Quote Originally Posted by fan johnny View Post
I just skimmed through the article. I might read it completely to get a better feel for the authors specific point, but I do think his conclusions is a bit of a stretch.

Application Analogy: You have pain and need a pin killer, the instructions tell you how many pills to take. On the instruction there is a chart for age which is suppose to correspond to weight, and it tells you <12 take 1 pill >12 take 2 pills, <8 see doctor. The problem is there are some very big kids and some very small adults. Basically the bodies are lumped into 3 basic sizes Small, Medium and Large and then average weight is plotted when determining an application needs. The purpose is create an easy way to apply quantities to a lot of people. It is basically a short cut.

It looks like the Author has done the same sort of thing. You can't really lump bodies and part sizes into specific weight-classes no mre than you can apply age to weight-classes. So Pacquiao has a large wrist size, well... I'm not sure you can take that and say he is a natural 147 lbs fighter. Most fighters his size fight in the lighter weights. Fact! not analysis.

Some averages:
Heavyweight : >6'-0
Cruiserweight: >6'-0
Light Heavyweight: >6'0
Super Middleweight: 6'0
Middleweight: 5'11
Light Middleweight: 5'9
Welterweight 5'8
Light Welterweight: 5'7
Lightweight/Super Featherweight: 5'6
Featherweight: 5'5
and smaller....

(Although there are some guys that can qualify for the lower weight class being much taller.)
and vice versa, it's not only height but also body type, you can be 5'10 and have the body of a natural heavyweight like Tua and Tyson or on the flip side you can be 5'10 and yet barely make 140, it all depends on your body type