George Foreman (1973) - undisputed HW champion 2017 ?

[ValMar]

You must admit though that Frazier was a bit overrated, with only one big win on his record against an opponent who was coming off a long layoff?

[Badhusker]

... Compared to a fighter that competed almost 44 years ago... about a fictional situation ... and if the 1973 version of George Foreman was around today, he'd almost certainly compete at cruiserweight.

He averaged about 225 in his prime. You are beyond stupid.

Once you've mastered the basics, like knowing how to inhale, exhale, blink and read the title of this thread, then you can apologise for your moronic response.

"You are beyond stupid."

You really are your own worst enemy at times.

I already responded once to the title of the thread, then read your stupid comment about him competing as a cruiserweight today. I think you
are your own worst enemy.

[ldlamb]

You must admit though that Frazier was a bit overrated, with only one big win on his record against an opponent who was coming off a long layoff?

I think that is some master level trolling.

[Enlightened-One]

He averaged about 225 in his prime. You are beyond stupid.

Once you've mastered the basics, like knowing how to inhale, exhale, blink and read the title of this thread, then you can apologise for your moronic response.

"You are beyond stupid."

You really are your own worst enemy at times.

I already responded once to the title of the thread, then read your stupid comment about him competing as a cruiserweight today. I think you
are your own worst enemy.

Instead of resorting to insults, why don't you directly challenge each point I made and explain the alleged "stupidity"?

[Badhusker]

Once you've mastered the basics, like knowing how to inhale, exhale, blink and read the title of this thread, then you can apologise for your moronic response.

"You are beyond stupid."

You really are your own worst enemy at times.

I already responded once to the title of the thread, then read your stupid comment about him competing as a cruiserweight today. I think you
are your own worst enemy.

Instead of resorting to insults, why don't you directly challenge each point I made and explain the alleged "stupidity"?

I'll mention two things, and will type slowly so you can understand. 1) Foreman competing today as a cruiserweight, when in his prime was 225-230 and 6'4" 2) A version post 1973 when Foreman gained a lot of weight would compete better against today's heavy weights. (after Foreman took a sharp decline)

I kick myself for even responding to you, and think the entire board is dumber (including myself) for even reading your blabble.

[jezzamundo]

Looking at the size numbers you posted.

Wilder's are pretty similar to Gerry Cooney

And Ortiz's are about the same as Buster Mathis Sr.

I'm not sure there is a huge talent difference between those guys.
And the best of the 70s and 80s HW's were able to handle them.

Very good post - there were huge guys around at that time too and more talented smaller guys were able to handle them. No reason a prime George Foreman with the aid of a time travel machine couldn't do the same today. I actually think a fit, disciplined Tyson Fury would have a chance against him, but it wouldn't be purely because of his size. Smaller, much softer-hitting guys have knocked Fury down, so it's not a stretch to say the hardest hitting heavyweight champion every could to the same.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I already responded once to the title of the thread, then read your stupid comment about him competing as a cruiserweight today. I think you
are your own worst enemy.

Instead of resorting to insults, why don't you directly challenge each point I made and explain the alleged "stupidity"?

I'll mention two things, and will type slowly so you can understand. 1) Foreman competing today as a cruiserweight, when in his prime was 225-230 and 6'4" 2) A version post 1973 when Foreman gained a lot of weight would compete better against today's heavy weights. (after Foreman took a sharp decline)

I kick myself for even responding to you, and think the entire board is dumber (including myself) for even reading your blabble.

I don't know why anyone reads a word of it.

[Enlightened-One]

Instead of resorting to insults, why don't you directly challenge each point I made and explain the alleged "stupidity"?

I'll mention two things, and will type slowly so you can understand. 1) Foreman competing today as a cruiserweight, when in his prime was 225-230 and 6'4" 2) A version post 1973 when Foreman gained a lot of weight would compete better against today's heavy weights. (after Foreman took a sharp decline)

I kick myself for even responding to you, and think the entire board is dumber (including myself) for even reading your blabble.

