George Forman and David Haye

josh fg · Post by **josh fg** » 26 Mar 2008, 18:46

Don't worry the fight hasn't been scheduled.

I'm busy reading Norman Mailer's book the fight (about the rumble in the jungle and a dam good read as well if anyone is thinking of it) and while reading about what a gigantic terrifying physical specimen Foreman was I decided to look up his height and weight at about the time he fought Ali. As I suspected he was about 220lb (what Haye wants to be, slightly below in fact) and he was about 6ft 3.

It strikes me that talk of Haye being a small HW is just bollocks. I know there are bigger guys now but not that much bigger. If he'd started his pro career little later as an Olympic cruzer weight fighter rather than an ametre light heavy weight no one would see the problem.

Just a few thoughts.

rhino222 · Post by **rhino222** » 26 Mar 2008, 19:20

i think you are spot on, but genetically people seem to be a lot bigger in this day and age, when we look back in history the likes of marciano were a stone under the current cruiser limit !!!!!

perhaps its all of the high protein enhancements etc that fighters take as part of their methodical high tech training regimes etc...

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 26 Mar 2008, 19:54

Have a look at the IBHOF tale of the tape for past heavyweight champions, and look at foreman. The man was a giant. And, he was 6' 4" as I recall.

He also had a weird manager in dick saddler, I think it was, who used to dehydrate him before fights. Foreman was a giant of a man, and no mistake. He was also that size WITHOUT doing loads of weight training. If he fought today, he would probably be about 250 plus. You only have to look at him in the fight against Ali to see what a giant of a man he was.

Haye without weights, would probably be about 210, at his natural weight, bear in mind that back then heavyweights didn't need to bulk up.

Look at Hasim Rahman, a big man, but is he a natural 240-250 lb fighter? No way, not if Lewis was a svelte 235 early in his career.

Compare Lennox Lewis and Haye. At a comparable age, lennox was 235, which is around what Haye will weigh, who is the BIGGER man.

charlieb · Post by **charlieb** » 27 Mar 2008, 04:06

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Have a look at the IBHOF tale of the tape for past heavyweight champions, and look at foreman. The man was a giant. And, he was 6' 4" as I recall.

He also had a weird manager in dick saddler, I think it was, who used to dehydrate him before fights. Foreman was a giant of a man, and no mistake. He was also that size WITHOUT doing loads of weight training. If he fought today, he would probably be about 250 plus. You only have to look at him in the fight against Ali to see what a giant of a man he was.

Haye without weights, would probably be about 210, at his natural weight, bear in mind that back then heavyweights didn't need to bulk up.

Look at Hasim Rahman, a big man, but is he a natural 240-250 lb fighter? No way, not if Lewis was a svelte 235 early in his career.

Compare Lennox Lewis and Haye. At a comparable age, lennox was 235, which is around what Haye will weigh, who is the BIGGER man.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 27 Mar 2008, 06:39

jamesmcdonnell wrote: He was also that size WITHOUT doing loads of weight training..

Exactly. This is what people forget. Heavies like Wlad K and the crew are freakishly built up with weights and god knows what else (...)

Foreman was a natural beast of a man, not a pumped up one. All the 80s heavies were huge guys and they were natural 220lbs.

These pumped up 240-50 lbs lack fluidity or movement. David Haye seems intent on bulking himself up into another slow moving heavyweight robot.

Chambers2 · Post by **Chambers2** » 27 Mar 2008, 06:48

overhand_right wrote:David Haye seems intent on bulking himself up into another slow moving heavyweight robot.

I disagree, he wants to fight at about 225-230, I don't think he'll lose to much speed fighting at that weight

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 27 Mar 2008, 06:50

Povetkin seems to carry 225-30 without losing speed.

I hope Haye doesn't go over 220. He looked physically great vs Bonin which was about 213-217 wasn't it?

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 27 Mar 2008, 07:00

Povetkin looked pretty sluggish v Eddie Chambers.

David Haye is like all other heavyweights, none of them believe they can compete unless they're weighing a whopping bulked up 238-250lb, no wonder the fights are so slow and boring and sluggish.

We need a dynamic 217 lb like the early Tyson to mop these steroid monkeys up. David Haye doesn't want to be that man.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 27 Mar 2008, 07:09

overhand_right wrote:Povetkin looked pretty sluggish v Eddie Chambers.

David Haye is like all other heavyweights, none of them believe they can compete unless they're weighing a whopping bulked up 238-250lb, no wonder the fights are so slow and boring and sluggish.

We need a dynamic 217 lb like the early Tyson to mop these steroid monkeys up. David Haye doesn't want to be that man.

I'm cutting Povetkin some slack as he was fighting a tricky stylist in Chambers who gives you no target. Povetkin apparently had the flu. He showed fast hands though, was able to rally 90 punches a round over the final quarter of the fight (and when absolutely sucking air), but I did think he looked abit porky. His arms looked too fat to me.

