Young George Foreman (1973) against current top level HWs ?

[armageto]

EO, the size/weight is a very important factor, but there is one much more important - the excellence (and Big George got it).

EO fails to mention, even Foreman at almost 6'4, fighting most of his career at 215-225... Evander Holyfield was 6'2 and fought most of his career at 200-220. Mike Tyson was 5'10 and fought the bulk at 215-225. There are plenty of other examples as well.

When you consider the facts, rather than simply guessing, you’ll surely realise that mentioning those names doesn’t support your argument one iota…

If you assume that Evander Holyfield was considered past-his-prime immediately after the Michael Moorer rematch, then “The Real Deal’s” average ring weight was 210½lbs when he competed as a heavyweight.

His opponents typically weighed 227¾lbs, which is considered "small" by today’s heavyweight standards.

When ‘Iron’ Mike was at his destructive best (prior to his defeat to ‘Buster’ Douglas) for the first 37 bouts of his career, his opponents typically weighed 212lbs (excl. four anomalous fighters) and should be considered as being the equivalent of today's rehydrated cruiserweights.

Mike Tyson’s average ring weight during the same period was only 217¼lbs, which means he was also the physical equivalent of a rehydrated cruiserweight.

In terms of George Foreman, the topic of this thread is to discuss the 1973 version and I’ve already supplied the stats for him twice and I don't feel the need to keep repeating myself.

Povetkin is a top HW of this era. He stands 6'2 and 220-225 range. The list goes on. The only "fact" that supports your argument is that Foreman didn't constantly face too many HW's of today's size. His actual height/weight/power should be realistically fine to carry him in today's division. Wilder is seen as the #2 guy in the division today, and was only a few inches taller and around the same general weight. Not that these guys are world beaters, but:

Wepner 221- TKO 3
Clay 228- TKO 2
O'Halloran 235- KO5
Turnbow 246- TKO 1
Harris 235- KO2
Gordwin 220- KO2

Holyfield was a CW never fighting over 190, then came to the HW division and did great. My point is just because Foreman didn't face some of the bigger guys from today, it doesn't mean he couldn't. Chris Byrd started his career at 169 and was never seen as a power puncher, who also (IMO) fought in a better class of HW's. He was 6 1 1/2. He won multiple belts.

Again, my whole point is to say Foreman couldn't do it just based off fighting in a smaller HW era is absurd. That is the crutch of your whole argument. You can't say for sure, and I've easily shown some of today's HW's , and recent past, were smaller or around the same size of Foreman and did great. Although a small sample size against not the best of guys, Foreman had no issue dispatching bigger HW's. Yes size matters, being an actual good fighter matters just as much.

This is what I believe and I think I've proven enough to hold my point up. If you don't, we just agree to disagree. No big deal....

[armageto]

I can't believe that you really think I was being serious. Sarcasm to how this division sucks......

It's boxrec. I've seen people make serious statements as ridiculous as that 1,000 times. In fact, the topic of historical heavyweights vs current heavyweights is one of the ripest breeding grounds for ridiculous theories.

Look at the Boxrec rankings, around the 900 rated guys or so would be approx 25%. For example, this guy is rated at #947:

http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/261887

Hmm. Yeah, that guy's a real corpse. Foreman could probably beat him. Well, at 69, Foreman's a corpse too.

Does he blow the doors off of a Foreman today, I don't think so. As soon as he gets hit solid, he's probably folding. I also think a Foreman who just retired in 97 can beat 75% of this current division. 75% of the current division is around this guy:

http://boxrec.com/en/boxer/591190

You mean to tell me, Foreman at the end of his career can't beat this guy?!?

At the time of losing to Briggs, Foreman could have still beat Guivas. But I was saying in the year 1999-2000, when Foreman was 3 years beyond his retirement. At that point, I think he'd be no longer capable of beating fighters at the 75th percentile.

I don't know man, even a Foreman at 2000 has a really legitimate shot (IMO) to beat Guivas, assuming he did some training/sparring/etc. This guy had a draw with a 1-3 guy, a loss to a 0-0-1, and stopped by some average HW's. It might not be a cakewalk for Foreman, but I think the 2000 version beats this guy. The division outside a few guys, is abysmal. Nothing against Daniel Martz, but he ranks inside Boxrecs to 150. He's terrible.....

