simple rule of thumb for weight height ratio.
if 190cm take the last two digits and that should be your weight. so 190 cm would equate to 90kg give or take a few kg hopefully give.
as in all things you will of course get exceptions like josh hunt at 185cm and almost 100kg. its a rule of thumb and a pretty decent one that is widely used.
Probably only applies to sportsman(who do weights) or naturally solid blokes(who haven't done weights) really. Otherwise I reckon you have to do a decent amount of weights to follow that rule while having a small amount of fat. Most people who think they're a decent weight are 10kg over 
hmm afl players do a lot of weights and heavily conrol their skin folds. im 185/and 90kg and most people think im skinny. the criteria is saying at 185 i should be 85kg.
anyway it seems to fit. most players on most lists, well most players who have been in the system for 4 yrs plus are a few kg within this rule of thumb.the obvious exceptions are juniors 18 to 21 22 yrs of age wh need to bulk over a 3 or 5 yr period. and those naturaly super skinny blokes who may take longer to get there if at all. then theres the naturally big boned blokes who are hevier than their height ratio.
take shane mumford a crash bash ruckman doesnt matter if hes 100kg or 105 the extra size and strength helps his game i reckon hed be in trouble though if her was just 95 kg and perform the role he does. as i said to me its a sort of minimal guide but as usual in footy lots of other things come in to play that allows for exceptions.
anyway as i said its a rule of thumb and if i was to err id be erring on the high side with our players.
at richmond those who are more than a few kg below the last two digits of their height.
batchelor -188/78 he could do with more size. but i question this weight he sure looks heavier than 78kg.
edwards - 182/78 we all agree he could dp with more size 3 or 4 kg would go a long wat to helping him be a better player.
grigg - 190/85 hes soft because he doesnt have the attributes to improve his tackling or defensive work. 3 or 4 kg of muscle mass wont hurt him and would greatly improve his confidence. i reckon hes been real poor in working on this.
nahas - 176/72 geez the way he gets brushed aside he should be playing above the last two digits.
grimes - 193/83 ifhe is to play kp he needs to over time get close to this rule of thumb.
mcbean - well hes a first yr junior. by the time hes matured if hes to survive he will have to be close with this ratio.
vickery - 200/95 just too light to play first ruck hes one id like to see play above the height ratio especially if hes to be a ruckman.
these are all players most of us would agree are well below weight and lack core strength in certain areas. but if they were at or just above the last two digits of their height and their core strength improved with the weight gain it would look much better.
an example of a player who carries more than his height ratio
king 178/82 his extra size and subsequent strength gives him the one quality that gets him a game.
the most obvious example of a player playing way above his heigt is ablett at 182/88kg. his size and strength thru the core is what makes him such a good player.
anyway not here to argue just thought id offer up what i consider to be a pretty decent guide for where our players weight should be at at a minimum. as ive stated i tend to err on the higher side as a personal preference.feel free to use it as a guide when talking player weight or just use your own method if you have one.