Hopefully haye doesn't get massively bulked up. His speed is his asset and he's tall/well coordinated enough to catch some of those high up chins.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 27 Mar 2008, 07:11

overhand_right wrote:We need a dynamic 217 lb like the early Tyson to mop these steroid monkeys up. David Haye doesn't want to be that man.

Haye is the nearest thing to a Tyson since the young Lennox Lewis who was also fast and fluid. Haye at 220lbs will be his optimum weight, he will be ripped at this weight, fast, powerful with better stamina than most

Autobahn Povetkin is chubby at 230 if he was as ripped as Haye he would weigh near 200lbs himself. Haye is far more powerful and explosive than Povetkin and would smash the Russian on the way in. Povetkin may have been exposed against Chambers

hitman_hatton1 · Post by **hitman_hatton1** » 27 Mar 2008, 07:17

haye has the frame for heavyweight.

good reach.

good height.

it's whether he can take the whacks from the bigger guys that worries me a lot more.

Autobarn · Post by **Autobarn** » 27 Mar 2008, 07:32

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote:
overhand_right wrote:We need a dynamic 217 lb like the early Tyson to mop these steroid monkeys up. David Haye doesn't want to be that man.
Haye is the nearest thing to a Tyson since the young Lennox Lewis who was also fast and fluid. Haye at 220lbs will be his optimum weight, he will be ripped at this weight, fast, powerful with better stamina than most

Autobahn Povetkin is chubby at 230 if he was as ripped as Haye he would weigh near 200lbs himself. Haye is far more powerful and explosive than Povetkin and would smash the Russian on the way in. Povetkin may have been exposed against Chambers

Not
A
Chance

It says a lot about the sorry state of boxing if a solid win over a fellow unbeaten contender means the winner got "exposed." Just because he wasn't the slicker fighter, it means he's no good etc, that kind of thing just annoys me.

Maybe Evander Holyfield was "exposed" by Alex Stewart in the first fight.

Expect Povetkin to be better for the experience. He was presented difficulties and he adjusted, to overcome them. He's a classy fighter and he's fought no less than 3 consecutive tricky/negative Yanks that don't allow you to look good.

Haye would be more explosive than Povetkin but I think he won't be able to cope with that workrate, persistence, willpower combined with skill. These 2 are my big picks as heavyweight hopes, so I hope they both do well.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 27 Mar 2008, 08:19

Although Haye has a rangy frame, he doesn't have the legs or deep barrel chest and thickset neck of a heavyweight. He has hugely developed upper body muscle groups, but he is not a naturally big man a-la Lennox Lewis.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 27 Mar 2008, 08:27

Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: Haye is the nearest thing to a Tyson since the young Lennox Lewis who was also fast and fluid. Haye at 220lbs will be his optimum weight, he will be ripped at this weight, fast, powerful with better stamina than most

I agree he SHOULD be, but you seem to of missed the fact Haye doesnt want to fight at 220, he wants to bulk up to around 240lb.

Hes gonna be another member of the bulked up or flabby breasted brigade, the 2 choices in the current heavyweight scene.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 27 Mar 2008, 08:29

josh fg wrote:Don't worry the fight hasn't been scheduled.

I'm busy reading Norman Mailer's book the fight (about the rumble in the jungle and a dam good read as well if anyone is thinking of it) and while reading about what a gigantic terrifying physical specimen Foreman was I decided to look up his height and weight at about the time he fought Ali. As I suspected he was about 220lb (what Haye wants to be, slightly below in fact) and he was about 6ft 3.

It strikes me that talk of Haye being a small HW is just bollocks. I know there are bigger guys now but not that much bigger. If he'd started his pro career little later as an Olympic cruzer weight fighter rather than an ametre light heavy weight no one would see the problem.

Just a few thoughts.

Times have definitely changed.

Like you say, Foreman was considered a monster, yet in his 70's pomp, he weighed under 16 stones (224 lb)!

Sonny Liston is another HW is often referred to as menacing etc, yet he was 'only' 6ft 1 in & 15st 10lb (210 lb)!

On that basis, I have to agree with you, Haye is big enough: I just hope he doesn't get any daft ideas about weighing 17 stone plus (238 lb+).

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 27 Mar 2008, 08:33

Its only been since the late 90s that the standard 220lb wasn't considered big enough anymore. Blame Michael Grant and Hasim Rahman and that whole crop of slow moving stamina-less weight lifters for swamping the heavyweight scene.

Syntax Error · Post by **Syntax Error** » 27 Mar 2008, 08:37

overhand_right wrote:Its only been since the late 90s that the standard 220lb wasn't considered big enough anymore. Blame Michael Grant and Hasim Rahman and that whole crop of slow moving stamina-less weight lifters for swamping the heavyweight scene.

Absolutely correct IMO!!! :P

I also attach some of the blame to Lennox Lewis & Emmanual Steward.

Lewis started his career weighing about 225 lbs & admittedly, he did look like a street light, but thanks to Manny Steward's obsession with making Lewis heavier, Lennox blew up by another 25 - 30 lbs, which, whilst it never made him fat, it did make him slower IMO.