[Thomastearns]

I think that the prime George Foreman (1971 for speed, 1973 for power) beats everyone today with ease unless they take him out to Africa, turn everyone there against him and get his manager to spike his drink right before the fight.

Wilder v Foreman would be a blast, but not for long. AJ could try and survive to the later rounds and discover who has the better stamina.

The next five he could probably beat on the same night.

[ValMar]

Some posters here (intentionally or not), are neglecting the most important factor concerning Foreman - his lethal punching power. So, Foreman might be the most powerful puncher in last 50 years. I wrote might.............
I am sure he is among top 5 the most powerful punchers (1968-2018), this is the fact for me, and everyone claiming the opposite is an ignoramus or a troll, likely the both................
We may discuss about his skills, chin or stamina, but discussion about his power is meaningless, obviously...............

[fanman]

good point valmar. big gf would likely blast everyone out. save joshua which may be a 50:50 based on aj's superior technique, and size.

[squiggy]

I think that the prime George Foreman (1971 for speed, 1973 for power) beats everyone today with ease unless they take him out to Africa, turn everyone there against him and get his manager to spike his drink right before the fight.

Some people will believe anything.

[tiny_acres]

EO fails to mention, even Foreman at almost 6'4, fighting most of his career at 215-225... Evander Holyfield was 6'2 and fought most of his career at 200-220. Mike Tyson was 5'10 and fought the bulk at 215-225. There are plenty of other examples as well.

When you consider the facts, rather than simply guessing, you’ll surely realise that mentioning those names doesn’t support your argument one iota…

If you assume that Evander Holyfield was considered past-his-prime immediately after the Michael Moorer rematch, then “The Real Deal’s” average ring weight was 210½lbs when he competed as a heavyweight.

His opponents typically weighed 227¾lbs, which is considered "small" by today’s heavyweight standards.

When ‘Iron’ Mike was at his destructive best (prior to his defeat to ‘Buster’ Douglas) for the first 37 bouts of his career, his opponents typically weighed 212lbs (excl. four anomalous fighters) and should be considered as being the equivalent of today's rehydrated cruiserweights.

Mike Tyson’s average ring weight during the same period was only 217¼lbs, which means he was also the physical equivalent of a rehydrated cruiserweight.

In terms of George Foreman, the topic of this thread is to discuss the 1973 version and I’ve already supplied the stats for him twice and I don't feel the need to keep repeating myself.

Povetkin is a top HW of this era. He stands 6'2 and 220-225 range. The list goes on. The only "fact" that supports your argument is that Foreman didn't constantly face too many HW's of today's size. His actual height/weight/power should be realistically fine to carry him in today's division. Wilder is seen as the #2 guy in the division today, and was only a few inches taller and around the same general weight. Not that these guys are world beaters, but:

Wepner 221- TKO 3
Clay 228- TKO 2
O'Halloran 235- KO5
Turnbow 246- TKO 1
Harris 235- KO2
Gordwin 220- KO2

Holyfield was a CW never fighting over 190, then came to the HW division and did great. My point is just because Foreman didn't face some of the bigger guys from today, it doesn't mean he couldn't. Chris Byrd started his career at 169 and was never seen as a power puncher, who also (IMO) fought in a better class of HW's. He was 6 1 1/2. He won multiple belts.

Again, my whole point is to say Foreman couldn't do it just based off fighting in a smaller HW era is absurd. That is the crutch of your whole argument. You can't say for sure, and I've easily shown some of today's HW's , and recent past, were smaller or around the same size of Foreman and did great. Although a small sample size against not the best of guys, Foreman had no issue dispatching bigger HW's. Yes size matters, being an actual good fighter matters just as much.

This is what I believe and I think I've proven enough to hold my point up. If you don't, we just agree to disagree. No big deal....

Great use of real facts. I agree with you 100%.

[SenorPipino]

Really. All this talk about what guys used to weigh and that they were just cruisers who would get swallowed up by today's crop of "immensely" talented bigger heavyweights.

You might as well argue that Dempsey, Louis, Johnson et al, undeniable legends of the game, would be helpless babes against the current heavyweight bunch.

Allow these icons of yesteryear to compete under our current day nutritional and training advancements, and they would all put on another 15-30 lbs of muscle.

