The paradox of weight and the development of boxing.

[billeau2]

I think I may have a sort of solution for this impasse between the two camps involving the old timers and modern fighters... I will call this the weight paradox which is: While fighters were instructed, as a goal, to come into a fight, as light as possible, in the old days, fighters today are often bulking up, and training with different ideas about how to show up to a fight in great condition.

So, here we are going back and fourth about a figher's weight and what it would be, while ignoring the fact that fighters in one group were trying to lose weight, while fighters in the other group, are not concerned with such...The paradox being, both groups are trying to come in as able bodied as one can for a fight.

So what does it take to come over this impasse and establish some consensus? Well, for starters, how about thinking in these terms: Take a blank slate...no food ideology, no steriod ideology, and no faulty notions of evolution... Now take the two groups and reverse the training goals: So for the modern heavyweights, they must try to come in as light as possible for a match, while the other historical group, can come in with weight, and should concentrate on strength training, interval training, and other such methods utilized...

Now how much would this change, change the disparity in the average weight of a heavyweight? keeping in mind, that to this day, the average size of both, a heavyweight, and a champion heavyweight, has only changed on average, about maybe 25 pounds or so? Probably less.

This is a rhetorical question above, but what if, for example, Joe Louis was trained rolling a tire, doing Plymetrics, explosive strength training... and what if Tyson was trained on road work, calistenics, the type of things joe did...

[DeeMoney]

This is a very good topic, and I am glad you brought it up. I think one thing that needs to be considered is how much is boxing an endurance sport as opposed to an anaerobic sport.

Lets compare two of the greatest runners of all time: Usain Bolt & Samuel Kamau Wanjiru. Both are world record holders on the track, but both are very different. Usain Bolt is 6'5 and weighed over 205 pounds, Samuel Kamau Wanjiru was 5'4 and weighed 110 pounds.

Both of them had roughly the same task, to win a foot race, but both were built very differently to do so. If we assume that both were near the optimal size that man can currently achieve to be successful, then it stands to reason that the differences in the distances they were running call for more specialization in size. The man who is going longer distance is benefited by carrying the less weight, the man going the shorter distance is benefited by carrying more muscle.

This leads me back to my original statement, to what extent is boxing a sprint or a marathon? The answer to that should set the groundwork for where the optimal weight lies.

On a side note, I strongly reccomend 'The Sports Gene' by David Epstein for anyone who is interested in this type of stuff. There are a number of fascinating points made which relate to this and other topics similar to this. One was a whole section about a similar discussion, but whether European Soccer teams are better suited seeking endurance athletes or sprinters.

[Commie]

You could get granted some Research Money for that BS
A question where some important aspects were dismissed a priori

[billeau2]

This is a very good topic, and I am glad you brought it up. I think one thing that needs to be considered is how much is boxing an endurance sport as opposed to an anaerobic sport.

Lets compare two of the greatest runners of all time: Usain Bolt & Samuel Kamau Wanjiru. Both are world record holders on the track, but both are very different. Usain Bolt is 6'5 and weighed over 205 pounds, Samuel Kamau Wanjiru was 5'4 and weighed 110 pounds.

Both of them had roughly the same task, to win a foot race, but both were built very differently to do so. If we assume that both were near the optimal size that man can currently achieve to be successful, then it stands to reason that the differences in the distances they were running call for more specialization in size. The man who is going longer distance is benefited by carrying the less weight, the man going the shorter distance is benefited by carrying more muscle.

This leads me back to my original statement, to what extent is boxing a sprint or a marathon? The answer to that should set the groundwork for where the optimal weight lies.

On a side note, I strongly reccomend 'The Sports Gene' by David Epstein for anyone who is interested in this type of stuff. There are a number of fascinating points made which relate to this and other topics similar to this. One was a whole section about a similar discussion, but whether European Soccer teams are better suited seeking endurance athletes or sprinters.

Yup. From an evolutionary perspective which were we? We may be runners by default...considering human mass, compared to other animals size. There is even speculation that there is an aquatic component to our development, due to relative little body mass and hair.

[billeau2]

You could get granted some Research Money for that BS
A question where some important aspects were dismissed a priori

Okkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyy

[them_apples]

I've been on this crusade for 6 years and billeau gets all the credit

[The Old LefHook]

I've been on this crusade for 6 years and billeau gets all the credit

Some of these new guys were not born five years ago, by buggery.

[billeau2]

I've been on this crusade for 6 years and billeau gets all the credit

Im starting to look at the situation different: More as an idealist than a materialist. The assumption always is that because people, in general were slightly smaller, than on average today, that sports were limited by this fact. Yet to be heavyweight champ used to be a distinction that was practically unmatched. we also see big men in the division, just not generally as the best in the division. Jeffries was one exception in this case.

The fact of the matter is, men did not want to train for size. What if the IDEA had been: "Get bigger, more muscle mass, and overwhelm your opponent." Instead of the IDEA, "Come in light, strong with endurance to last and take punishment." How would this have looked? Would it have changed the way fighters looked and performed?

