Why aren't any football players 15-16 stone or more?

CorkMan

The biggest seems to be 14 and a half stone, the likes of Drogba, John Terry, all 6'2 lads. But I watch a lot of boxing and the heavyweights are like 15 and a half stone at least lately of pure muscle, up to a still fit looking 19 stone.

Is it just not suited to Football? Being that big.

daftdave

CorkMan wrote: »

The biggest seems to be 14 and a half stone, the likes of Drogba, John Terry, all 6'2 lads. But I watch a lot of boxing and the heavyweights are like 15 and a half stone at least lately of pure muscle, up to a still fit looking 19 stone.

Is it just not suited to Football? Being that big.

the less you weigh the more mobile you are gonna be , its pretty simple really:rolleyes:

Xavi6

I accidentally just hit the 'Follow Thread' button.

Must correct that asap...

NukaCola

:pac:

DOC09UNAM

CorkMan wrote: »

just not suited to Football?

Congratulations OP, you answered your own question.

jaykay74

CorkMan wrote: »

The biggest seems to be 14 and a half stone, the likes of Drogba, John Terry, all 6'2 lads. But I watch a lot of boxing and the heavyweights are like 15 and a half stone at least lately of pure muscle, up to a still fit looking 19 stone.

Is it just not suited to Football? Being that big.

Sure that might be the case in the Premier League but you drop down to your standard 3 a side game in the park and you'll find the fat kid in nets. A fat kid who blocks half the goal is worth his weight in gold (which is a lot).

Frisbee

CorkMan wrote: »

The biggest seems to be 14 and a half stone, the likes of Drogba, John Terry, all 6'2 lads. But I watch a lot of boxing and the heavyweights are like 15 and a half stone at least lately of pure muscle, up to a still fit looking 19 stone.

Is it just not suited to Football? Being that big.

I'd imagine weighing 16 stone and trying to chase Torres around for 90 minutes would be a bit of a toughie...


Seriously though, thread locked.

Frisbee

Thread re-opened for the moment

homerjay2005

you obviosuly aint heard of Any Reid then....here is a pic of him and his former manager kicking about in training.

racso1975

The main reason is that it is not primarily a contact sport. You look at rugby players who are at that 14-16 stone mark and are excepionally agile but they need to be that size due to the impacts of the tackles and he very physical nature of the game.

A soccer player does not need that muscle content and if they did have it not only would it possible slow them down at the start of a game but over 90 minutes their body would have a lot more work to due.

Example: sprinter big mucle content due to the explosive nature of the race, marathon runner low muscle content due to the endurance aspect of the sport and the body would require a lot more fuel to keep large muscle groups working

stovelid

Pies are no longer an acceptable form of half-time nourishment so that ponce Wenger came to England.

RasTa

racso1975 wrote: »

The main reason is that it is not primarily a contact sport. You look at rugby players who are at that 14-16 stone mark and are excepionally agile but they need to be that size due to the impacts of the tackles and he very physical nature of the game.

A soccer player does not need that muscle content and if they did have it not only would it possible slow them down at the start of a game but over 90 minutes their body would have a lot more work to due.

Example: sprinter big mucle content due to the explosive nature of the race, marathon runner low muscle content due to the endurance aspect of the sport and the body would require a lot more fuel to keep large muscle groups working

Great post on the matter. Habanna for example is 15 stone and would destroy any footballer for pace and strength

orourkeda

Frisbee wrote: »

I'd imagine weighing 16 stone and trying to chase Torres around for 90 minutes would be a bit of a toughie...

Just look at him crooked. He'll be taken off injured.

M5

Shhhhh Sol Campbell might hear ye!

orourkeda

RasTa wrote: »

Great post on the matter. Habanna for example is 15 stone and would destroy any footballer for pace and strength

Something of a generalisation I suspect.

Bryan Habana isn't even 6 feet

mikemac

Ade Akinbiyi was critized a few years ago by his manager. Spending a lot of time in the weight room bulking up which affected his pace.

. "I wasn’t playing at Sheffield so the only thing I was doing was weights. We didn’t even have reserve games and it was something to do. I put on a bit too much muscle and I lost about a yard of pace", he said. "I try to stay away from the weights room now. I’m sort of addicted."

Leiva

...... Because this fella ate them all

RasTa

orourkeda wrote: »

Something of a generalisation I suspect.