They wouldn't be dwarfed.

And in the end, superior skills will always always trump size in the heavyweight division.

[Sklar]

Boxing has regressed. Far fewer participants and far less focus on technique. Foreman would beat any of the current crop using the diet and regimen he used back then. He'd destroy them if he had the 'supplementation' the guys use now.

[tiny_acres]

Boxing has regressed. Far fewer participants and far less focus on technique. Foreman would beat any of the current crop using the diet and regimen he used back then. He'd destroy them if he had the 'supplementation' the guys use now.

far fewer American fighters.. The sport is more global than ever in history.
I n the 1970's you didn't have eastern European, Chinese and former Soviet countries competing.

[Enlightened-One]

When you consider the facts, rather than simply guessing, you’ll surely realise that mentioning those names doesn’t support your argument one iota…

If you assume that Evander Holyfield was considered past-his-prime immediately after the Michael Moorer rematch, then “The Real Deal’s” average ring weight was 210½lbs when he competed as a heavyweight.

His opponents typically weighed 227¾lbs, which is considered "small" by today’s heavyweight standards.

When ‘Iron’ Mike was at his destructive best (prior to his defeat to ‘Buster’ Douglas) for the first 37 bouts of his career, his opponents typically weighed 212lbs (excl. four anomalous fighters) and should be considered as being the equivalent of today's rehydrated cruiserweights.

Mike Tyson’s average ring weight during the same period was only 217¼lbs, which means he was also the physical equivalent of a rehydrated cruiserweight.

In terms of George Foreman, the topic of this thread is to discuss the 1973 version and I’ve already supplied the stats for him twice and I don't feel the need to keep repeating myself.

Povetkin is a top HW of this era. He stands 6'2 and 220-225 range. The list goes on. The only "fact" that supports your argument is that Foreman didn't constantly face too many HW's of today's size. His actual height/weight/power should be realistically fine to carry him in today's division. Wilder is seen as the #2 guy in the division today, and was only a few inches taller and around the same general weight. Not that these guys are world beaters, but:

Wepner 221- TKO 3
Clay 228- TKO 2
O'Halloran 235- KO5
Turnbow 246- TKO 1
Harris 235- KO2
Gordwin 220- KO2

Holyfield was a CW never fighting over 190, then came to the HW division and did great. My point is just because Foreman didn't face some of the bigger guys from today, it doesn't mean he couldn't. Chris Byrd started his career at 169 and was never seen as a power puncher, who also (IMO) fought in a better class of HW's. He was 6 1 1/2. He won multiple belts.

Again, my whole point is to say Foreman couldn't do it just based off fighting in a smaller HW era is absurd. That is the crutch of your whole argument. You can't say for sure, and I've easily shown some of today's HW's , and recent past, were smaller or around the same size of Foreman and did great. Although a small sample size against not the best of guys, Foreman had no issue dispatching bigger HW's. Yes size matters, being an actual good fighter matters just as much.

This is what I believe and I think I've proven enough to hold my point up. If you don't, we just agree to disagree. No big deal....

Great use of real facts. I agree with you 100%.

You're a great cheerleader, but before you congratulated this gentleman on his so-called "facts", did you even bother to check any of them? Such as the second sentence!

I could have a field day with some of these alleged "facts".

[armageto]

Povetkin is a top HW of this era. He stands 6'2 and 220-225 range. The list goes on. The only "fact" that supports your argument is that Foreman didn't constantly face too many HW's of today's size. His actual height/weight/power should be realistically fine to carry him in today's division. Wilder is seen as the #2 guy in the division today, and was only a few inches taller and around the same general weight. Not that these guys are world beaters, but:

Wepner 221- TKO 3
Clay 228- TKO 2
O'Halloran 235- KO5
Turnbow 246- TKO 1
Harris 235- KO2
Gordwin 220- KO2

Holyfield was a CW never fighting over 190, then came to the HW division and did great. My point is just because Foreman didn't face some of the bigger guys from today, it doesn't mean he couldn't. Chris Byrd started his career at 169 and was never seen as a power puncher, who also (IMO) fought in a better class of HW's. He was 6 1 1/2. He won multiple belts.