It’s abundantly clear that you suffer from at least three faults, namely:
• Instead of paying attention and directly challenging someone’s words, you resort to "using insults as your automated go-to defence mechanism"
• Instead of being honest and admitting to either not paying attention or conceding to being in the wrong, you resort to "using insults as your automated go-to defence mechanism"
• If all else fails, you resort to "using insults as your automated go-to defence mechanism"

Anyway, let me directly address a couple of the points you mention in your post…

I comprehensively quantified my belief that George Foreman could have easily made the cruiserweight limit from the start of his career up until the end of 1973, which is in line with the subject matter of this thread.

I never expressed an opinion on whether the older, heavier version of George Foreman could have made the cruiserweight limit, since this was out-of-scope of the thread title.

You have failed to challenge any of my points and you refused to concede that your claims were outside the subject matter under discussion.

I also stated the following about the 1973 version of George Foreman: “[He] carried enough power that would have helped him score a few upsets over some of today’s big name heavyweights.”

Finally, this is was one of my other claims that you refused to recognise, despite it being in line with your own thoughts: “There are other versions of George Foreman to consider that would have been far more competitive against today’s heavyweight behemoths than the 1973 version.”

Please read though all the posts that I submitted in this thread, digest the opinions and facts that I tried to convey and then when you’ve verified that fact that my claims are entirely reasonable, you should consider apologising for your insults and stupidity!

Are you going to admit to being in the wrong, failing to pay attention or being needlessly derogative… or will you instead resort to type, by fulfilling your reputation of resorting to “using insults as your automated go-to defence mechanism”?

[jezzamundo]

Have you checked Foreman's official weight when he competed during the early seventies, which was captured on the day of the fight?

He'd only need to lose the same sort of weight that welterweights like Peterson, Thurman, Ortiz and Maidana had to, with the official weigh-in's currently taking place the day prior (i.e. 15lbs to 18lbs) to make the cruiserweight limit.

Tony Bellew's and David Haye's rehydration weight was on a par with Foreman's official weight when they both competed as cruiserweights, with both men being about the same height as Big George. I'm confident that with a little bit of research, I can name other cruiserweights that rehydrate to Foreman's official weight during the early seventies.

Big George was a natural HW, obviously. You are right considering some current CWs, but Foreman's body type was quite different....
I am afraid that we are off topic, by the way...

George Foreman’s mathematical average weight was 217lbs from the start of his career through until the end of 1973. He was 217.5lbs when he faced Joe Frazier in 1973. He was 6’ 3.5” in height.

George Foreman’s height and weight in 1973 meant that his general size was almost certainly comparable to rehydrated versions of the following modern day world-rated cruiserweights:
• Oleksandr Usyk
• Murat Gassiev
• Tony Bellew
• Marco Huck
• Yunier Dorticos

This stance could be strengthened further if we looked at the size of cruiserweights that competed five to ten years ago (i.e. such as rehydrated versions of Guillermo Jones, David Haye, Enzo Maccarinelli, Steve Cunningham etc.).

Now it should be abundantly clear to deduce that the 1973 version of George Foreman would have had to endure a massive size disadvantage when competing against the current crop of world-rated heavyweights… and we’re talking a few inches in height and approx. 30lbs in weight:
• Tyson Fury = 265lbs; 6' 9"
• Wladimir Klitschko = 245lbs; 6' 6"
• Deontay Wilder = 228lbs; 6' 7"
• Kubrat Pulev = 253lbs; 6' 4.5"
• Luis Ortiz = 241lbs; 6' 4"
• Anthony Joshua = 249lbs; 6' 6"
• Joseph Parker = 246lbs; 6' 4"

From the start of his career through until 1973, the average George Foreman opponent was typically 6’ 0” in height, weighing around the 206lbs mark, which could easily be argued to be smaller than the vast majority of rehydrated versions of the world-rated cruiserweights competing today.

