BoxRec

I can imagine Joshua and (fit/healthy) Fury having 30% chance to win.
Wilder and Ortiz with 25 %, and the rest with less than 5%.
What do you think ?

Foreman right now probably beats 75% of the division.....

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?

armageto wrote: ↑04 Jun 2018, 13:22 Foreman right now probably beats 75% of the division.....

Probably 90%

Tall, rangy and good moving guys with solid jab - that's the nightmarish style of boxers for George. I won't pick anybody of today's scene to outfight Foreman. Actually the likes of Fury, Joshua and Wilder have all the needed tools, but they have never been in the ring with a boxer, who was at least close to Foreman in his pressuring abilities and punching power. I doubt, that anyone of those three would be able to keep a Foreman-like monster outside for all the distance. Today's champions were developing, when they had already got their belts, and they still aren't fully tested, I'd say. So for the moment I'll pick Foreman to beat anybody.

Who can possibly give Ortiz 25% chance of beating that version of Foreman? I wouldn’t give him any chance of beating the 1994 version of Big George...

beats everybody with ease except for
joshua, that would be a 50:50 for me.

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!

Loses to all the top level guys. He'll be around the Ortiz/Parker level.

Athletes in every sport, including boxing, get better with every generation. Its why records are broken and it's true throughout history.

Marciano was a great fighter. Put him with Foreman he'd get splattered. Put Foreman in with today's generation and the top tier would beat him pretty convincingly.

In 15-20 years time, the next crop of heavyweights would be bigger, stronger, better trained, better conditioned etc than today's crop of heavies.

SenorPipino wrote: ↑04 Jun 2018, 14:07

armageto wrote: ↑04 Jun 2018, 13:22 Foreman right now probably beats 75% of the division.....

Probably 90%

At first I thought y'all meant that prime Foreman beats 90%, and were selling him short. My mind wasn't allowing me to imagine that you could have really meant that the current version of George Foreman, at age 69, could beat anywhere near that amount. No. Maybe 1 or 2%.

Mike Tyson, who is 17 years younger than Foreman, was already losing to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride 13-14 years ago, by mid round knockout. At that point, Mike Tyson was already capable of losing to like 15 or 20% of the division. George Foreman is 30 years older now than Tyson was then, plus 21 years inactive. I can't believe in one thread, someone is arguing that 49-year-old Tarver is at risk of permanent disability if he fights again, and in the other thread, someone is arguing that 69-year-old Foreman would be victorious over the vast majority of the division.

George Foreman couldn't have beaten 75% of the division back in 1999 or 2000. By 2005, he wouldn't have been able to beat 20% of the division. By 2010, he's down in 3% territory.

Lackeos wrote: ↑04 Jun 2018, 23:01

SenorPipino wrote: ↑04 Jun 2018, 14:07

armageto wrote: ↑04 Jun 2018, 13:22 Foreman right now probably beats 75% of the division.....

Probably 90%

At first I thought y'all meant that prime Foreman beats 90%, and were selling him short. My mind wasn't allowing me to imagine that you could have really meant that the current version of George Foreman, at age 69, could beat anywhere near that amount. No. Maybe 1 or 2%.

Mike Tyson, who is 17 years younger than Foreman, was already losing to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride 13-14 years ago, by mid round knockout. At that point, Mike Tyson was already capable of losing to like 15 or 20% of the division. George Foreman is 30 years older now than Tyson was then, plus 21 years inactive. I can't believe in one thread, someone is arguing that 49-year-old Tarver is at risk of permanent disability if he fights again, and in the other thread, someone is arguing that 69-year-old Foreman would be victorious over the vast majority of the division.

George Foreman couldn't have beaten 75% of the division back in 1999 or 2000. By 2005, he wouldn't have been able to beat 20% of the division. By 2010, he's down in 3% territory.

You did such an impressive job of crunching the numbers, that I can't even argue.

It almost sounds like you might have collaborated with legendary Murray Woroner by using his iconic NCR 315 computer (circa 1967) to analyze Foreman's mathematical chances against today's crop of outstanding heavies.

So I withdraw my claim that Big George shellacks 90% of the current division.

Feel free to take it up mano a mano with armageto, however, if you still feel that contemporary heavies are being slighted in comparison to Foreman.

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

Foreman was very strong but limited and struggled with guys who could move. He came close to being knocked out by Lyle, was made to look ordinary against the 197lb Peralta, Young outpointed and dropped him and of course Ali knocked him out. It should also be noted that many of Foremans opponents were under 200lb. Anyone who tried to trade with him would be in trouble but he was far from being unbeatable.

