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

[ValMar]

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.

Noxy, Gilgamesh is usually a very realistic poster, but he obviously doesn't like Fury too much...........

[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.

There's no reason for any heavyweight fighter to dehydrate themselves (i.e. lose water) for a fight.

They might try to slim down (reduce body fat) from any weight gained between bouts, due to inactivity and poor lifestyle, during their training camps, but they won't be dehydrated during the official day-of-the-fight weigh-in's, hence the reason why both men could have technically fought as cruiserweights.

If a lot of welterweight fighters can often rehydrate 17lbs or so between the official weigh-in's and fight night, then any heavyweight could achieve the same feat much easier.

There was a reason, though you might not like it.

Read up on Foreman, and you'll find it.

[Heretic]

One of the reasons why those really big guys are doing better today than before might be that they know how to use taht size better.

Steward made Wlad way better boxer than what he was before.

How good would someone like Bowe for example be if he was trained to use that size properly?

Also the advantages in modern training (including PEDs) might be more important to the big guys who always have trouble with their stamina.

Could these be some of the reasons why the big guys perform better now days?

[Enlightened-One]

One of the reasons why those really big guys are doing better today than before might be that they know how to use taht size better.

Steward made Wlad way better boxer than what he was before.

How good would someone like Bowe for example be if he was trained to use that size properly?

Also the advantages in modern training (including PEDs) might be more important to the big guys who always have trouble with their stamina.

Could these be some of the reasons why the big guys perform better now days?

You might need to explain your definition of a “big guy” in 1973, as opposed to what’s generally considered a “big guy” in 2018, because according to the factually-accurate stats that are irrefutable in nature, the size difference of the so-called "big men" competing during both eras is truly staggering!

Any 6’ 3” 217lbs fighter would have been considered a huge behemoth in 1973, definitely one of the physically “biggest” heavyweights of that era, but the very same man competing today would probably be campaigning as a cruiserweight.

[ValMar]

One of the reasons why those really big guys are doing better today than before might be that they know how to use taht size better.

Steward made Wlad way better boxer than what he was before.

How good would someone like Bowe for example be if he was trained to use that size properly?

Also the advantages in modern training (including PEDs) might be more important to the big guys who always have trouble with their stamina.

Could these be some of the reasons why the big guys perform better now days?

You might need to define your definition of a “big guy” in 1973 as opposed to what’s generally considered a “big guy” in 2018, because according to the factually-accurate stats that are irrefutable in nature, the size difference of the so-called "big men" competing during both eras is truly staggering!

I know that it can not been ordered precisely, but nowadays we may consider a "big guy" every fighter with the height 6'5'' or more, and the weight 235 or more. I know it is debateble, but I have tried......................

[Heretic]

One of the reasons why those really big guys are doing better today than before might be that they know how to use taht size better.

Steward made Wlad way better boxer than what he was before.

How good would someone like Bowe for example be if he was trained to use that size properly?

Also the advantages in modern training (including PEDs) might be more important to the big guys who always have trouble with their stamina.

Could these be some of the reasons why the big guys perform better now days?

You might need to explain your definition of a “big guy” in 1973, as opposed to what’s generally considered a “big guy” in 2018, because according to the factually-accurate stats that are irrefutable in nature, the size difference of the so-called "big men" competing during both eras is truly staggering!

Any 6’ 3” 217lbs fighter would have been considered a huge behemoth in 1973, definitely one of the physically “biggest” heavyweights of that era, but the very same man competing today would probably be campaigning as a cruiserweight.

When I am talking about the big guys I mean guys that would be considered to be big even today.

Like Primo Carnera, Buddy Bear or Jess Willard.

Lots of big guys can be found from the history books

[Enlightened-One]

One of the reasons why those really big guys are doing better today than before might be that they know how to use taht size better.

Steward made Wlad way better boxer than what he was before.

How good would someone like Bowe for example be if he was trained to use that size properly?

Also the advantages in modern training (including PEDs) might be more important to the big guys who always have trouble with their stamina.

Could these be some of the reasons why the big guys perform better now days?