For sure, George Foreman carried enough power that would have helped him score a few upsets over some of today’s big name heavyweights, but his optimal weight class (in terms of size and effectiveness) would have been at cruiserweight.

Therefore, if the 1973 version of George Foreman was competing today, his preferred division would almost certainly be cruiserweight, a weight-class he could easily make, because he would have had to endure too much of a size disadvantage against modern era heavyweights.

From reading the above response, you should be able to ascertain my on-topic opinion on the matter and also my thoughts about how unreasonable your comparison is.

Firstly, to your assertion that a 1973 Foreman would likely compete at cruiserweight today, I would say that is possible, but unlikely. He is a much naturally bigger man than David Haye and Tony Bellew (there are bigger cruisers, but I'll address them, seeing as they are the guys you brought up).

Height:
Foreman - 6'3.5"
Bellew - 6'3"
Haye - listed as 6'3" but actually 6'2"

Reach:
Foreman - 78.5"
Bellew - 74"
Haye - 78"

Weight:
Foreman - debuted at 219lb aged 20, fought at a career low of 212lb at the age of 21. During his prime years, his weight was in the 217-225lb range, where he looked lean and strong, with low body fat and without looking particularly musclebound. He could conceivably have drained to make 200lb, but it certainly would have weakened him. By the age of 27 he was fighting around 230lb, still looking good and likely wouldn't have been able to make 200lb.
Bellew - debuted as a small cruiserweight, weighing 175.5lb just short of his 25th birthday. Moved down to light heavyweight and fought there until he was 31. Has since moved up to cruiserweight where he weighs in the high 190s and has visibly more body fat than Foreman did while weighing 20lb more.
Haye - debuted at 191lb aged 22, fought at the old 190lb cruiser limit until the division's limit was changed. Fought at the 200lb cruiser limit until he was 28, when he moved to heavyweight. Weighed as high as 222lb, but looked in peak physical condition at 210lb at the age of 31. Has since made a comeback aged 35 where he has weighed as high as 227lb, thought he looked very musclebound.

In conclusion, George Foreman had a huge heavyweight's punch, had a heavyweight's chin and was clearly bigger than many of today's successful heavyweights. Were he to fight today, he may have initially started at cruiserweight in his early to mid 20s, but given his natural talents and the greater money available at heavyweight, I think it's more likely he would fight his whole career as a heavyweight.

[jezzamundo]

Have you checked Foreman's official weight when he competed during the early seventies, which was captured on the day of the fight?

He'd only need to lose the same sort of weight that welterweights like Peterson, Thurman, Ortiz and Maidana had to, with the official weigh-in's currently taking place the day prior (i.e. 15lbs to 18lbs) to make the cruiserweight limit.

Tony Bellew's and David Haye's rehydration weight was on a par with Foreman's official weight when they both competed as cruiserweights, with both men being about the same height as Big George. I'm confident that with a little bit of research, I can name other cruiserweights that rehydrate to Foreman's official weight during the early seventies.

Big George was a natural HW, obviously. You are right considering some current CWs, but Foreman's body type was quite different....
I am afraid that we are off topic, by the way...

George Foreman’s mathematical average weight was 217lbs from the start of his career through until the end of 1973. He was 217.5lbs when he faced Joe Frazier in 1973. He was 6’ 3.5” in height.

George Foreman’s height and weight in 1973 meant that his general size was almost certainly comparable to rehydrated versions of the following modern day world-rated cruiserweights:
• Oleksandr Usyk
• Murat Gassiev
• Tony Bellew
• Marco Huck
• Yunier Dorticos

This stance could be strengthened further if we looked at the size of cruiserweights that competed five to ten years ago (i.e. such as rehydrated versions of Guillermo Jones, David Haye, Enzo Maccarinelli, Steve Cunningham etc.).

