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

[candyslim]

It seems to me that one point is being overlooked in this discussion about relative size and weight. There are boxers shorter and smaller than George who have done very well at Heavyweight during the modern era ... however:

Povetkin may have been heavier by an insignificant amount but he was at least an inch, maybe two, shorter than George. Sasha's style relies on power, toughness, stamina and superior technique to overcome his opponent. His style was built around being the shorter man.

Foreman's style was built around being a hulking intimidating ring presence who could bludgeon his opposition into oblivion - unless they were highly mobile and accomplished technicians. Like Wlad he was accustomed to having all the physical advantages. Look what happened to Wlad confronted by someone bigger, more mobile, who could box.

George beat really good fighters and really big fighters, but did he beat any really good, really big fighters? Cooney shared the same advantages but was not nearly as good as George.

Many of Foreman's opponents were beaten before the first bell, having been intimidated by his size and/or reputation.

I think George would have been a force to be reckoned with in any era, but when you take away his ability to physically, and because of that psychologically, dominate his opponent, then you take away a good deal of his effectiveness. I know many of you do not share my enthusiasm for Jarrell Miller, but I'm sure when it comes to physical dominance, George wouldn't be manhandling him like he did Frazier, and I don't think Foreman's big punches have an effect on Big Baby like they had on Ken Norton for example.

Of course if George were born in 1990 he might very well be 6' 8" and nearly 300lbs which would make this thread even more academic than it presently is

So what you're basically saying it that height and weight is irrelevant in the context of the sport of boxing, so weight classes should be removed from our beloved sport and fight fans should be clamouring for AJ to defend his titles against Vasyl Lomachenko?

I know it's an extreme stance to take, but those pretending that fighters competing half a century ago don't have a significant size disadvantage against today's massive behemoths are fûckîng moronic!

Just because people are seemingly determined to beat me in an argument in this forum, doesn't necessarily mean that my claims are factually incorrect.

Of course it's not irrelevant I'm surprised you arrive at the conclusion I was saying that. Size matters. A small man can overcome a bigger man but only if he's a better fighter. If they are well matched for ability then the bigger man has the crucial advantage.

I am simply introducing the point that the size disadvantage for the smaller man can be increased or reduced depending on the boxer's style. Povetkin fights in a style designed to minimize his physical disadvantages. Foreman' style is that of the bigger man and a smaller Heavyweight will suffer by utilizing such a style.

I am not interested in winning an argument with you. I am simply putting points which I consider to be self evident up for discussion since they don't appear to have been discussed so far.

[MrGuy]

George Foreman fought every five weeks on average between the start of his career in 1969 and the first Joe Frazier bout of 1973. His average official ballpark weight was consistently 217lbs. On some occasions he fought as regularly as every few days, or once per week or every fortnight, but he still consistently weighed around the 217lbs mark.

First of all, he was a heavyweight fighter, so he didn’t have to weight drain himself via dehydration to avoid liquids and artificially lose a significant amount of weight within 24 hours or so. Also, when George was competing, the official weigh-ins took place on the day of the fight.

Second, for a lot of his bouts, it would have been physically impossible to lose and regain that amount of weight so frequently in such short time periods anyway. Check his resume via BoxRec and then consider the absurd nature of your claim.

Therefore, you’re talking utter bðllðcks and our discussion in regards to this particular manner is now terminated, since you cannot be trusted to make a sensible comment!

All because logic offends you. It doesn't matter what he came in weighing fight night, his walk around weight was more than that without staying busy. Obviously he felt the need to keep his weight down., He fought a ton of bums in the early stages of his career. The regular work kept his weight where he wanted.

Logic and the powers of deduction are redundant in the context of historical facts that cannot possibly be refuted, since none of us can rewrite history to suit our preferred narrative as you keep attempting to do.

I gave you the actual numbers, whereas you made yours up. Deal with it!

Those figures of a small size increase in the past three decades are fact. For all your talk of giant superior heavyweights, it must suck finding out guys like Wilder on average aren't beating guys any bigger than Tyson was.