Here is the logic by way of a chilling example... My late father told me something I will never forget. He was in combat in the south Pacific as a Marine in the second World War. His group was one of the first to gain a position on Ija Jima. He told me that when they ran into caches of Japanese solders who had been found and killed, including those who suicided, that the AVERAGE size for a man in those Japanese troops was over 6 feet tall. We know that the Japanese sent elite Samurai family over to battle in areas where it was expected there would be a fight.

The average size of a Japanese solder, vis a vis, a Japanese citizen was about 5 feet and some inches. Obviously out of this sample of Japanese, when the most strong, viscious, cunning and military prepared members were sorted out, their stats did not reflect general measures of size.

applying the same logic to boxing, the sample of men who were able to excel, with strength, speed and technique was such that if size was such an advantage, one could find many big men in the general population. The amount of people who box well is such a small number compared to the general population, and so is a subset of people who were very strong, and very big, who boxed well. Surely such people were not so rare back then... Meaning size was not trained, nor looked at as a great advantage.

[them_apples]

Im starting to look at the situation different: More as an idealist than a materialist. The assumption always is that because people, in general were slightly smaller, than on average today, that sports were limited by this fact. Yet to be heavyweight champ used to be a distinction that was practically unmatched. we also see big men in the division, just not generally as the best in the division. Jeffries was one exception in this case.

The fact of the matter is, men did not want to train for size. What if the IDEA had been: "Get bigger, more muscle mass, and overwhelm your opponent." Instead of the IDEA, "Come in light, strong with endurance to last and take punishment." How would this have looked? Would it have changed the way fighters looked and performed?

Here is the logic by way of a chilling example... My late father told me something I will never forget. He was in combat in the south Pacific as a Marine in the second World War. His group was one of the first to gain a position on Ija Jima. He told me that when they ran into caches of Japanese solders who had been found and killed, including those who suicided, that the AVERAGE size for a man in those Japanese troops was over 6 feet tall. We know that the Japanese sent elite Samurai family over to battle in areas where it was expected there would be a fight.

The average size of a Japanese solder, vis a vis, a Japanese citizen was about 5 feet and some inches. Obviously out of this sample of Japanese, when the most strong, viscious, cunning and military prepared members were sorted out, their stats did not reflect general measures of size.

applying the same logic to boxing, the sample of men who were able to excel, with strength, speed and technique was such that if size was such an advantage, one could find many big men in the general population. The amount of people who box well is such a small number compared to the general population, and so is a subset of people who were very strong, and very big, who boxed well. Surely such people were not so rare back then... Meaning size was not trained, nor looked at as a great advantage.

OK but the idea that people were smaller back then is majorly up for debate.

For 1, the same ratio of 7 footers existed back then as it does today. Difference being 7 percent (or something) of all 7 footers these days are actually in the NBA. It makes basketball look like athletes have got taller, in reality the sport has attracted tall people.

Then you have nationality, some races are shorter than others. With a lot of mixing in certain countries you will have taller people if taller people keep breeding more than shorter people. Not bigger people though. Some shorter men 100 years ago were very stocky. Height is just one gene.

Gene's also don't change like that, they get passed down. When you mix genes up you do get a better chance of getting say, height for example, combined with a strength gene. But you also may get a tall person with a frail build.

So to say athletes are just bigger and stronger isn't the case. It's changed, but it's a hard statistic to measure.

You can't take a sport that has developed over the past 60 years only and claim the athletes are superior, when the sports skill ceiling hadn't even been reached. Boxing is incredibly old. Before the Queensbury rules you had the London ring rules etc, bare knuckle fighters etc. You also have to take into account equipment changes and the nature of the sport. Beating a sprinting record could just as easily mean a better athlete happened to come along, not humans as a whole have evolved. You couldn't block punches in Johnsons Era, the gloves were too small. So defense was different, you grabbed shoulders, parried and rolled. Now today they have wide gloves that allow you to block punches very easy. And thumb connectors to prevent grabbing. Leonard may have lost against Hearns in a 12 rnd fight, Ali may have beat Frazier in a 12 round fight. Holmes may have been Tkoed by Shavers, Foreman by Lyle. They let those fights go on and those guys had heart. How many stoppages today would be premature for yesteryear? How many fighters give up so soon because they are getting paid either way. All a guy like Broner has to do is not get knocked out and keep running his mouth. He will still get paid.

You would be surprised at how many records in the Olympics are only broken due to equipment changes. Jesse Owen's dirt track sprint can't actually be beating by the majority of contenders outside of bolt.


Sorry, I've been reading a lot of Dawkins lately lol

[billeau2]

OK but the idea that people were smaller back then is majorly up for debate.

For 1, the same ratio of 7 footers existed back then as it does today. Difference being 7 percent (or something) of all 7 footers these days are actually in the NBA. It makes basketball look like athletes have got taller, in reality the sport has attracted tall people.