Now it should be abundantly clear to deduce that the 1973 version of George Foreman would have had to endure a massive size disadvantage when competing against the current crop of world-rated heavyweights… and we’re talking a few inches in height and approx. 30lbs in weight:
• Tyson Fury = 265lbs; 6' 9"
• Wladimir Klitschko = 245lbs; 6' 6"
• Deontay Wilder = 228lbs; 6' 7"
• Kubrat Pulev = 253lbs; 6' 4.5"
• Luis Ortiz = 241lbs; 6' 4"
• Anthony Joshua = 249lbs; 6' 6"
• Joseph Parker = 246lbs; 6' 4"

From the start of his career through until 1973, the average George Foreman opponent was typically 6’ 0” in height, weighing around the 206lbs mark, which could easily be argued to be smaller than the vast majority of rehydrated versions of the world-rated cruiserweights competing today.

For sure, George Foreman carried enough power that would have helped him score a few upsets over some of today’s big name heavyweights, but his optimal weight class (in terms of size and effectiveness) would have been at cruiserweight.

Therefore, if the 1973 version of George Foreman was competing today, his preferred division would almost certainly be cruiserweight, a weight-class he could easily make, because he would have had to endure too much of a size disadvantage against modern era heavyweights.

From reading the above response, you should be able to ascertain my on-topic opinion on the matter and also my thoughts about how unreasonable your comparison is.

Also, you've somewhat exaggerated the weight of some of today's heavyweights by using their career highest weights.

Tyson Fury looked soft at 247lb against Wlad and has generally weighed in the 245-250lb range when in peak condition. Comparing this to Foreman's peak weight, we are looking at a gap of around 30lb.
Joshua fought at 243lb earlier this year and fought as low as 229lb just over three years ago. Comparing their fighting weights at the age of 24, Joshua is only about 10lb heavier. He is also considerably more musclebound than Foreman has ever been, so comparing their natural weights, the gap probably isn't that big.
Joseph Parker has fought most of his career in the 230s and was as low as 234lb only six months ago - his most recent weigh in was a career high. Has been as low as 226lb. He's only half an inch taller than Foreman and has a 2" shorter reach. He's naturally 10-15lb heavier than Foreman was at the same age, which isn't surprising as Pacific islanders tend to be heavy and big boned.

[Enlightened-One]

Big George was a natural HW, obviously. You are right considering some current CWs, but Foreman's body type was quite different....
I am afraid that we are off topic, by the way...

George Foreman’s mathematical average weight was 217lbs from the start of his career through until the end of 1973. He was 217.5lbs when he faced Joe Frazier in 1973. He was 6’ 3.5” in height.

George Foreman’s height and weight in 1973 meant that his general size was almost certainly comparable to rehydrated versions of the following modern day world-rated cruiserweights:
• Oleksandr Usyk
• Murat Gassiev
• Tony Bellew
• Marco Huck
• Yunier Dorticos

This stance could be strengthened further if we looked at the size of cruiserweights that competed five to ten years ago (i.e. such as rehydrated versions of Guillermo Jones, David Haye, Enzo Maccarinelli, Steve Cunningham etc.).

Now it should be abundantly clear to deduce that the 1973 version of George Foreman would have had to endure a massive size disadvantage when competing against the current crop of world-rated heavyweights… and we’re talking a few inches in height and approx. 30lbs in weight:
• Tyson Fury = 265lbs; 6' 9"
• Wladimir Klitschko = 245lbs; 6' 6"
• Deontay Wilder = 228lbs; 6' 7"
• Kubrat Pulev = 253lbs; 6' 4.5"
• Luis Ortiz = 241lbs; 6' 4"
• Anthony Joshua = 249lbs; 6' 6"
• Joseph Parker = 246lbs; 6' 4"

From the start of his career through until 1973, the average George Foreman opponent was typically 6’ 0” in height, weighing around the 206lbs mark, which could easily be argued to be smaller than the vast majority of rehydrated versions of the world-rated cruiserweights competing today.