[jamamb]

im not a size extremist but i do think a lot of ppl gloss over it.

i had debates in the history section with ppl who said jack johnson would clown every hw today, and that seems a common opinion, but for perspective: for a lhw fight, sullivan barrera was 190 vs smith and smith was 187. they are in the 6 feet to 6'2 range .

jack opponents, same day weigh ins w/o draining like today

5'7 168 tommy burns (hw title win)
5'10 162 jack o brian
5'7 156 sam langford
5'9 165 sailor burke
5'9 171 stanley ketchel
5'10 174 jim flyn
5'10 185 joe jeanette
6'1 193 al kauffman
6'0 227 james jefferies (jeff was 6 years inactive)
6'6 238 jess willard (johnson kod)

reality is that most of these guys were at best lhw sized today, with many being smw or mw or maybe even jmw sized. johnson was knocked out by the one legit shw

i mean, how much credit would we give aj for knocking out dmitry bivol, george groves, or ggg?

its not just johnson btw, a lot of hw greats built there legacys on guys who wouldnt be hws today, to me that simply cant be glossed over. itsnot so stark with foreman but eo makes some points that should be considered

[Enlightened-One]

All because logic offends you. It doesn't matter what he came in weighing fight night, his walk around weight was more than that without staying busy. Obviously he felt the need to keep his weight down., He fought a ton of bums in the early stages of his career. The regular work kept his weight where he wanted.

Logic and the powers of deduction are redundant in the context of historical facts that cannot possibly be refuted, since none of us can rewrite history to suit our preferred narrative as you keep attempting to do.

I gave you the actual numbers, whereas you made yours up. Deal with it!

Those figures of a small size increase in the past three decades are fact. For all your talk of giant superior heavyweights, it must suck finding out guys like Wilder on average aren't beating guys any bigger than Tyson was.

You're trolling. No one can be as wrong as regularly as you are without intending to be that way.

[candyslim]

im not a size extremist but i do think a lot of ppl gloss over it.

i had debates in the history section with ppl who said jack johnson would clown every hw today, and that seems a common opinion, but for perspective: for a lhw fight, sullivan barrera was 190 vs smith and smith was 187. they are in the 6 feet to 6'2 range .

jack opponents, same day weigh ins w/o draining like today

5'7 168 tommy burns (hw title win)
5'10 162 jack o brian
5'7 156 sam langford
5'9 165 sailor burke
5'9 171 stanley ketchel
5'10 174 jim flyn
5'10 185 joe jeanette
6'1 193 al kauffman
6'0 227 james jefferies (jeff was 6 years inactive)
6'6 238 jess willard (johnson kod)

reality is that most of these guys were at best lhw sized today, with many being smw or mw or maybe even jmw sized. johnson was knocked out by the one legit shw

i mean, how much credit would we give aj for knocking out dmitry bivol, george groves, or ggg?

its not just johnson btw, a lot of hw greats built there legacys on guys who wouldnt be hws today, to me that simply cant be glossed over. itsnot so stark with foreman but eo makes some points that should be considered

I've no doubt that Jack Johnson was one hell of a fighter, but he was human not superman. I've little doubt that he would be crushed by Dillian Whyte never mind AJ. It's just not reasonable to expect someone of Johnson's size to overcome someone so much bigger who is both athletic and can fight.

It may be fun but it's nonsense to compare fighters 100 years apart, but if you must do it compare Johnson with Kovalev or Bivol or Usyk or Briedis, not Joshua.

As I alluded to above in relation to Foreman, if Lil' Arthur had been born in say, 1990 then he might well have been 6'5" and 240 lbs in which case the fantasy matches take on a very different complexion.

[jezzamundo]

Back in 2016 I wrote a post about the increase in height of Top 10 heavyweights over time. The link is here:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=199245

For those who don't want to read the whole post, I'll condense it down for you. The average height of a Top 10 heavyweight in the 1970s was 6'2.1", while the average height of a Top 10 heavyweight for this decade had been 6'3.6". Yes today's top heavyweights are taller, but the difference isn't as big as some are making it out to be.

Now when you talk about weight, there is no question that today's heavyweights are much heavier. That said, if a chubby 6'2" Povetkin was able to be a Top 5 heavyweight for a decade, there should be no question that a lean, 6'3.5" Foreman, with substantially more punching power would do just fine too.

[Enlightened-One]

Back in 2016 I wrote a post about the increase in height of Top 10 heavyweights over time. The link is here:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=199245

For those who don't want to read the whole post, I'll condense it down for you. The average height of a Top 10 heavyweight in the 1970s was 6'2.1", while the average height of a Top 10 heavyweight for this decade had been 6'3.6". Yes today's top heavyweights are taller, but the difference isn't as big as some are making it out to be.

