I've always been curious about how much the increasing size of heavyweights is down to men getting naturally bigger due to childhood nutrition or down to improved training/diet. To satisfy my geeky curiosity I've used equations from a bodybuilding ebook which accurately charts the correlation between bone structure (wrist, ankle & height, none of which change massively with training) and lean body mass/size at different levels of training. Since boxers have always done allot of bodyweight strength training and the type of dude who becomes heavyweight champion of the world is likely to have higher testosterone levels than untrained Joe Bloggs to begin with, I went with an equation somewhere between 'untrained' and 'elite' natural in bodybuilding terms. Turned out to be really accurate. But in reality it's just used as an arbitrary reference point to illustrate the comparison between frame size and fighting weight. For predicted weight I've added 10% bodyfat to the lean mass which is roughly what in shape heavyweights scale in at. Flabby guys or especially ripped guys will come in higher or lower than predicted based solely on the amount of fat they're carrying rather than their 'size' so bear that in mind. I hope somebody finds this interesting apart from my geeky ass.:: John L. Sulivan: predicted fighting weight: 198, actual prime fighting weight: 190-200 Jim Jefferies: predicted fighting weight: 221, actual prime fighting weight: 210-220 Tommy Burns: predicted fighting weight: 175, actual prime fighting weight: 170-181 Jack Johnson: predicted fighting weight: 216, actual prime fighting weight: 190-212 Jesse Willard: predicted fighting weight: 258, actual prime fighting weight: 225-245 Jack Dempsey: predicted fighting weight: 195, actual prime fighting weight: 180-195 Primo Carnera: predicted fighting weight: 270, actual prime fighting weight: 265-270 Joe Louis: predicted fighting weight: 220, actual prime fighting weight: 195-205 Max Baer: predicted fighting weight: 216, actual prime fighting weight: 190-212 Ezzard Charles: predicted fighting weight: 187, actual prime fighting weight: 185-195 Rocky Marciano: predicted fighting weight: 205, actual prime fighting weight: 185-190 Floyd Patterson: predicted fighting weight: 188, actual prime fighting weight: 185-190 Ingemar Johansson: predicted fighting weight: 207, actual prime fighting weight: 200 Sonny Liston: predicted fighting weight: 225, actual prime fighting weight: 210-215 Muhammed Ali: predicted fighting weight: 223, actual prime fighting weight: 210-215 Joe Frazier: predicted fighting weight: 216, actual prime fighting weight: 205-210 Ken Norton: predicted fighting weight: 221, actual prime fighting weight: 212-224 Larry Holmes: predicted fighting weight: 225, actual prime fighting weight: 210-220 Tony Tubbs: predicted fighting weight: 220, actual prime fighting weight: 230-245 (fat bastard) Michael Spinks: predicted fighting weight: 206, actual prime fighting weight: 200 Mike Tyson: predicted fighting weight: 221, actual prime fighting weight: 215-220 Evander Holyfield: predicted fighting weight: 208, actual prime fighting weight: 205-215 Riddick Bowe: predicted fighting weight: 239, actual prime fighting weight: 235 Lennox Lewis: predicted fighting weight: 244, actual prime fighting weight: 230-245 Vitali Klitschko: predicted weight: 227, actual prime fighting weight: 238-248 (effect of weight training, he was 225 as a kickboxer) Nicolay Valuev: predicted fighting weight: 309, actual prime fighting weight: 330 (fairly fat) Conclusions: obviously there's some problems with this approach as A) there will be some variability in the amount of muscle fighters will naturally carry on their frame due to hormonal differences and muscle belly length, B) the tale of the tape measurements Im using might not be completely accurate. I've left off Foreman for that reason because the site Im working from gave such wildly different ankle & wrist measurements for young and old George that I know one or the other has to be BS. But from what I can see frame size is obviously a bit more important than any change in training or diet, as you'd expect. One proviso to that is that during the 'golden age' of boxing from 35-80, lets say, there seems to have been a big emphasis on getting BIGGER boxers weights down. I'm guessing that since this only applies to the big guys that there was some effort to make boxers conform to a preset ideal of what they SHOULD weigh (arguably you could say the same about today with guys making the difference up at the buffet). Louis and Marciano particularly are about 20lb lighter than you'd expect them to be from their frames. Ali & Liston about 10-15lb lighter. The second proviso is that guys like Holyfield, Haye, and the Klitsckoe's exceed their frame size due to weight training. It's interesting that Holyfield's frame is barely bigger than Marciano's and Vitali's is barely bigger than Liston's despite 30lb differentials in both cases. Lewis may have suffered from that approach in his younger days, before coming to his natural weight under Steward. Jack Johnson is also much lighter in the early part of his career than it seems he should have been judging by his frame. In those days that might even have been down to undernourishment, before becoming wealthy. Same goes for Demspey, I'd imagine. I didn't post all the results, but judging by their frame, Spinks & Moorer were far naturally bigger than Charles & Moore. This might suggest fighters cut way more weight to get down to lower classes than they did formerly. Anyway, I found this shit interesting for some reason, especially as it relates to how different fighters would have done & looked in different eras, sorry if I put anybody to sleep with it.