Bryan Habana isn't even 6 feet

He is 5ft 11 so not far off and no it's not a generalisation.

stovelid

mixednuts wrote: »

...... Because this fella ate them all

Jan. :pac:

That_Guy

What an odd thread.

mikemac

Pretty typical thread for this OP

Mrmoe

The main difference is in upperbody strength which isn't necessarily as important in soccer. A better comparison would be comparing rugby backs and footballers.

DOC09UNAM

feelingstressed wrote: »

Pretty typical thread for this OP

A stimulating one that requires mountains of Thought?

The Rooster

That_Guy wrote: »

What an odd thread.

Well I suppose it might be interesting to debate why there's nobody like - for example - Jamie Heaslip playing soccer. He's 6'3", and 17 stone, mobile and pacy (and of course strong as a horse).

Likewise you could pick out the likes of Dara O'Se and Ciaran Whelan from GAA who'd be touching 16 stone, and wouldnt have suffered from lack of mobility or pace.

I wonder what weight are the biggest guys in the Premiership? Kyrgiakos is a big lump at Liverpool at 6'3", but according to the offical website he's only 14 stone (though perhaps he lied!).

Handsome Bob

mixednuts wrote: »

...... Because this fella ate them all

Ah big Jan, sure isn't he a great man altogether.

JPA

Richard Dunne is 15 and a half.

Raekwon

1 Neil Ruddock
Transfer-listed by Swindon after arriving back at the club overweight. At one stage, Razor even had to have his shorts specially made. For that fact alone, he takes the No.1 spot.

2 Fatty Foulkes
The nickname gives it away. Another goalie, he makes Neville Southall look slim by comparison. Apparently, the ‘Who ate all the pies?’ chant was created for Foulkes, so we owe him one.

3 Jan Molby
Famously never left the centre circle during a match.

4 Mick Quinn
‘He’s fat, he’s round, he’s worth a million pounds, Micky Quinn, Micky Quinn"

5 Neville Southall
Goalies can get away with a few extra layers, as Big Nev scaled a whopping 18 stone before he retired.

6 Paul Gascoigne
Gazza only looked slim standing beside his long time drinking pal Jimmy 'Five Bellies' Gardner

7 Ferenc Puskas
For a ‘fat little chap’ from Hungary, he could certainly play a bit.

8 John Barnes
No matter how much thirst-quenching Isotonic he drank, Barnesy was one of those players who required ‘very big shorts’ in the latter stages of his playing career.

9 Diego Maradona
Always a stocky little fella, but really let himself go after he retired. Had stomach surgery in 2005 to curb his overeating.

10 Thomas Brolin
A case of puppy fat turned to real fat.

Bodhisopha

CorkMan wrote: »

The biggest seems to be 14 and a half stone, the likes of Drogba, John Terry, all 6'2 lads. But I watch a lot of boxing and the heavyweights are like 15 and a half stone at least lately of pure muscle, up to a still fit looking 19 stone.

Is it just not suited to Football? Being that big.

No you don't.

razorblunt

I know these aren't top class examples but what would the likes of Harewood and Heskey weigh?

The right back for Wolves is built like a house as well!

racso1975

Harewood 13.5st

Heskey 13.2

Jelle van dame 13.1


John carew is 14.2 but i reckon thats due to the size of his head

applehunter

Anyone watching MNS last night would have heard Monaghan United's striker Philly Hughes being described as portly.

He must be 14/15 stone.

Still a good footballer and banging in the goals to boot.

Mrmoe

Mrmoe wrote: »

The main difference is in upperbody strength which isn't necessarily as important in soccer. A better comparison would be comparing rugby backs and footballers.

Your average int standard back would be around 95kg,so thats 15 stone.I dont know any footballer who has that much muscle.

Ronaldo must be quite heavy.

Xavi6

If you take height into context then George Elokobi is only 5ft 9ins but weighs a stocky 14st 2.

Blatter

Xavi6 wrote: »

If you take height into context then George Elokobi is only 5ft 9ins but weighs a stocky 14st 2.

I think it all depends on your position, defenders can get away with that, but can't imagine a 5' 9'' striker being that heavy and be able to play at anywhere near his potential.

ColeTrain

Michael Ricketts FTW

fkiely

Benni McCarthy was touching 16 stone earlier in the year.

pwd

Zigic is 15 stone.

Blatter

pwd wrote: »

Zigic is 15 stone.

