantic steaks under the broiler lol...

[DeeMoney]

This is tricky... We do see this in countries with real empirical affects from nutritional deficiencies. That much is a fact. There are even theories, like the idea Chinese martial arts had to build the body up considerably through forms (Tai Chi for example), to get people able to handle the stress of combat, given the general deficient physical symptoms people experienced... But in First world countries people had plenty of protein sources... People had access to nutritionally complete food sources and generally were quite robust. That is where the theory starts to apply less and less... It is possible but I do not believe it is probable.

People ate much better than we do today by many metrics... Again there are exceptions. Junk foods, processed foods are required to put certain vitamins in food to make sure people do not get sick, and this was not present back in the day... But even as late as the fifties, we see housewives putting gigantic steaks under the broiler lol...

If you are arguing people in years past ate much better, as in less processed foods, thats true. But pre WWII by and large people in western nations lacked the healthy calories that people today have (we just tend to throw lots of unhealthy calories on top of them). Thats why the people in western nations, as a whole, is larger than back then.

Whether that means better, thats for a different post. I am just pointing out that nobody with any real knowledge attributed this to evolution (as is understood as survival of the fittest Darwinian process). But that there are sociological factors that have caused changes in the population as a whole is a real thing.