BoxRec

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Jun 2018, 16:03

candyslim wrote: ↑08 Jun 2018, 15:56 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.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Jun 2018, 14:34

MrGuy wrote: ↑08 Jun 2018, 06:34

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Jun 2018, 03:57
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!

MrGuy wrote: ↑08 Jun 2018, 18:50

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑08 Jun 2018, 14:34

MrGuy wrote: ↑08 Jun 2018, 06:34
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 wrote: ↑08 Jun 2018, 20:32 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

jezzamundo wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 10:08 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.

ValMar wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 11:55 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 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 12:11 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 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 12:14

ValMar wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 11:55 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 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 12:23

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 12:14

ValMar wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 11:55 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.

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 12:47

ValMar wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 12:23

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 12:14
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 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 12:23

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 12:14

ValMar wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 11:55 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.

jezzamundo wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 10:08 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.

squiggy wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 17:53 Or rewatch Fury-Klitschko and continue talking like size is the only thing that matters...

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 11:00

jezzamundo wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 10:08 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!?!

MrGuy wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 18:31

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 11:00

jezzamundo wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 10:08 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 wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 18:57

MrGuy wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 18:31

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑09 Jun 2018, 11:00
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.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑04 Jun 2018, 13:47 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?