For sure, George Foreman carried enough power that would have helped him score a few upsets over some of today’s big name heavyweights, but his optimal weight class (in terms of size and effectiveness) would have been at cruiserweight.

Therefore, if the 1973 version of George Foreman was competing today, his preferred division would almost certainly be cruiserweight, a weight-class he could easily make, because he would have had to endure too much of a size disadvantage against modern era heavyweights.

From reading the above response, you should be able to ascertain my on-topic opinion on the matter and also my thoughts about how unreasonable your comparison is.

Firstly, to your assertion that a 1973 Foreman would likely compete at cruiserweight today, I would say that is possible, but unlikely. He is a much naturally bigger man than David Haye and Tony Bellew (there are bigger cruisers, but I'll address them, seeing as they are the guys you brought up).

Height:
Foreman - 6'3.5"
Bellew - 6'3"
Haye - listed as 6'3" but actually 6'2"

Reach:
Foreman - 78.5"
Bellew - 74"
Haye - 78"

Weight:
Foreman - debuted at 219lb aged 20, fought at a career low of 212lb at the age of 21. During his prime years, his weight was in the 217-225lb range, where he looked lean and strong, with low body fat and without looking particularly musclebound. He could conceivably have drained to make 200lb, but it certainly would have weakened him. By the age of 27 he was fighting around 230lb, still looking good and likely wouldn't have been able to make 200lb.
Bellew - debuted as a small cruiserweight, weighing 175.5lb just short of his 25th birthday. Moved down to light heavyweight and fought there until he was 31. Has since moved up to cruiserweight where he weighs in the high 190s and has visibly more body fat than Foreman did while weighing 20lb more.
Haye - debuted at 191lb aged 22, fought at the old 190lb cruiser limit until the division's limit was changed. Fought at the 200lb cruiser limit until he was 28, when he moved to heavyweight. Weighed as high as 222lb, but looked in peak physical condition at 210lb at the age of 31. Has since made a comeback aged 35 where he has weighed as high as 227lb, thought he looked very musclebound.

In conclusion, George Foreman had a huge heavyweight's punch, had a heavyweight's chin and was clearly bigger than many of today's successful heavyweights. Were he to fight today, he may have initially started at cruiserweight in his early to mid 20s, but given his natural talents and the greater money available at heavyweight, I think it's more likely he would fight his whole career as a heavyweight.

It's a long post to respond to, but for the first 39 fights of George Foreman's career, up until the end of 1973 (as per the thread title), his average weight was mathematically 217lbs, which was ½lb less than what he weighed against Joe Frazier when he first captured the heavyweight crown. Please check BoxRec and verify the accuracy of my claim.

The older version (post 1973) of 'Big George' probably wouldn't have been capable of competing as a cruiserweight, but that doesn't relate to the topic of this thread. So I refuse to consider facts, stats or opinions from 1974 onwards, since it's out-of-scope of the question we're being asked to answer.

I don’t agree about your opinion of the 24 year old 217lbs version of George Foreman being “bigger” than all of the cruiserweights I listed, since you’ve only mentioned two of them, your claims cannot be verified and there are other factors that you’ve not considered, such as sports science.

If we were asked to consider how the “prime” version of George Foreman would fare against today’s top heavyweights, then my thoughts are likely to be different than being asked to express an opinion on the 1973 version.

Also, you've somewhat exaggerated the weight of some of today's heavyweights by using their career highest weights.

No I didn't. I merely supplied a ball-park weight based on recent activity, in order to quote a reasonable figure that took into account fluctuations and were representative of current weight expectations.

[jezzamundo]

George Foreman’s mathematical average weight was 217lbs from the start of his career through until the end of 1973. He was 217.5lbs when he faced Joe Frazier in 1973. He was 6’ 3.5” in height.