Again, my whole point is to say Foreman couldn't do it just based off fighting in a smaller HW era is absurd. That is the crutch of your whole argument. You can't say for sure, and I've easily shown some of today's HW's , and recent past, were smaller or around the same size of Foreman and did great. Although a small sample size against not the best of guys, Foreman had no issue dispatching bigger HW's. Yes size matters, being an actual good fighter matters just as much.

This is what I believe and I think I've proven enough to hold my point up. If you don't, we just agree to disagree. No big deal....

Great use of real facts. I agree with you 100%.

You're a great cheerleader, but before you congratulated this gentleman on his so-called "facts", did you even bother to check any of them? Such as the second sentence!

I could have a field day with some of these alleged "facts".

Second sentence is about Povetkin's height and weight. He's fought over 230, what once? So you're going to take some fights at 226-229, and those three extra pounds will be your basis to why Foreman can't beat today's current HW's?!? You got your ass handed to you. You stating Foreman couldn't beat current HW's today because of his size is your opinion, not a fact. A fact is, people call you a troll who ruins debates. Fact is you were banned at least once from this site, no? Why come back?!?

I supplied MANY examples of guys right around Foreman's height/weight that have done just fine at HW, and none of them, aside Wilder, had Foreman's power. Foreman had no problem stopping bigger, albeit not the greatest HW's, when he fought them.

[squiggy]

I have posted this many times before but I will do so again...

Here is Tyson Fury knocking the eff out a guy that is exactly the same size as Ali...



Size does matter in boxing

And fortunately for the comparison, Steve Cunningham is practically identical to Ali as a boxer and an athlete.

[MrGuy]

The 1973 version of George Foreman was probably shorter and lighter than several modern day rehydrated cruiserweights.

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 also only 6’ 3.5” in height.

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 is definitely smaller than the average modern day cruiserweight.

These are easily verifiable facts that cannot be refuted!

So people are proposing that a cruiserweight that competed using primitive training and diet methods used 45 years ago, who (at the time) had only defeated small cruiserweights, is capable of beating modern day behemoths like Tyson Fury, Deontay Wilder, Anthony Joshua and Luis Ortiz?

There's a reason why weight classes exist!

I'm expecting a lot of angry responses from several veteran, borderline octogenarian, forum members passionately citing the reason why their nostalgic highlight reel-based opinions always take precedence over blatantly obvious real-world facts!

Fighters from his generation drained themselves to come in at the weights they did. They don't keep getting better the more weight you add on. Note the dreadful state of the division since these guys have become bigger. What are those facts?

[MrGuy]

EO, the size/weight is a very important factor, but there is one much more important - the excellence (and Big George got it).

George Foreman was "excellent" for his era, but his lack of size, combined with how small his opponents were, coupled with the primitive approach to training and diet methods he used 45 years ago, would have been far too significant handicaps to overcome if he was facing today's behemoths.

Up until the end 1973 and in the context of rehydrated heights and weights, George Foreman was simply a cruiserweight that was demolishing a lot of light heavies and small cruisers, with his performance levels limited due to having to adopt primitive approaches to training and diet used 45 years ago.

It's not as if I formulated a needlessly derogatory knee-jerk response to the question being posed by this thread, because it seems that no one else before me had considered the practical realities of the situation being discussed.

What are these superior training methods? Doing moronic MMA exercises or perhaps steroids? Athletes have evolved. Their gets to be a point where they dont anymore with artificial help. Either the rules or playing surfaces change to help break those records, or they get roided up.

[MrGuy]

I have posted this many times before but I will do so again...

Here is Tyson Fury knocking the eff out a guy that is exactly the same size as Ali...



Size does matter in boxing

Cunningham isn't close to Ali's class. You forgot he decked Fury. Didn't he win only because he simply started laying on him after being smacked down?

[Bard of Boxrec]

I don't know man, even a Foreman at 2000

I believe only Tony Galento reached this mark

[Heretic]

I have posted this many times before but I will do so again...

Here is Tyson Fury knocking the eff out a guy that is exactly the same size as Ali...



Size does matter in boxing

Not sure if this post is sarcasm, but USS completely rocked Fury. He also had no power displayed even at CW. On top of that, he didn't have the skill of Ali. If anything, this example furthers the point that Foreman could win.

Not sarcasm this time

Fury was fighting recklessly before that KD. Cunningham landed pretty much the perfect punch and Fury was up easily on time. No shaky legs either.



