View Single Post
Old 12-03-2012, 06:22 PM   #99
ESB Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,042
vCash: 1000
Default Re: George Foreman best bareknuckle fighter ever ?

On quoting Foreman's height/weight vs. that of historical barenucklers:
If we are considering the George of history, time machined back into bare-knuckle days, then we may leave his height unadjusted; we should probably take his weight down a bit, as he'll likely be training down some for finish fights.
If we are considering George Foreman, with his natural potentials -- or, if you prefer, a boxer of that times with the same potentials as Big George (including his potential for growth) -- somehow born into a bareknuckle milleiu, and profiting from the both general resources, and specifically
fistic resources, of that time in a way ****ogous to how Foreman did in his own time ..... then we must also consider that Foreman's height may have been a bit different, as well. This difference should not be exagerated. I can't really suggest a specific formula to deal with this, and I think trying to give a specific height for 'born long ago' George would be a mistake. I think it's better to just generally think about Foreman's natural potential for height being the constant -- which could have been realized in different ways even in the era George really did fight in -- and try to use what you know of the times to shift the 'probability cloud' of Foreman's height down a little (BUT NOT TOO MUCH!) if you're 'birthing' him into an early time. I could almost say if you're not thinking about this vaguely, you're probably not thinking about it right!
Again, if we're dealing with the Foreman of history, time machined out of his own day back into LPR days, we don't need to 'tend down' his height at all.


guilalah is offline  Top
Reply With Quote