To be fair, that's light for someone who is 6 ft 7 1⁄2 in.

pwd

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

To be fair, that's light for someone who is 6 ft 7 1⁄2 in.

I agree. I thought he would be heavier

Peter Schmeichel was about 16 stone I think.

nullzero

Not many footballers are the right size to carry that much weight and have the required level of fitness for the game.
We're more players over 6 foot 5 tall then you'd expect more weight like you'd see on a heavyweight boxer.
Boxers weight also fluctuates between fights, some fighters in the lower weight classes are notorious for this (think Ricky Hatton) but the same can be true for the heavyweights too.

I'm sure if it were advantagious to footballers to be that heavy the clubs would be making sure they were employing only huge men.

#15

feelingstressed wrote: »

Ade Akinbiyi was critized a few years ago by his manager. Spending a lot of time in the weight room bulking up which affected his pace.

I'm not convinced by the argument that weights lead to a decrease in pace.

A well-developed weights program should enable msucle gain without any noticeable decline in speed.

I'm thinking of American sports (the NBA in particular).

It's not uncommon to see really quick athletes that carry a lot of muscle too.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Rooster wrote: »

Likewise you could pick out the likes of Dara O'Se and Ciaran Whelan from GAA who'd be touching 16 stone, and wouldnt have suffered from lack of mobility or pace.

Within the confines of a 70 minute amateur game. How many Gah players have made it even in the LoI?

Different sports require different physiques and at the moment the professional game means the more portly gents cannot survive anywhere near the top. Andy Reid's slide is a case in point. Its all about pace these days.

OhNoYouDidn't

#15 wrote: »

I'm not convinced by the argument that weights lead to a decrease in pace.

A well-developed weights program should enable msucle gain without any noticeable decline in speed.

I'm thinking of American sports (the NBA in particular).

It's not uncommon to see really quick athletes that carry a lot of muscle too.

We are back to the sprinter v marathon comparison. Basketball works on short bursts of pace in a small area. Football is longer bursts in a much larger area.

#15

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

We are back to the sprinter v marathon comparison. Basketball works on short bursts of pace in a small area. Football is longer bursts in a much larger area.

The two sports are actually quite similar in terms of demand. Midfielders are perhaps the exception but forwards and defenders have similar demands.

Short, sharp bursts punctuated by breaks in play.

Basketball is more explosive and intense while football requires more endurance, but overall they are comparable.

OhNoYouDidn't

#15 wrote: »

The two sports are actually quite similar in terms of demand. Midfielders are perhaps the exception but forwards and defenders have similar demands.

Short, sharp bursts punctuated by breaks in play.

Basketball is more explosive and intense while football requires more endurance, but overall they are comparable.

But are there any fat basketball players at the top?

I don't think they are more bulked then your average footballer.

RasTa

#15 wrote: »

I'm not convinced by the argument that weights lead to a decrease in pace.

A well-developed weights program should enable msucle gain without any noticeable decline in speed.

I'm thinking of American sports (the NBA in particular).

It's not uncommon to see really quick athletes that carry a lot of muscle too.

Would NFL not be a better example?

Blatter

RasTa wrote: »

Would NFL not be a better example?

The difference between NFL and soccer is that you actually hold the ball in your hands in NFL. Upper body muscle will benifit you in that sport.

To much upper body muscle in soccer would be unnecessary IMO.

RasTa

SOCCER4LIFE wrote: »

The difference between NFL and soccer is that you actually hold the ball in your hands in NFL. Upper body muscle will benifit you in that sport.

To much upper body muscle in soccer would be unnecessary IMO.

I was alluding more to muscle gain without loosing speed.

Frisbee

RasTa wrote: »

I was alluding more to muscle gain without loosing speed.

Yeah but watch even a super fit WR or RB try do it for 90 minutes and they'd be flat on their face, they're built for short bursts, they wouldn't have close to the endurance required for a football match.

RasTa

Frisbee wrote: »

Yeah but watch even a super fit WR or RB try do it for 90 minutes and they'd be flat on their face, they're built for short bursts, they wouldn't have close to the endurance required for a football match.

I don't follow NFL but I know they love their stats, how much distance would they cover per game?

Frisbee

RasTa wrote: »

I don't follow NFL but I know they love their stats, how much distance would they cover per game?

Atm the top rusher in the NFL has rushed for 896 yards overall after 8 games.

The top receiver has 878 in 8 games.