Now when you talk about weight, there is no question that today's heavyweights are much heavier. That said, if a chubby 6'2" Povetkin was able to be a Top 5 heavyweight for a decade, there should be no question that a lean, 6'3.5" Foreman, with substantially more punching power would do just fine too.

If we perform a comparison of the top-ten heavyweights from 1973 to those competing today, as per The RING ratings, the following averages apply:

• The average height of a heavyweight from 1973 is 6’ 2½”, weighing 209lbs
• The average height of a heavyweight today is 6’ 4½”, weighing 248lbs
• The average height of a cruiserweight today is 6’ 1½”, with their rehydration weight very likely to exceed 215lbs

I can provide you with a detailed breakdown of the above summarised stats if you don’t believe them?

I have also previously performed a detailed analysis of the top sixty BoxRec ranked heavyweight from February 2017, which provided similar results (i.e. the average size of a heavyweight back then was about 6’ 5”, weighing 250lbs).

Once again, I can provide a detailed breakdown of the stats relating to the sixty ranked BoxRec fighters I analysed.

The conclusion I draw, based purely on statistical facts, is that the average heavyweight competing during 1973 was the physical equivalent of a modern day cruiserweight. I don’t believe that it is possible for anyone to name a single fighter competing back then that was physically incapable of making the 200lbs stipulated cruiserweight limit. Most of them would have made it with consummate ease!

In 1973, the 217lbs version of George Foreman was the physical equivalent of a modern day cruiserweight. He definitely wasn’t any bigger than cruiserweights, such as: Oleksandr Usyk; Murat Gassiev; Yunier Dorticos; and Maksim Vlasov. ;

Do people genuinely believe that heavyweights competing in 1973 are the same size as today's big men? Seriously!?!

[ValMar]

EO, I am not sure if you admit this, but today, there are so many "fake heights" on the official rankings. I think that more than 30% official heights are not true (even among the best HWs).
There is not any dilemma - modern day HWs are much bigger than 30 or 40 years ago, and this is very important fact, but if we neglect some other factors (skills, chin, heart, stamina, power) we will make a great mistake.

[Thomastearns]

Foreman certainly made most of his predecessors look small. I still remember the shock of seeing a lifesize picture of his fists - they were huge, even in comparison to Ali's.

[Enlightened-One]

EO, I am not sure if you admit this, but today, there are so many "fake heights" on the official rankings. I think that more than 30% official heights are not true (even among the best HWs).
There is not any dilemma - modern day HWs are much bigger than 30 or 40 years ago, and this is very important fact, but if we neglect some other factors (skills, chin, heart, stamina, power) we will make a great mistake.

To repeat what I've already stated in this thread, George Foreman may have gained some success against several top-ten ranked heavyweights, but there's a massive difference between destroying 200lb-ers from 1973 that were trained using primitive approaches to diet and training, as opposed to facing juiced-up 6' 5" 250lb-ers of the modern era.

The 1973 version of "Big" George, who would have been considered "Small" today, and would have been far less successful against today's behemoths, but for some strange reason, many forum members feel he'd dominate 99% of today's heavyweights with ease... and I'm not exaggerating either!

It seems that nostalgia renders real-world facts as being considered irrelevant!

[ValMar]

Foreman certainly made most of his predecessors look small. I still remember the shock of seeing a lifesize picture of his fists - they were huge, even in comparison to Ali's.

Foreman is/was a natural born HW (you can see his neck, head, fists and legs).

[ValMar]

EO, I am not sure if you admit this, but today, there are so many "fake heights" on the official rankings. I think that more than 30% official heights are not true (even among the best HWs).
There is not any dilemma - modern day HWs are much bigger than 30 or 40 years ago, and this is very important fact, but if we neglect some other factors (skills, chin, heart, stamina, power) we will make a great mistake.

To repeat what I've already stated in this thread, George Foreman may have gained some success against several top-ten ranked heavyweights, but there's a massive difference between destroying 200lb-ers from 1973 that were trained using primitive approaches to diet and training, as opposed to facing juiced-up 6' 5" 250lb-ers of the modern era.

The 1973 version of "Big" George, who would have been considered "Small" today, and would have been far less successful against today's behemoths, but for some strange reason, many forum members feel he'd dominate 99% of today's heavyweights with ease... and I'm not exaggerating either!

It seems that nostalgia renders real-world facts as being considered irrelevant!

EO, I agree with you (concerning this topic) 75%, but I would like that you admit that Foreman has been an extremely powerful puncher, more powerful than any curent HW.