LOL, screw you. I get geeky bees in my bonnet now and then, what can I say. I have a much needed day off and it took just over an hour. What did you do the last hour, scratch your balls, watch neighbours?:stir:
A little flowery today are we. I'm not even home an hour, but in that time I have been working on restoring peace in planet FightBeat.
One thing that has changed is the ideology of training. In 40s and 50s fighters ran much more than they do now. According to present knowledge, running is not as useful as thought earlier (though it sill has its place). The idea is that when training your stamina, you should do it by sparring, hitting the heavybag or something else that gives you the stamina to be in the ring. It doesn't matter if you can run a marathon: you will be winded after two minutes of boxing if you don't train that. In those "golden years" fighters were more slim (both because of training habits and eating habits) and because of that, fights were more entertaining.
Apparently fighters run for the duration of a fight to build up mental strength to go the distance in the ring.
Well yeah, this is true. But it's interesting that only the bigger guys are smaller than you'd expect so I think there was more going on than you'd expect. I think there might have been an expectation during different times that a great heavyweight would weight between X & Y pounds, and bigger guys trained/dieted to conform to that. And you might say that smaller guys are EATING to conform to the different expectation now. *edit - I found the stats for Vitali, he's allot bigger than you'd expect from his frame due to the effects of weight training. In terms of his natural frame he's barely bigger than Ali or Holmes!
Well UGTBK is right that sports scientists and trainers really don't see any value in long distance running for boxing these days. So you have guys doing more interval work etc. But I'm tempted to agree with you that there has to be SOME advantage to something that all boxers have done since year dot and continue to, even if it's just psychological. Guys in the trenches are usually ahead of the guys in the white coats.