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 27 Mar 2008, 09:16

Yep. I remember him debuting his new heavier look in 95 after the McCall loss. From Lionel Butler onwards he seemed to beef up fight by fight and was huge by the time Mercer was banging him about the ring.

Never saw LL suck air v Tony Tucker the way he later would as a beefed up heavy v Mavrovic and especially the 2nd Holyfield fight.

observer1 · Post by **observer1** » 27 Mar 2008, 09:30

Weight is not Really that much of an Issue. Its the Technique that seems to come with it these days that raises some questions..

Seems a lot more Clinching and wrestling involved now,

You watch a Welterweight Fight and a HW fight you would think its two different sports.

Although the Likes of Hasim fought Slow, atleast you know they can an will throw a Punch unlike nowadays.

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 27 Mar 2008, 09:35

Being bulked up like that means fighters have to conserve energy, hence the clinching.

Look at the pace that Holyfield and Bowe fought at in their first two fights, unbelievable compared to the vast majiroty of modern heavies.

WildWaylon · Post by **WildWaylon** » 27 Mar 2008, 09:35

rhino222 wrote:i think you are spot on, but genetically people seem to be a lot bigger in this day and age, when we look back in history the likes of marciano were a stone under the current cruiser limit !!!!!

perhaps its all of the high protein enhancements etc that fighters take as part of their methodical high tech training regimes etc...

Boxers aside, people are generally bigger today and I am not sure why. Many kids are brought up on poor diets, chips and junkfood. When I was young we ate good wholesome food, plenty of vegetables and proper meat yet kids in the 50s and 60s were smaller on average. I was considered very tall at over 6 feet in 1960 yet today that height is commonplace and many lads are much taller. Tall lads back then were beanpoles, I was, but kids today are far more bulky. That probably is due to too many chips. Fish in those days was plentiful and cheap and everybody bought it from the fishmongers and cooked it at home. Far less people buy fish these days because it costs so much. So why are kids so much bigger in modern times?

overhand_right · Post by **overhand_right** » 27 Mar 2008, 09:39

jamesmcdonnell wrote:Being bulked up like that means fighters have to conserve energy, hence the clinching. .

Exactly James. Observer doesn't seem to realise these beefed up weight lifters and their heavy arms have to resort to endless holding in order to last. Hence the endless series of god awful heavyweight mauls since the departure of Lennox Lewis.

Phenomenal-Nutrition · Post by **Phenomenal-Nutrition** » 27 Mar 2008, 09:54

overhand_right wrote:
Phenomenal-Nutrition wrote: Haye is the nearest thing to a Tyson since the young Lennox Lewis who was also fast and fluid. Haye at 220lbs will be his optimum weight, he will be ripped at this weight, fast, powerful with better stamina than most
I agree he SHOULD be, but you seem to of missed the fact Haye doesnt want to fight at 220, he wants to bulk up to around 240lb.

Hes gonna be another member of the bulked up or flabby breasted brigade, the 2 choices in the current heavyweight scene.

I haven't heard that, stupid idea if true, Haye will be age and strong BUT 240s too big for his frame even if it is 100% muscle. He will trade off far too much stamina

Glyn Leach · Post by **Glyn Leach** » 27 Mar 2008, 09:54

And heavyweight Haye is bigger than Joe Louis was but so what? It would be more valid to look at the lowest weights today's heavyweight champs and contenders ever scaled (because these are the men Haye will be fighting, not Foreman, Lewis or whoever) and then compare those weights to the lowest weight Haye has scaled - that would give a more accurate indication of his true size, by which I mean bone structure and physical type, in relation to that of his opposition. Just an observation ...

jamesmcdonnell · Post by **jamesmcdonnell** » 27 Mar 2008, 09:55

WildWaylon wrote:
rhino222 wrote:i think you are spot on, but genetically people seem to be a lot bigger in this day and age, when we look back in history the likes of marciano were a stone under the current cruiser limit !!!!!

perhaps its all of the high protein enhancements etc that fighters take as part of their methodical high tech training regimes etc...
Boxers aside, people are generally bigger today and I am not sure why. Many kids are brought up on poor diets, chips and junkfood. When I was young we ate good wholesome food, plenty of vegetables and proper meat yet kids in the 50s and 60s were smaller on average. I was considered very tall at over 6 feet in 1960 yet today that height is commonplace and many lads are much taller. Tall lads back then were beanpoles, I was, but kids today are far more bulky. That probably is due to too many chips. Fish in those days was plentiful and cheap and everybody bought it from the fishmongers and cooked it at home. Far less people buy fish these days because it costs so much. So why are kids so much bigger in modern times?

Growth Hormones in beef production has been largely blamed. Since Japanese people have started eating more beef in their diets, there has been a sharp increase in the height of the population.

Also, there is a trend towards a height increase due to genetic advantages conferred by height. For instance, women with long legs, tend to suffer less with a variety of diseases and live longer on average. Thus populaces over time tend to breed taller and taller offspring as taller people are often considered more attractive, due to their lesser prevelance to disease, though this choice is subconscious, it is also very powerful.

George Forman and David Haye

George Forman and David Haye

Re: George Forman and David Haye