View Single Post
Old 03-03-2011, 11:55 AM   #67
Undisputed Champion
East Side VIP
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 14,804
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Lennox lewis vs George Foreman - Physical strength

Originally Posted by Jorodz View Post
size and weight don't mean ****. as has been said before, being bigger by a few pounds does not mean stronger.

ken norton was "bigger" than holyfield and admitted he had nowhere near holy's physical strength

moongoose said carnera, which may be true, but technically butterbean is bigger than all the heavyweight champs but is he really stronger?

Foreman proved his physical strength as part of his style: he pushed mother****ers back like they were children.

Lewis got into sloppy wars with mercer and rahman precisely because he COULDN'T do this and couldn't create the distance he wanted
I'm really not arguing this either way but to say there are a couple factors here.

One is that Lewis fought STONGER men, plain and simple. And yes, the training regimens (and vitamins) from the 90's created stronger fighters. Rahman, Tua, Ruddock, Grant, Golota, McCall, Morrison, Tucker, Tyson, Klitschko as a collective group are quite a bit stronger than Frazier, Roman, Lyle, Ali, Norton, LeDoux and Denis. Ergo, perhaps the perception that Foreman is shoving guys around is based on his opponents relative strength. Is this really a stretch in logic that no one can follow?

I am not contending Foreman was a weakling. I've seen the footage. I just don't think he was a superman far and away stronger than Lewis.
Seamus is online now  Top
Reply With Quote