George Foreman’s height and weight in 1973 meant that his general size was almost certainly comparable to rehydrated versions of the following modern day world-rated cruiserweights:
• Oleksandr Usyk
• Murat Gassiev
• Tony Bellew
• Marco Huck
• Yunier Dorticos

This stance could be strengthened further if we looked at the size of cruiserweights that competed five to ten years ago (i.e. such as rehydrated versions of Guillermo Jones, David Haye, Enzo Maccarinelli, Steve Cunningham etc.).

Now it should be abundantly clear to deduce that the 1973 version of George Foreman would have had to endure a massive size disadvantage when competing against the current crop of world-rated heavyweights… and we’re talking a few inches in height and approx. 30lbs in weight:
• Tyson Fury = 265lbs; 6' 9"
• Wladimir Klitschko = 245lbs; 6' 6"
• Deontay Wilder = 228lbs; 6' 7"
• Kubrat Pulev = 253lbs; 6' 4.5"
• Luis Ortiz = 241lbs; 6' 4"
• Anthony Joshua = 249lbs; 6' 6"
• Joseph Parker = 246lbs; 6' 4"

From the start of his career through until 1973, the average George Foreman opponent was typically 6’ 0” in height, weighing around the 206lbs mark, which could easily be argued to be smaller than the vast majority of rehydrated versions of the world-rated cruiserweights competing today.

For sure, George Foreman carried enough power that would have helped him score a few upsets over some of today’s big name heavyweights, but his optimal weight class (in terms of size and effectiveness) would have been at cruiserweight.

Therefore, if the 1973 version of George Foreman was competing today, his preferred division would almost certainly be cruiserweight, a weight-class he could easily make, because he would have had to endure too much of a size disadvantage against modern era heavyweights.

From reading the above response, you should be able to ascertain my on-topic opinion on the matter and also my thoughts about how unreasonable your comparison is.

Firstly, to your assertion that a 1973 Foreman would likely compete at cruiserweight today, I would say that is possible, but unlikely. He is a much naturally bigger man than David Haye and Tony Bellew (there are bigger cruisers, but I'll address them, seeing as they are the guys you brought up).

Height:
Foreman - 6'3.5"
Bellew - 6'3"
Haye - listed as 6'3" but actually 6'2"

Reach:
Foreman - 78.5"
Bellew - 74"
Haye - 78"

Weight:
Foreman - debuted at 219lb aged 20, fought at a career low of 212lb at the age of 21. During his prime years, his weight was in the 217-225lb range, where he looked lean and strong, with low body fat and without looking particularly musclebound. He could conceivably have drained to make 200lb, but it certainly would have weakened him. By the age of 27 he was fighting around 230lb, still looking good and likely wouldn't have been able to make 200lb.
Bellew - debuted as a small cruiserweight, weighing 175.5lb just short of his 25th birthday. Moved down to light heavyweight and fought there until he was 31. Has since moved up to cruiserweight where he weighs in the high 190s and has visibly more body fat than Foreman did while weighing 20lb more.
Haye - debuted at 191lb aged 22, fought at the old 190lb cruiser limit until the division's limit was changed. Fought at the 200lb cruiser limit until he was 28, when he moved to heavyweight. Weighed as high as 222lb, but looked in peak physical condition at 210lb at the age of 31. Has since made a comeback aged 35 where he has weighed as high as 227lb, thought he looked very musclebound.

In conclusion, George Foreman had a huge heavyweight's punch, had a heavyweight's chin and was clearly bigger than many of today's successful heavyweights. Were he to fight today, he may have initially started at cruiserweight in his early to mid 20s, but given his natural talents and the greater money available at heavyweight, I think it's more likely he would fight his whole career as a heavyweight.

It's a long post to respond to, but for the first 39 fights of George Foreman's career, up until the end of 1973 (as per the thread title), his average weight was mathematically 217lbs, which was ½lb less than what he weighed against Joe Frazier when he first captured the heavyweight crown. Please check BoxRec and verify the accuracy of my claim.

The older version (post 1973) of 'Big George' probably wouldn't have been capable of competing as a cruiserweight, but that doesn't relate to the topic of this thread. So I refuse to consider facts, stats or opinions from 1974 onwards, since it's out-of-scope of the question we're being asked to answer.