Even in his comeback he was very carefully steered towards a title shot, even admitting at the time he wanted no part of Lennox Lewis, and by the end of it was struggling to beat guys like Savarese and Schulz.

Lackeos wrote: ↑04 Jun 2018, 23:01

SenorPipino wrote: ↑04 Jun 2018, 14:07

armageto wrote: ↑04 Jun 2018, 13:22 Foreman right now probably beats 75% of the division.....

Probably 90%

At first I thought y'all meant that prime Foreman beats 90%, and were selling him short. My mind wasn't allowing me to imagine that you could have really meant that the current version of George Foreman, at age 69, could beat anywhere near that amount. No. Maybe 1 or 2%.

Mike Tyson, who is 17 years younger than Foreman, was already losing to Danny Williams and Kevin McBride 13-14 years ago, by mid round knockout. At that point, Mike Tyson was already capable of losing to like 15 or 20% of the division. George Foreman is 30 years older now than Tyson was then, plus 21 years inactive. I can't believe in one thread, someone is arguing that 49-year-old Tarver is at risk of permanent disability if he fights again, and in the other thread, someone is arguing that 69-year-old Foreman would be victorious over the vast majority of the division.

George Foreman couldn't have beaten 75% of the division back in 1999 or 2000. By 2005, he wouldn't have been able to beat 20% of the division. By 2010, he's down in 3% territory.

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

Anyhow, a '73 Foreman beats 100% of this division, IMO. A Foreman of today, still probably beats 20% of the division or so. My guess is he still has power. 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

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?!? You fail to realize just how bad this division is overall outside a few big names. No, Foreman shouldn't be fighting today, but a boxers age doesn't verify how much he has left in the tank. There have been successful boxers in their 40's and guys who were burnt out in their early 30's, as you know.

ValMar wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 00:32 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, Wilder is 6'7 and has fought 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.

tigermoth87 wrote: ↑04 Jun 2018, 21:59 Loses to all the top level guys. He'll be around the Ortiz/Parker level.

Athletes in every sport, including boxing, get better with every generation. Its why records are broken and it's true throughout history.

Marciano was a great fighter. Put him with Foreman he'd get splattered. Put Foreman in with today's generation and the top tier would beat him pretty convincingly.

In 15-20 years time, the next crop of heavyweights would be bigger, stronger, better trained, better conditioned etc than today's crop of heavies.

And they’re off!

Enlightened-One wrote: ↑04 Jun 2018, 18:19 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!

do you really think wilders a bohemuth when youve been so adamant about him making cruiser?

but its a good point about size, a lot of generally regarded atg hws built there reputation on guys who would not be hw sized today. it gets real extreme going back to a guy like jack johnson who was fighting guys the size of mws or lower today

i mean, would anyone today at all give aj big credit for beating billy joe saunders, george groves, or badou jack?

I do think there is a tendency in boxing (sport generally?, life generally?) to look at the past with rose tinted spectacles, and to denigrate the present I'm not disparaging George Foreman who was an established contender, but had not yet fought for the title, when I first became interested in boxing. He was extremely exciting and menacing but as has already been pointed out, he had his flaws.

I'll never forget watching this hulking brute being boxed silly by the late Gregorio Peralta who was a cruiserweight by today's measure, and not a puncher by any stretch. Similarly Jimmy Young made him look clumsy, crude and generally ineffective.
George was a massive heavyweight by seventies standards but he is only about the size of Joseph Parker who was at a considerable physical disadvantage against Joshua. Can you imagine Goyo Peralta troubling AJ?

George Foreman would have been a fighter to be reckoned with in any era but he wouldn't be as physically imposing today, and that ability to impose himself and terrorize opponents mentally and physically was a big part of his aura. I think it's very difficult to compare fighters from different eras but it is fun to imagine various pairings ... Foreman against Jarrell Miller would interesting, or against Wilder, Ortiz, Parker even Breazeale.

That's all I'm going to say because I don't trust my ability to form any objective conclusions on this subject.

ValMar wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 00:32 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.

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.

some ppl just wont tolerate the idea that size makes a difference, the history section here is loaded with grumps who are like that.its hardly the be all, but its a factor

so many lauded hws of the past built there reps vs guys who wouldnt be hws today, some werent even as big as cruisers or lower

but would we give aj big credit for beatings cruisers, lhws, and smws?

armageto wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 01:22

ValMar wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 00:32 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.

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

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



Size does matter in boxing

Heretic wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 07:21 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.

armageto wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 01:14 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.

armageto wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 01:14 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.

armageto wrote: ↑05 Jun 2018, 01:14 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.