Then you have nationality, some races are shorter than others. With a lot of mixing in certain countries you will have taller people if taller people keep breeding more than shorter people. Not bigger people though. Some shorter men 100 years ago were very stocky. Height is just one gene.

Gene's also don't change like that, they get passed down. When you mix genes up you do get a better chance of getting say, height for example, combined with a strength gene. But you also may get a tall person with a frail build.

So to say athletes are just bigger and stronger isn't the case. It's changed, but it's a hard statistic to measure.

You can't take a sport that has developed over the past 60 years only and claim the athletes are superior, when the sports skill ceiling hadn't even been reached. Boxing is incredibly old. Before the Queensbury rules you had the London ring rules etc, bare knuckle fighters etc. You also have to take into account equipment changes and the nature of the sport. Beating a sprinting record could just as easily mean a better athlete happened to come along, not humans as a whole have evolved. You couldn't block punches in Johnsons Era, the gloves were too small. So defense was different, you grabbed shoulders, parried and rolled. Now today they have wide gloves that allow you to block punches very easy. And thumb connectors to prevent grabbing. Leonard may have lost against Hearns in a 12 rnd fight, Ali may have beat Frazier in a 12 round fight. Holmes may have been Tkoed by Shavers, Foreman by Lyle. They let those fights go on and those guys had heart. How many stoppages today would be premature for yesteryear? How many fighters give up so soon because they are getting paid either way. All a guy like Broner has to do is not get knocked out and keep running his mouth. He will still get paid.

You would be surprised at how many records in the Olympics are only broken due to equipment changes. Jesse Owen's dirt track sprint can't actually be beating by the majority of contenders outside of bolt.


Sorry, I've been reading a lot of Dawkins lately lol

Im going to try to simplify my argument. It is confusing. Here is the best that I can do:

1) Let us assume that genetics has two components, a long term process where undesirable traits are alienated from an organism through the environment, which is of course, natural selection, vis a vis what Darwin synonomously called "Natural Selection."

2) Now let us assume that in any given population there are different amounts of genetic variability that has nothing to do with the environment. Recessive genes, dominant genes, nutritional factors, pure circumstance.... For example, the mob had a meeting in Upstate New York and the feds caught wind...Some were arrested.

Lets say all the most brilliant mobsters were at that meeting and they all got arrested... There would be a huge impact on the efficiency and direction, the survival of the mob. Just as if all the alpha male saber tooths fell into the same tar pit... You get the idea.

3) Lets look at this variability carefully. You have general genetic characteristics BUT you are selecting for traits that are rare, and traits that are in ANY population of human beings, if we extend the population boundaries enough... Example: In Africa you have some of the tallest, most athletic people, they exist with some of the shortest, unathletic individuals. Because there is enough of a population with enough genetic diversity to have all types of traits.

Now this is important! If we go to Africa, select the tallest, strongest individuals, the real question is: Will these individuals be as strong, as able, as any other strong people from when we became modern human beings? In other words, given that whenever we are selecting athletes for a task we are taking individuals that are rare, does it make a difference if the general population selected from has more or less variability?

This has to be thought through... If we are looking for a rare genetic quality, how much of a population of human beings do I need to find it? In boxing there were always big and strong people. If the primary trait selected for in a fighter was strength and mass, I see no reason why these people could not have been selected from the general population. We even see very big strong fighters on occasion, most of them did not do so well historically until modern times.

So I am not saying that people were smaller or bigger, I am saying that the amount of people was such, that it would not make a difference if people were not as large on average... There were plenty of big strong people around IF THIS WAS WHAT WOULD MAKE A FIGHTER SUPERIOR.

Instead other traits were favored for a great fighter. And that is what was selected for: Traits like power combined with speed for one's size, endurance, tolerance to pain and adversity. Hence, trainers were looking for a different set of conditions then as compared to now.

Now with that said I hope this clarifies my position. I will respond to your post.

Your genetic arguments are not really necessary for your position because regardless of how and what genes are passed... In most human populations exposed to boxing there is a large enough amount of variability to produce the type of individual desired to be a fighter. Its just that what was desird to be a fighter has changed!

To say that athletes are bigger and stronger is a generalisation that applies to some sports and not to others. The reason for this is because we can produce certain changes well within the normal limits of genetic and operant (environmental) conditions. For example, when football players were shown how to create muscle failure on all the major muscle groups, in 15 minutes, then taught "football" the rest of the scrimmage, then given performance enhancers... Football players became much bigger and better.

The other factor for this is what has been discussed above: Because of the money and prestige, more very strong, fast athletes became football players. Football became, from being nearly a club sport in the arty donovan days, to the major income source for many Universities. Of course more athletes will play...football is getting more of the sample of big, fast, strong, men than it got before. Meanwhile boxing may well be getting less elite athletes... Because, when we take the samle of the best athletes, a lot more of them used to want to box than today. Is the sample bigger? another debate for another time I suppose.

Your last points about boxing I agree with totally. the training was also a lot more like real combat. And again... What was the ideal for a great fighter? that is what people were looking for, and it was not a guy who looks like a football player today!