After this Fury made bit of adjustments and the rest is history.

Ali of course had more power than Cunningham but so did Wlad too

But that's actually not the point I was trying to make. The point was more that how small Cunningham looks next to Fury. How easy it was for Fury to manhandle the smaller man on the inside. Ugly ugly KO that was. Pushing the guy into corner then grabbing the head with the other hand and BANG game over. Like man against child.

It is no wonder why anyone from CW have not dominated the HW division in a long long time.

[Enlightened-One]

EO, the size/weight is a very important factor, but there is one much more important - the excellence (and Big George got it).

George Foreman was "excellent" for his era, but his lack of size, combined with how small his opponents were, coupled with the primitive approach to training and diet methods he used 45 years ago, would have been far too significant handicaps to overcome if he was facing today's behemoths.

Up until the end 1973 and in the context of rehydrated heights and weights, George Foreman was simply a cruiserweight that was demolishing a lot of light heavies and small cruisers, with his performance levels limited due to having to adopt primitive approaches to training and diet used 45 years ago.

It's not as if I formulated a needlessly derogatory knee-jerk response to the question being posed by this thread, because it seems that no one else before me had considered the practical realities of the situation being discussed.

What are these superior training methods? Doing moronic MMA exercises or perhaps steroids? Athletes have evolved. Their gets to be a point where they dont anymore with artificial help. Either the rules or playing surfaces change to help break those records, or they get roided up.

Sports science (such as the various methodologies relating to training, recovery, diet and supplements) in all sports requiring a significant amount of physical activity have improved significantly within the last 45 years or so, which is reflected in a significant general improvement in performance levels across the board.

This is a point that isn’t even worth discussing. I’ll let you pretend that time stands still and everything stays the same.

[Enlightened-One]

The 1973 version of George Foreman was probably shorter and lighter than several modern day rehydrated cruiserweights.

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 also only 6’ 3.5” in height.

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 is definitely smaller than the average modern day cruiserweight.

These are easily verifiable facts that cannot be refuted!

So people are proposing that a cruiserweight that competed using primitive training and diet methods used 45 years ago, who (at the time) had only defeated small cruiserweights, is capable of beating modern day behemoths like Tyson Fury, Deontay Wilder, Anthony Joshua and Luis Ortiz?

There's a reason why weight classes exist!

I'm expecting a lot of angry responses from several veteran, borderline octogenarian, forum members passionately citing the reason why their nostalgic highlight reel-based opinions always take precedence over blatantly obvious real-world facts!

Fighters from his generation drained themselves to come in at the weights they did. They don't keep getting better the more weight you add on. Note the dreadful state of the division since these guys have become bigger. What are those facts?

One of the main reasons why fighters are heavier, is because human beings alive today are taller than their predecessors born seventy years ago.

Do you need proof of this rather fundamental fact? Have you ever walked down the street and looked at an old person? How many times have you seen middle age forty something fathers being slightly shorter than their late teenage sons?

Another reason why people involved in sports are heavier, is due to advancements in sports science over the last half a century have allowed athletes (in general) to gain muscle (therefore gaining weight and power), whilst retaining their speed and stamina levels.

Do you seriously believe that there hasn't been any advances in sports science over the last half century?

I have previously performed an analysis of the physical attributes of the top 60 ranked BoxRec fighters in comparison to the “size” of Larry Holmes and posted my stats to the forum for others to review.

I proved that every single one of the top sixty fighters rated by BoxRec during February 2017 weighed far more than Larry Holmes' average 207½lb physical prime weight, with the vast majority being taller also.

Do you need me to provide the names, heights and weights of the top sixty BoxRec fighters that I analysed? Have you not watched boxing bouts from 45 years ago and compared the size of the fighters then to those competing today? The conclusions any mentally competent mind would draw from the proverbial "eye test" to compare sizes are incredibly obvious!

[MrGuy]

The 1973 version of George Foreman was probably shorter and lighter than several modern day rehydrated cruiserweights.

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 also only 6’ 3.5” in height.

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 is definitely smaller than the average modern day cruiserweight.

These are easily verifiable facts that cannot be refuted!