I don’t agree about your opinion of the 24 year old 217lbs version of George Foreman being “bigger” than all of the cruiserweights I listed, since you’ve only mentioned two of them, your claims cannot be verified and there are other factors that you’ve not considered, such as sports science.

If we were asked to consider how the “prime” version of George Foreman would fare against today’s top heavyweights, then my thoughts are likely to be different than being asked to express an opinion on the 1973 version.

Also, you've somewhat exaggerated the weight of some of today's heavyweights by using their career highest weights.

No I didn't. I merely supplied a ball-park weight based on recent activity, in order to quote a reasonable figure that took into account fluctuations and were representative of current weight expectations.

Foreman was clearly a bigger man than Haye and Bellew, as I've explained, and clearly bigger than Huck. Usyk, Gassiev and Dorticos are a better comparison, though I would say Foreman was naturally slightly bigger than Usyk and Dorticos, perhaps not Gassiev who is young and may outgrow the division in time.

Foreman wasn't in his prime in 1973?

Sorry, exaggerate was the wrong word - I should have said cherry picked. Comparing a flabby 265lb Fury with a tight 217lb Foreman and then saying Fury has a 48lb weight advantage is silly. He is 48lb heavier, but some of that weight is actually a disadvantage.

[jezzamundo]

I can’t believe that people can so easily dismiss a size disadvantage of six inches in height and roughly 45lbs in weight, when they say they're honestly convinced that the 1973 version of George Foreman would beat Tyson Fury.

The size discrepancy between the 1973 version of George Foreman and Tyson Fury is roughly the same as the physical difference between Roman Gonzalez and Gennady Golovkin!



If people that frequent this forum genuinely believe that size really doesn’t matter, why aren’t they creating threads demanding to know the reason why GGG is ducking Chocolatito?

People have also claimed that because George Foreman defeated Joe Frazier, he’d have no problem with some of the top heavyweights competing today. Well let’s look at that claim…

Jean Marc Mormeck is the same height and weight as the version of Joe Frazier that we saw face 'Big' George Foreman in 1973, so if we compare the Frenchman against Wladimir Klitschko, we’d be able to gauge how small Smokin' Joe actually was in comparison to current heavyweights:

And let’s not forget that Jean Marc Mormeck (who is far more ripped and muscular than Smokin' Joe) is actually a relatively small cruiserweight in comparison to the top 200lbs guys competing today (i.e. Oleksandr Usyk, Murat Gassiev & Tony Bellew), as he was the world champion when the weight limit in that weight class was only 190lbs.

Fury's 6'9" is an exaggeration - he is really nearer 6'7" which makes the height difference around 3.5 inches. In his best shape, Fury is in the 245-250lb range, which makes him about 30lb heavier. Then keep in mind that Fury has been dropped by smaller, much lighter-punching guys than George Foreman and you can see where people are drawing their conclusions from. I don't think Foreman walks through Fury with ease, but I think he would probably knock Fury out.

Comparing this matchup to GGG vs Chocolatito is ridiculous - it's obvious that size makes a greater difference at lower weights. Look at the history of the heavyweight division and there are many cases of smaller heavyweights beating much bigger ones.

[Enlightened-One]

I can’t believe that people can so easily dismiss a size disadvantage of six inches in height and roughly 45lbs in weight, when they say they're honestly convinced that the 1973 version of George Foreman would beat Tyson Fury.

The size discrepancy between the 1973 version of George Foreman and Tyson Fury is roughly the same as the physical difference between Roman Gonzalez and Gennady Golovkin!



If people that frequent this forum genuinely believe that size really doesn’t matter, why aren’t they creating threads demanding to know the reason why GGG is ducking Chocolatito?