You might need to explain your definition of a “big guy” in 1973, as opposed to what’s generally considered a “big guy” in 2018, because according to the factually-accurate stats that are irrefutable in nature, the size difference of the so-called "big men" competing during both eras is truly staggering!

Any 6’ 3” 217lbs fighter would have been considered a huge behemoth in 1973, definitely one of the physically “biggest” heavyweights of that era, but the very same man competing today would probably be campaigning as a cruiserweight.

When I am talking about the big guys I mean guys that would be considered to be big even today.

Like Primo Carnera, Buddy Bear or Jess Willard.

Lots of big guys can be found from the history books

The point I’m alluding to relates to how commonplace 6’ 5” 245lbs physically athletic men were 45 years or so ago in comparison today.

What was previously considered as being as rare as Halley’s Comet half a century ago is merely average today.

We’re not simply experiencing this phenomenon in boxing, but we’re seeing it in other sports also.

For instance: the average height of the world-cup winning England squad in 1966 was 1.77m, with the current top-ranked FIFA Germany squad averaging 1.85m.

The average size of a human being throughout the entire planet is currently much “bigger” than 45 years or so ago.

You’re right about the other points you raised though, because advances in sports science, such as training methods, approaches to recovery, healthcare, diet, supplements etc. have almost certainly resulted in today’s “big men” being far more athletic than their counterparts that competed half a century ago.

You could also argue that better knowledge of boxing techniques, easy access to watching and recording fights electronically, have also aided in a fighters’ ability to understand their opponents better, learn from others as well as addressing their own flaws.

For instance: a sparring session can be recorded easily via mobile phone and then the resulting media can be analysed afterwards to learn valuable lessons, but this sort of technology wasn’t available in the early 1970’s.

Everything related to the sport of boxing has improved over time. People’s perceptions may not reflect this fact, due to their clouded mind-set allowing nostalgia to take precedence over reality, but they are wrong to think this way.

[MrGuy]

You might need to explain your definition of a “big guy” in 1973, as opposed to what’s generally considered a “big guy” in 2018, because according to the factually-accurate stats that are irrefutable in nature, the size difference of the so-called "big men" competing during both eras is truly staggering!

Any 6’ 3” 217lbs fighter would have been considered a huge behemoth in 1973, definitely one of the physically “biggest” heavyweights of that era, but the very same man competing today would probably be campaigning as a cruiserweight.

When I am talking about the big guys I mean guys that would be considered to be big even today.

Like Primo Carnera, Buddy Bear or Jess Willard.

Lots of big guys can be found from the history books

The point I’m alluding to relates to how commonplace 6’ 5” 245lbs physically athletic men were 45 years or so ago in comparison today.

What was previously considered as being as rare as Halley’s Comet half a century ago is merely average today.

We’re not simply experiencing this phenomenon in boxing, but we’re seeing it in other sports also.

For instance: the average height of the world-cup winning England squad in 1966 was 1.77m, with the current top-ranked FIFA Germany squad averaging 1.85m.

The average size of a human being throughout the entire planet is currently much “bigger” than 45 years or so ago.

You’re right about the other points you raised though, because advances in sports science, such as training methods, approaches to recovery, healthcare, diet, supplements etc. have almost certainly resulted in today’s “big men” being far more athletic than their counterparts that competed half a century ago.

You could also argue that better knowledge of boxing techniques, easy access to watching and recording fights electronically, have also aided in a fighters’ ability to understand their opponents better, learn from others as well as addressing their own flaws.

For instance: a sparring session can be recorded easily via mobile phone and then the resulting media can be analysed afterwards to learn valuable lessons, but this sort of technology wasn’t available in the early 1970’s.

Everything related to the sport of boxing has improved over time. People’s perceptions may not reflect this fact, due to their clouded mind-set allowing nostalgia to take precedence over reality, but they are wrong to think this way.

The really big guys are more athletic. Thats because their are many more of them now. For every Lewis or Joshua their are 100 plodders with mediocre skill, who do nothing but jab and grab. The average human being is much fatter. The division just had it's worst period ever with these "superior" athletes.