[squiggy]

Why isn't it appropriate to assume that if Foreman were a young fighter today, he'd be more or less the same size as today's heavyweights? You're already in fantasy land by moving him out of his time and place, so just adjust his body a bit too.

[squiggy]

(Oops, duplicate)

[Enlightened-One]

EO, I am not sure if you admit this, but today, there are so many "fake heights" on the official rankings. I think that more than 30% official heights are not true (even among the best HWs).
There is not any dilemma - modern day HWs are much bigger than 30 or 40 years ago, and this is very important fact, but if we neglect some other factors (skills, chin, heart, stamina, power) we will make a great mistake.

To repeat what I've already stated in this thread, George Foreman may have gained some success against several top-ten ranked heavyweights, but there's a massive difference between destroying 200lb-ers from 1973 that were trained using primitive approaches to diet and training, as opposed to facing juiced-up 6' 5" 250lb-ers of the modern era.

The 1973 version of "Big" George, who would have been considered "Small" today, and would have been far less successful against today's behemoths, but for some strange reason, many forum members feel he'd dominate 99% of today's heavyweights with ease... and I'm not exaggerating either!

It seems that nostalgia renders real-world facts as being considered irrelevant!

EO, I agree with you (concerning this topic) 75%, but I would like that you admit that Foreman has been an extremely powerful puncher, more powerful than any curent HW.

Foreman was a very powerful heavyweight, for sure, but I don't recall a time when he KO'd a top-ten world-ranked heavyweight that was bigger than himself.

He'd almost certainly have to achieve that feat against today's big men.

[ValMar]

To repeat what I've already stated in this thread, George Foreman may have gained some success against several top-ten ranked heavyweights, but there's a massive difference between destroying 200lb-ers from 1973 that were trained using primitive approaches to diet and training, as opposed to facing juiced-up 6' 5" 250lb-ers of the modern era.

The 1973 version of "Big" George, who would have been considered "Small" today, and would have been far less successful against today's behemoths, but for some strange reason, many forum members feel he'd dominate 99% of today's heavyweights with ease... and I'm not exaggerating either!

It seems that nostalgia renders real-world facts as being considered irrelevant!

EO, I agree with you (concerning this topic) 75%, but I would like that you admit that Foreman has been an extremely powerful puncher, more powerful than any curent HW.

Foreman was a very powerful heavyweight, for sure, but I don't recall a time when he KO'd a top-ten world-ranked heavyweight that was bigger than himself.

He'd almost certainly have to achieve that feat against today's big men.

Yes, he was a very powerful HW...................Right now, I agree with you 80 %..............

[Heretic]

EO, I am not sure if you admit this, but today, there are so many "fake heights" on the official rankings. I think that more than 30% official heights are not true (even among the best HWs).
There is not any dilemma - modern day HWs are much bigger than 30 or 40 years ago, and this is very important fact, but if we neglect some other factors (skills, chin, heart, stamina, power) we will make a great mistake.

To repeat what I've already stated in this thread, George Foreman may have gained some success against several top-ten ranked heavyweights, but there's a massive difference between destroying 200lb-ers from 1973 that were trained using primitive approaches to diet and training, as opposed to facing juiced-up 6' 5" 250lb-ers of the modern era.

The 1973 version of "Big" George, who would have been considered "Small" today, and would have been far less successful against today's behemoths, but for some strange reason, many forum members feel he'd dominate 99% of today's heavyweights with ease... and I'm not exaggerating either!

It seems that nostalgia renders real-world facts as being considered irrelevant!

EO, I agree with you (concerning this topic) 75%, but I would like that you admit that Foreman has been an extremely powerful puncher, more powerful than any curent HW.

I do agree on that Foreman was powerful puncher.

I am still wondering how that size difference affects punch resistance.

Valuev and Wach both have really good chins and both are huge.

Many of the lower weight class fighters moving up seem to loose some power when they fight against the bigger dudes. Naturally there are exceptions but that's the general rule.

Would the not so big George be as big puncher against the behemoths of today's division?

[candyslim]

Back in 2016 I wrote a post about the increase in height of Top 10 heavyweights over time. The link is here:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=199245

For those who don't want to read the whole post, I'll condense it down for you. The average height of a Top 10 heavyweight in the 1970s was 6'2.1", while the average height of a Top 10 heavyweight for this decade had been 6'3.6". Yes today's top heavyweights are taller, but the difference isn't as big as some are making it out to be.