People have also claimed that because George Foreman defeated Joe Frazier, he’d have no problem with some of the top heavyweights competing today. Well let’s look at that claim…

Jean Marc Mormeck is the same height and weight as the version of Joe Frazier that we saw face 'Big' George Foreman in 1973, so if we compare the Frenchman against Wladimir Klitschko, we’d be able to gauge how small Smokin' Joe actually was in comparison to current heavyweights:

And let’s not forget that Jean Marc Mormeck (who is far more ripped and muscular than Smokin' Joe) is actually a relatively small cruiserweight in comparison to the top 200lbs guys competing today (i.e. Oleksandr Usyk, Murat Gassiev & Tony Bellew), as he was the world champion when the weight limit in that weight class was only 190lbs.

Fury's 6'9" is an exaggeration - he is really nearer 6'7" which makes the height difference around 3.5 inches. In his best shape, Fury is in the 245-250lb range, which makes him about 30lb heavier. Then keep in mind that Fury has been dropped by smaller, much lighter-punching guys than George Foreman and you can see where people are drawing their conclusions from. I don't think Foreman walks through Fury with ease, but I think he would probably knock Fury out.

Comparing this matchup to GGG vs Chocolatito is ridiculous - it's obvious that size makes a greater difference at lower weights. Look at the history of the heavyweight division and there are many cases of smaller heavyweights beating much bigger ones.

My comparisons were fair if you review photos of Vitali Klitschko standing next to George Foreman. I refuse to argue over one or two inches, since I'm only interested in proving that the size discrepancy is significant.

I can't comment on the accuracy of BoxRec's stats, but multiple sources are quoting the same info. I'm unable to challenge BoxRec's information without being provided with an alternative source that has been categorically proven to be more reliable and accurate.

[Rexob]

I think that is some master level trolling.

I thought you might like that one.

[Bard of Boxrec]

It's actually only taken me until now to realise that Enlightened One is Fergus. Judging by the fact there are people still responding to him, it probably hasn't dawned on them either

[Boxing Writer]

Even top heavyweights were beaten or had problems in the fights against the smaller guys.

6'5'' Lennox Lewis' 4 of the 5 hardest fights were against guys who were 6'2'' or shorter - Rahman, McCall, Mercer, Holyfield (rematch)

6'6'' Wladimir Klitschko's 3 of the 5 hardest fights were against guys who were 6'3'' or shorter - Brewster, Puritty, Peter-I.

[Boxerbeetle]

Fury would give Foreman problems? Foreman should be a cruiserweight? What the fvck have I been reading?

[ValMar]

[quote="Boxerbeetle"]Fury would give Foreman problems? Foreman should be a cruiserweight? What the fvck have I been reading? [/qt

This topic has gone in the wrong direction, definitely it has not been my intention. Simply, it is beyond me....

[Rexob]

It's only people opinions some need to calm down a bit if they don't agree.

[In the know 85]

The modern equivalent of foreman is Joshua, and I don't think Joshua is the best heavyweight today! Simple.

[ldlamb]

I've seen things like a blown up Lt Heavyweight Adamek easily beat a Michael Grant that towered over him by 5 inches and outweighed him by 40 lbs....because he had better skills and was in better shape.

Mike Tyson beat guys that were 4 or 5 inches taller and had 25 pounds on him. (Ruddock, Bruno, Tubbs)

So, the idea that a prime George Foreman who had Olympic champion level skills and one of the most devastating punches in history couldn't beat guys because they happen to be 3 inches taller Or 30lbs heavier is absurd.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

George could easily adjust his training to the superior modern fat building. Then he'd weigh 260 and be big enough.

[IKSRTFO]

We're talking one of maybe the hardest punching boxers at any weight....fighting at Cruiser weight because he's the same size as a bunch of Cruisers who can't even crack at world level heavyweight? Stupid. I guess Tyson would've been a cruiser today and wouldn't beat today's "super heavyweights" too right?

[Tomasino]

You must admit though that Frazier was a bit overrated, with only one big win on his record against an opponent who was coming off a long layoff?

Your best post of all time