So people are proposing that a cruiserweight that competed using primitive training and diet methods used 45 years ago, who (at the time) had only defeated small cruiserweights, is capable of beating modern day behemoths like Tyson Fury, Deontay Wilder, Anthony Joshua and Luis Ortiz?

There's a reason why weight classes exist!

I'm expecting a lot of angry responses from several veteran, borderline octogenarian, forum members passionately citing the reason why their nostalgic highlight reel-based opinions always take precedence over blatantly obvious real-world facts!

Fighters from his generation drained themselves to come in at the weights they did. They don't keep getting better the more weight you add on. Note the dreadful state of the division since these guys have become bigger. What are those facts?

One of the main reasons why fighters are heavier, is because human beings alive today are taller than their predecessors born seventy years ago.

Do you need proof of this rather fundamental fact?

Another reason why people involved in sports are heavier, is due to advancements in sports science over the last half a century have allowed athletes (in general) to gain muscle (therefore gaining weight and power), whilst retaining their speed and stamina levels.

Do you seriously believe that there hasn't been any advances in sports science over the last half century?

I have previously performed an analysis of the physical attributes of the top 60 ranked BoxRec fighters in comparison to the “size” of Larry Holmes and posted my stats to the forum for others to review.

I proved that every single one of the top sixty fighters rated by BoxRec during February 2017 weighed far more than Larry Holmes' average 207½lb physical prime weight, with the vast majority being taller also.

Do you need me to provide the names, heights and weights of the top sixty BoxRec fighters that I analysed? Have you not watched boxing bouts from 45 years ago and compared the size of the fighters then to those competing today? The conclusions any mentally competent mind would draw from the proverbial "eye test" to compare sizes are incredibly obvious!

Weight lifting has been around and used by many boxers for decades now. The rest........protein powders, shock therapy, and the rest is garbage. Today it's steroids. The average ranked heavy in 1986 was 6'3" weighed 224 with a 79" inch reach. Three decades later 6'4" weighed 238 with an 80 inch reach. Basically no difference except fatter. Never said their wasn't a size difference. Just not to the level you think noting from that era fighters drained themselves.

[Enlightened-One]

Great use of real facts. I agree with you 100%.

You're a great cheerleader, but before you congratulated this gentleman on his so-called "facts", did you even bother to check any of them? Such as the second sentence!

I could have a field day with some of these alleged "facts".

Second sentence is about Povetkin's height and weight. He's fought over 230, what once? So you're going to take some fights at 226-229, and those three extra pounds will be your basis to why Foreman can't beat today's current HW's?!? You got your ass handed to you. You stating Foreman couldn't beat current HW's today because of his size is your opinion, not a fact. A fact is, people call you a troll who ruins debates. Fact is you were banned at least once from this site, no? Why come back?!?

I supplied MANY examples of guys right around Foreman's height/weight that have done just fine at HW, and none of them, aside Wilder, had Foreman's power. Foreman had no problem stopping bigger, albeit not the greatest HW's, when he fought them.

You’re being applauded by other based on your ballpark recollection of the numbers, which are being claimed as “facts”, when they’re simply not accurate. The numbers haven’t been calculated. You’ve embellished the figures slightly to present your argument in a more favourable way.

For example: Alexander Povetkin has competed in 35 fights, but he only weighed 225lbs or less in 15 of them. He was lighter than 225lbs for ten of his first 12 fights. In fact the Russian’s average weight is closer to 230lbs and it seems you finally admit this.

In terms of your comparison between Foreman and Wilder, where you claim there’s only a few inches difference in height and that they're both around the same weight, ‘The Bronze Bomber’ is physically much taller than ‘Big’ George.

You only need to look at the height of men standing next to Wilder that are about the same size as Foreman to comprehend the sort of difference we're actually talking about:


Excluding his bouts against Ortiz & Stiverne, Wilder’s average weight during his title reign is 227lbs, which is clearly heavier than what the 217lbs 1973 version of George Foreman weighed.

Only 17½% of Wilder’s opponents weighed less than himself. ‘The Bronze Bomber’ was the smaller man in 33 of his bouts by an average of 29lbs. In terms of weight, he’s an anomaly to the general rule, but his extraordinary height still allows him to be classed as a much “bigger” heavy than Foreman!