Now when you talk about weight, there is no question that today's heavyweights are much heavier. That said, if a chubby 6'2" Povetkin was able to be a Top 5 heavyweight for a decade, there should be no question that a lean, 6'3.5" Foreman, with substantially more punching power would do just fine too.

I think he is a serious contender in 2018 but he would not be able to intimidate, dominate, and bludgeon his opponents in the way that he did because he would no longer enjoy massive physical advantages over his opponents today. Povetkin is a smaller heavyweight who has enjoyed success by fighting like a smaller heavyweight. If he tried to fight like a huge heavyweight he would come unstuck because he cannot push them around, back them up with a rangier hard jab, and club them into submission. At the same time his opponents are finding him much easier to hit when he is relying on outreaching, and overpowering his man.

Maybe George does ok using the same tactics, but he is going to find it a lot harder to impose himself on a Breazeale, never mind a Miller or a Joshua. He lacks the skills/smarts necessary to reinvent himself and fight like an average size heavyweight. He has a good jab but it's unlikely to be so impressive against men who are his size or taller. I seem to be the only one who sees a distinction between the way Big George fought and the way Not-so-big George might need to fight.

As a related question how effective do you think Wlad would have been using the tactics that he did if he were 6' 3" and 220 lbs?

[Enlightened-One]

If anyone is currently watching Tyson Fury's bout against Sefer Seferi, the Albanian is bigger than the average heavyweight that competed in 1973.

The 1973 version of George Foreman was only a tiny bit bigger than Seferi.

So consider the physical differences between Fury and Seferi and then tell me that size doesn't matter!

[squiggy]

Or rewatch Fury-Klitschko and continue talking like size is the only thing that matters...

[Enlightened-One]

Or rewatch Fury-Klitschko and continue talking like size is the only thing that matters...

I never said that size was the only thing that matters.

Either quote my words that you're criticising or pay attention to what I've actually said. If you're unable to do either, then shut up!

Don't lie!

[MrGuy]

Back in 2016 I wrote a post about the increase in height of Top 10 heavyweights over time. The link is here:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=199245

For those who don't want to read the whole post, I'll condense it down for you. The average height of a Top 10 heavyweight in the 1970s was 6'2.1", while the average height of a Top 10 heavyweight for this decade had been 6'3.6". Yes today's top heavyweights are taller, but the difference isn't as big as some are making it out to be.

Now when you talk about weight, there is no question that today's heavyweights are much heavier. That said, if a chubby 6'2" Povetkin was able to be a Top 5 heavyweight for a decade, there should be no question that a lean, 6'3.5" Foreman, with substantially more punching power would do just fine too.

If we perform a comparison of the top-ten heavyweights from 1973 to those competing today, as per The RING ratings, the following averages apply:

• The average height of a heavyweight from 1973 is 6’ 2½”, weighing 209lbs
• The average height of a heavyweight today is 6’ 4½”, weighing 248lbs
• The average height of a cruiserweight today is 6’ 1½”, with their rehydration weight very likely to exceed 215lbs

I can provide you with a detailed breakdown of the above summarised stats if you don’t believe them?

I have also previously performed a detailed analysis of the top sixty BoxRec ranked heavyweight from February 2017, which provided similar results (i.e. the average size of a heavyweight back then was about 6’ 5”, weighing 250lbs).

Once again, I can provide a detailed breakdown of the stats relating to the sixty ranked BoxRec fighters I analysed.

The conclusion I draw, based purely on statistical facts, is that the average heavyweight competing during 1973 was the physical equivalent of a modern day cruiserweight. I don’t believe that it is possible for anyone to name a single fighter competing back then that was physically incapable of making the 200lbs stipulated cruiserweight limit. Most of them would have made it with consummate ease!

In 1973, the 217lbs version of George Foreman was the physical equivalent of a modern day cruiserweight. He definitely wasn’t any bigger than cruiserweights, such as: Oleksandr Usyk; Murat Gassiev; Yunier Dorticos; and Maksim Vlasov. ;

Do people genuinely believe that heavyweights competing in 1973 are the same size as today's big men? Seriously!?!

You can break down whatever you like. In reality the only notable size difference for a contender or champ from 1986 to 2016 was 16 lbs of fat.