:: Even a dead clock is right twice a day! Only joking man, I agree with quite allot of what you say you're a very sensible individual, we just seem to have insanely different tastes in what we enjoy in boxing.::
Very good handiwork! It was an interesting read opcorn: I think the issue isn't predominantly genetic, or even nutritionally-based (although, the latter has obviously changed a lot --- not for the better, in the case of the big boys!). There are other, pressing factors. 1. You only need go back as far as Holmes' title reign to find fifteen-rounders, for which, losing weight & keeping it down would be conducive to victory. Less weight usually means greater stamina (if only indirectly, as the result of hard cardio & lots of it). Go back further in time --- to include some of the fellows you mentioned --- & you have guys fighting twenty, thirty, or even under, 'Fight To The Finish' rules. No one looking like Sam Peter is going to last long in those conditions. One factor, then, is the distance-scheduling of bouts. Fifteen, twenty, twenty-five or more rounds --- without the benefit of an air-conditioned arena, forces the combatants to be in absolute peak shape, & there's no better way to do that than to keep weight, all weight, lower. 2. As a larger society, the US --- from which almost all Heavyweight champions, in the linear sense, have originated from --- has completely changed its attitude toward junk food in the last thirty years. It's not new. The stuff has been around since the 1950's. Since the 80's, however, obesity has soared. Now, you might expect boxers --- even the Heavyweight variety --- to be insulated from that, being the sportsmen they are. I don't think that insulation is bullet-proof, & I think the pervasiveness of junk (it's everywhere you turn, in any Western country) has had some impact on the walk-around weight of these guys, &, as we now see, their fight weight. I actually think this may have wider implications for the division. Many of the non-US HW's are flabbier now, too. This might partially be a function of them following the trend set down by their American counter-parts. "If most of the best guys aren't in superb shape, maybe I can get away with being just a little softer." Beyond that, history seems to suggest humans just aren't as out-right tough as they used to be. With time, life gets easier, through increasing levels of automation. I think the division reflects our movement as a species, as disappointing as that is to see in such a demanding physical sport as ours. You look at Liston, for instance. He was absolutely a notorious figure, in his day, for failing to keep in shape, or so he was perceived. "Laying off the Whiskey & a few rounds of jump-rope, that was his idea of training, toward the end," remarked his young stablemate, George Foreman. Yet, compared to today's men, Liston looks very much to be in formidable shape. We are all influenced by the way society acts as a whole, even boxers. Liston had good influences in this regard, & even to the death of his career, was in no worse shape than some of today's young men! 3. There just wasn't the interest in so-called, "Super-Heavyweights" in the days of Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, or even as recently as Liston. These guys saw a division full of lighter men, & understood Boxing's past as being similarly slim --- why wouldn't they follow the trend? At the lighter weight, they would also notice improvements over current, heavier fighters in a number of areas important to Boxing. These would include hand & footspeed, endurance, reflexes & reaction time, &, of course, there is the psychology of being in perfect condition. It breeds perfect self-confidence. I remember reading Dempsey, who wrote words to the effect of, "There are many joys for a Boxer in his training. To score the knockout blow in sparring, to learn & hone a new skill, a new technique. But to finish the road --- to reach the end of a long, winding trail, & to be left alone with your thoughts & the knowledge your heart just grew stronger...is one of the most complete feelings a man can have." This speaks to a wider attitude on the significance of conditioning to fighters in Dempsey's time, as well as the time of future generations. We are all largely a product of our teachings, too. In the days of Johnson, Dempsey, & Louis, the old heads were of course in the ear of these young men about the importance of conditioning. Today, there is obviously less of that, & the young lions respond in kind. Btw, you speculated that Johnson's very light weight early in his career may've been a result of malnutrition. According to certain accounts, you may be right. In his loss to Choynski, for instance, Johnson is described as looking, "sickly," &, "under-nourished to the point of dehydration." If that sort of thing goes on long enough, at a young enough age (& Johnson was pro whilst still growing), then the eventual effects on body growth can remain, even after permanent, proper nutrition is in place.
:bears: Thanks for the great reply Ramonza. I certainly think there's some 'weight' to all three of your points. I especially agree with point three. As I said, I think the fact that it was generally only the largest fighters (leaving aside Primo who was marketed on his size and I think may have used weights (?)) who were significantly smaller than their frames would predict meant that they were trying to conform to an accepted ideal among trainers of what they SHOULD weigh, if they were to be in proper condition. On point two, I'd say there's something to that, but I still think there must be a reason specific to boxing for why our sport is suffering the invasion of the fatties so much more than any other. You don't even really see it in MMA for instance, let alone any other sports I can think of. In part you can say it's because two really, really big guys ala Willard & Carnera came along AT ONCE who also happened to be able to fight really great and guys felt they had to get bigger to compete. The Klitschkoes (who have naturally smaller frames than Lewis or Bowe it turns out) did that the right way with intelligent weight training. And between the 4 of them they've set a new expectation like you talked about in point 3 that you've gotta be 240+ to compete. But then again, that doesn't explain why so many guys failed to train properly in the 80s. So maybe some sort of post-Ali existential heavyweight malaise was to blame, too. :: Point 1) I agree with. It definitely contributes. Though I think the fact that it was only the bigger fighters that trained down in weight makes point three more compelling in my mind. Interesting about Johnson. I've read similar stories about Dempsey's early days. As you said, tougher times!