Also, you claim that “Foreman had no issue dispatching bigger HW's”, but he weighed more than 92% of his opponents, with only three of the heavier fighters being taller him (i.e. in terms of the other four, a much smaller heavy, like Joe Frazier in the rematch, was overweight).

In fact, I think you’ll struggle to find any credible world-rated heavyweight opponents generally considered “bigger” than Foreman. He was known as “Big” George for a fairly obvious reason!

The above points I’ve raised are easily verifiable facts – they aren’t ballpark estimates to present my argument in a favourable light.

Finally, I never claimed that the 1973 version of Foreman was physically incapable of gaining any sort of success if he competed against the current crop of heavies.

Instead, I was simply suggesting that George would be less successful, due to his size disadvantage, since many of people that have posted to this thread are pretending that he’d destroy all current world-rated heavyweights with consummate ease and that size doesn't matter, which are clearly totally absurd claims to make!

[Heretic]

I have posted this many times before but I will do so again...

Here is Tyson Fury knocking the eff out a guy that is exactly the same size as Ali...



Size does matter in boxing

Didn't he win only because he simply started laying on him after being smacked down?

Yeah that's my point exactly. You can do that if you are giant compared to your opponent.

Wlad was doing it very successfully against smaller opponents for decade.

[Enlightened-One]

The average ranked heavy in 1986 was 6'3" weighed 224 with a 79" inch reach. Three decades later 6'4" weighed 238 with an 80 inch reach. Basically no difference except fatter. Never said their wasn't a size difference. Just not to the level you think noting from that era fighters drained themselves.

Two obvious points:

1) We're discussing the 1973 version of George Foreman. What occurred in 1986 has no bearing on our discussion? I mentioned Larry Holmes because he's the same age as Foreman and was also an active heavyweight in 1973, but to also to prove a point that fighters get bigger over time. I also provided stats relating to the 1973 version of Foreman and the size of his opponents he fought during that timeframe.

2) Even though it doesn't relate to the topic of this thread, where did you get your height/weight stats from when comparing the 1986 heavies to those competing today? Provide the source, but if you can't, then I'll assume you made these numbers up.

And here's the reason why I think that you've made up these numbers:

When ‘Iron’ Mike was at his destructive best (prior to his defeat to ‘Buster’ Douglas) for the first 37 bouts of his career, his opponents typically weighed 212lbs (excl. four anomalous fighters) and should be considered as being the equivalent of today's rehydrated cruiserweights.

Mike Tyson’s average ring weight during the same period was only 217¼lbs, which means he was also the physical equivalent of a rehydrated cruiserweight.

By the way, Tyson was the world heavyweight champion from 1986 to 1990 and the above averages I've supplied include the bouts that he competed in during his first title reign.

Another unrelated fact that supports my argument that fighters get much bigger over time...

The 6’ 3” Larry Holmes’ average weight at his physical prime, for the first 39 bouts of his career, was 207½lbs. Over the equivalent time period, his opponents typically weighed 210½lbs. He was the world heavyweight champion until 1985. The stats for both Holmes and his opponents during his title reign are very similar.

[Cutman Scabbers]

Let’s consider the stats relating to George Foreman’s best opponent prior to the end of 1973…

From the start of his career until he reached his physical prime during 1971, Joe Frazier’s average weight for his first 32 bouts (up to the point he defeated Muhammad Ali), was 204¾lbs, with his average opponent weighing only 203¾lbs.

Now let’s compare these numbers to “Big” George’s…

George Foreman’s mathematical average weight was 217lbs from the start of his career through until the end of 1973. He was 217½lbs when he faced Joe Frazier in 1973. He was also only 6’ 3.5” in height.

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.

And here are the conclusions that I’ve drawn after analysing such information…

When you consider how much of a size advantage “Big” George had over his opponents, then it detracts from the impressiveness of his highlight-reel KO’s.

When you also consider the above height and weight statistics, which proves that the 1973 version of Foreman was simply a rehydrated cruiserweight by modern standards, coupled with the primitive training methods and approaches to diet regimens used 45 years ago, then I feel that George would have probably tasted defeat to many of today’s current crop of heavyweights.

Foreman and Tyson were never cruiserweights.

They both cut weight (Foreman early version) to get down to those fighting weights.

I think Foreman talked about how he used to deny himself water when
training during the first part of his career.