[Enlightened-One]

Back in 2016 I wrote a post about the increase in height of Top 10 heavyweights over time. The link is here:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=199245

For those who don't want to read the whole post, I'll condense it down for you. The average height of a Top 10 heavyweight in the 1970s was 6'2.1", while the average height of a Top 10 heavyweight for this decade had been 6'3.6". Yes today's top heavyweights are taller, but the difference isn't as big as some are making it out to be.

Now when you talk about weight, there is no question that today's heavyweights are much heavier. That said, if a chubby 6'2" Povetkin was able to be a Top 5 heavyweight for a decade, there should be no question that a lean, 6'3.5" Foreman, with substantially more punching power would do just fine too.

If we perform a comparison of the top-ten heavyweights from 1973 to those competing today, as per The RING ratings, the following averages apply:

• The average height of a heavyweight from 1973 is 6’ 2½”, weighing 209lbs
• The average height of a heavyweight today is 6’ 4½”, weighing 248lbs
• The average height of a cruiserweight today is 6’ 1½”, with their rehydration weight very likely to exceed 215lbs

I can provide you with a detailed breakdown of the above summarised stats if you don’t believe them?

I have also previously performed a detailed analysis of the top sixty BoxRec ranked heavyweight from February 2017, which provided similar results (i.e. the average size of a heavyweight back then was about 6’ 5”, weighing 250lbs).

Once again, I can provide a detailed breakdown of the stats relating to the sixty ranked BoxRec fighters I analysed.

The conclusion I draw, based purely on statistical facts, is that the average heavyweight competing during 1973 was the physical equivalent of a modern day cruiserweight. I don’t believe that it is possible for anyone to name a single fighter competing back then that was physically incapable of making the 200lbs stipulated cruiserweight limit. Most of them would have made it with consummate ease!

In 1973, the 217lbs version of George Foreman was the physical equivalent of a modern day cruiserweight. He definitely wasn’t any bigger than cruiserweights, such as: Oleksandr Usyk; Murat Gassiev; Yunier Dorticos; and Maksim Vlasov. ;

Do people genuinely believe that heavyweights competing in 1973 are the same size as today's big men? Seriously!?!

You can break down whatever you like. In reality the only notable size difference for a contender or champ from 1986 to 2016 was 16 lbs of fat.

Basically you're saying that you're entitled to make up any sort of bûllshît claim you want and everyone else has to agree with your thoughts, even if they bear no relation to the events that occur in the real-world.

[MrGuy]

If we perform a comparison of the top-ten heavyweights from 1973 to those competing today, as per The RING ratings, the following averages apply:

• The average height of a heavyweight from 1973 is 6’ 2½”, weighing 209lbs
• The average height of a heavyweight today is 6’ 4½”, weighing 248lbs
• The average height of a cruiserweight today is 6’ 1½”, with their rehydration weight very likely to exceed 215lbs

I can provide you with a detailed breakdown of the above summarised stats if you don’t believe them?

I have also previously performed a detailed analysis of the top sixty BoxRec ranked heavyweight from February 2017, which provided similar results (i.e. the average size of a heavyweight back then was about 6’ 5”, weighing 250lbs).

Once again, I can provide a detailed breakdown of the stats relating to the sixty ranked BoxRec fighters I analysed.

The conclusion I draw, based purely on statistical facts, is that the average heavyweight competing during 1973 was the physical equivalent of a modern day cruiserweight. I don’t believe that it is possible for anyone to name a single fighter competing back then that was physically incapable of making the 200lbs stipulated cruiserweight limit. Most of them would have made it with consummate ease!

In 1973, the 217lbs version of George Foreman was the physical equivalent of a modern day cruiserweight. He definitely wasn’t any bigger than cruiserweights, such as: Oleksandr Usyk; Murat Gassiev; Yunier Dorticos; and Maksim Vlasov. ;

Do people genuinely believe that heavyweights competing in 1973 are the same size as today's big men? Seriously!?!

You can break down whatever you like. In reality the only notable size difference for a contender or champ from 1986 to 2016 was 16 lbs of fat.

Basically you're saying that you're entitled to make up any sort of bûllshît claim you want and everyone else has to agree with your thoughts, even if they bear no relation to the events that occur in the real-world.

No actually those stats were factual. Do the math.

[Noxy]

What an absolute joke that Fury is given the best chance to win.

Why do people have eyes that simply don't see when it comes to this guy?

It’s the old cliche styles make fights. He may be lacking in Gilgamesh-pleasing qualities. But when it comes to style, Fury has it.