It is a compelling subject, in part, because there is no one answer. Well-put about MMA, & the multitude of overweight contenders amongst the 80's crop. Perhaps that was an anomaly which should stand on its own, though. There have been other, overweight contenders in previous eras --- perhaps it just happened to be coincidental that some of the top guys, simultaneously, weren't the most disciplined figures. Then again, maybe there was an underlying order then, as there is now. It amazes me about the Klitschkos --- they are both quite good, but certainly not what I would call great, fighters, whose conditioning (always excellent) is a large part of why they stand out. There are other factors, of course. It's a hideously shallow division, & most of the limited contenders aren't in shape, anyway, as well as the aforementioned point that each of the Klitschko's are pretty capable, sound fighters. Even so, I cannot shake the feeling one or perhaps even both would run into trouble, somewhere down the line, were it not for their conditioning, which is quite good, but stands out like the bright lights of Vegas in the current climate. They are good boys, but benefit no end from their discipline, in a weightclass replete with half-trained, indulgent boxers.
Absolutely. It's so maddening that fighters don't realize or don't care that the 5 guys of the last 25 years who'll probably be looked back upon most favourably by history (Lewis, Tyson, Holy, Klits) are among the ONLY guys who consistently came in fight after fight for extended periods in good condition. How good might Bowe, Douglas, Tubbs, Ruddock, Tua and all the rest have been? It's really the only reason I hold/pin so much hope for Haye.....people dismiss it as a sexy body feitish, but that really misses the point that a heavyweight with some ability and a commitment to training correctly is so rare now and the second part is IMPORTANT, as the Klits continue to prove!
A fact lost, regrettably, on so many of the most prominent Heavyweights in the world today. They're not any great loss in the sense that they aren't genuinely significant fighters in their own right, but in a division so lacking, their absence from the gymnasium is noticed.
But the thing is, you don't know if Haye trains correctly. Yes, his abs are visible, but at least earlier in his career the problems he did have were due stamina. So is there anything to suggest his training is any more correct than say Frank Bruno's
There's been allot of footage of his training in these sky/setanta build up shows. It was also covered in the boxing training mag 'fitness' that I buy. He trains correctly. Bruno was trained by bodybuilding coaches. As is Hatton in the weight room, BTW, his lifting program is an unfunny joke, wall to wall machine work. Haye brings in Olympic sprint coaches, does the olympic lifts and an insane amount of interval road work. One of the days filmed he was doing 20 100 metre sprints with 10 second walking rests in between - up a fucking mountain! Haye's training is 100% geared towards fitness, not aesthetics (as is the Klits from what I've seen/read).
Hard to say for sure. Ike Quartey is another guy that had a very chiseled physique but had stamina issues. Stamina is partly genetic as well. There's a few things that have to be looked at though. If somebody trains hard (without overdoing it) it's only natural that they're going to "look the part". Although a muscular physique doesn't necessarily translate into great stamina, it at least illustrates that a fighter has done their work in the gym. If a boxer trains very hard it's highly unlikely they're going to have a bunch of excess flab. Athletes aren't like camels. They can't reach into fat storage for needed energy over the course of a boxing match.
Exactly. Haye may or not be training correctly (though he is). But you KNOW a guy with 25lb of excess fat isn't training or eating properly. You know he doesn't really GIVE A FUCK. And as I've rattled on about before - you can be almost certain he's gonna tacitly or overtly QUIT in the ring too. He's not psychologically invested or committed. He knows he isn't at his best & he's got an in built excuse for losing in his own mind. There's always a tomorrow in your mind when you haven't given it 100% in training. THEN you can give it 100% in the ring. Tomorrow. Measure heavyweights body fat and fine fighters for being over 12%, IMO. Spread the fine around the poor suckers who've bought tickets to watch him giggle and quit.
