Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-29-2012, 01:39 AM   #91
Theron
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,299
vCash: 773
Default Re: George Foreman best bareknuckle fighter ever ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azzer85 View Post
Says the twat with 300 ****ing posts

Maybe instead of wasting time looking at fighters i like, you should actually pay attention to the posts i make

and pull Foremans penis from wherever your sticking it.
Since when did a persons boxing knowledge come down to how many thread posts they have?? it just means i found EastSideboxing later than you
Theron is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 11-29-2012, 01:41 AM   #92
Theron
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,299
vCash: 773
Default Re: George Foreman best bareknuckle fighter ever ?

I have 300 something posts but that dosen't mean you know more than me it just means i spend less time on here and instead learning about boxing history, and that is obvious when you think that Foreman retired because of psychological issues with the Young fight when it was religeous reasons.... I wouldn't want to know what else you think about boxing
Theron is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 01:48 AM   #93
Theron
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,299
vCash: 773
Default Re: George Foreman best bareknuckle fighter ever ?

Just stick to commenting on how great Tyson was and how he's the best ever mate . I don't want to know where Tyson's dick is with you man pretty far from recognition i'd think though Stick to studying karate or whatever it is you like, i think you'd be better for some chuck norris vs bruce lee thread
Theron is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 08:34 AM   #94
Azzer85
ATG
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: West Midlands, UK
Posts: 7,621
vCash: 500
Default Re: George Foreman best bareknuckle fighter ever ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theron View Post
Just stick to commenting on how great Tyson was and how he's the best ever mate . I don't want to know where Tyson's dick is with you man pretty far from recognition i'd think though Stick to studying karate or whatever it is you like, i think you'd be better for some chuck norris vs bruce lee thread
Foreman quit because he couldnt handle another loss and then used the whole religious thing as a cover story, similar to why Tyson bit Holyfield.

Judging by your comments, you sound like a ****ing retard

Deal with it
Azzer85 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 08:35 AM   #95
moesizlak
Journeyman
ESB Jr Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Here and there and everywhere
Posts: 257
vCash: 500
Default Re: George Foreman best bareknuckle fighter ever ?

Lenny Mclean would have murdered Foreman bare knuckle and Foreman knows it
moesizlak is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 06:37 PM   #96
HOUDINI
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: The Garden State
Posts: 1,861
vCash: 500
Default Re: George Foreman best bareknuckle fighter ever ?

More crap posters on here. foreman had a religious experience after his loss to Young. What happened in his dressing room after that fight is well documented. He quit boxing and spent the next 10 years as a minister preaching in Texas. So obviously something very real at the very least in Foremans mind happened to him. He did have some level of breakdown after losing to Ali. I have read that so deep was his depression that he almost did not come out of it.
HOUDINI is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2012, 11:14 PM   #97
Theron
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,299
vCash: 773
Default Re: George Foreman best bareknuckle fighter ever ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by HOUDINI View Post
More crap posters on here. foreman had a religious experience after his loss to Young. What happened in his dressing room after that fight is well documented. He quit boxing and spent the next 10 years as a minister preaching in Texas. So obviously something very real at the very least in Foremans mind happened to him. He did have some level of breakdown after losing to Ali. I have read that so deep was his depression that he almost did not come out of it.
Yes that's true but after the Young fight he was different there was a story about a guy that stole alot of money from Foreman and Foreman saw him again and just hugged him while he tried to run away, he was different i dont know where Azzer is getting all his stuff from i thought this about Foreman has been documented in any books and documentaries
Theron is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 06:22 PM   #98
guilalah
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 944
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 analogous 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.

Continued


guilalah is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 06:23 PM   #99
guilalah
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 944
vCash: 1000
Default Re: George Foreman best bareknuckle fighter ever ?

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Were They All Shorter Back Then?

by Carolyn Freeman Travers, Research Manager
http://www.plimoth.org/learn/history/myth/fourfttwomyth.asp

"And as you can see from the clothes, they were all much shorter in those days, and they were old at thirty-nine, and dead at forty." - tour guide at the Museum of Costume, Bath, 1984

There are several common pieces of misinformation/mistaken beliefs about people in the past: that they were all "much shorter in those days", that they died at a much earlier age (and therefore reached old age much earlier as well), married at a very early age, had very large families, and the leading cause of death for women was childbirth. The myth that people were shorter in the 17th century is adressed below. For information about the myth that people died young, go to our Dead at Forty page.

A Note on Terms: The term "average" can mean one of three types. Adding up all of the figures being considered and dividing them by the number there are arrives at the mean. The median is the mid-point; half of the topic in question would be above this figure, and half below. The mode is the most frequently met with figure in the series.

Average Heights

The average height for an early 17th-century English man was approximately 5 6". For 17th-century English women, it was about 5 ". While average heights in England remained virtually unchanged in the 17th and 18th centuries, American colonists grew taller. Averages for modern Americans are just over 5 9" for men, and about 5 3 " for women. The main reasons for this difference are improved nutrition, notably increased consumption of meat and milk, and antibiotics.

Modern Americans are measured, or give their height, for many documents; people in the early 17th century did not. The one exception was the military musters, where the height of a man determined what weapon he was fit to use. The "Men and Armour for Gloucestershire in 1608, " for example, divided the men both by age groups and height. The four catagories were "tallest stature fitt to make a pykeman," "middle stature fitt to make a musketyer," "lower stature fitt to serve with a Calyver" and "meanest stature either fit for a pyoner [foot soldier, laborer], or of little other use."1 This division, while interesting, is hardly precise. Descriptions of runaway slaves later in the period often included height, but the figures given may have been approximates. Lacking documentary evidence, the best source of evidence is the people themselves, at least their remains. Evidence compiled from various archaeological excavations in medieval England, 17th-century London, and colonial America provides some figures, which indicate at least the probable average height for early 17th-century English men and women.

Medieval England
Excavations of cemeteries dating back to medieval England have provided a range of heights for both men and women and a mean average for both. Across the sites, the mean average height for males was 171.26 cm. [66.79 inches or 5 6 "]. For females, it was 157.55 cm. [61.44 inches or 5 1 "]. 2

Seventeenth-Century London
From bones examined from Farringdon Street in London as well as another study of 17th-18th century femora (thigh bones), the average height of people nearer in time and place to the early Plymouth colonists can be determined. The averages from Farringdon Street are 169.3 cm [66.02 inches or 5 6"] for males and 155.2 cm [60.52 inches or 5 "] for females.The wider-ranging 17th & 18th centuries study gives 169 cm [65.91 inches or just under 5 6"] for men and 155 cm [60.45 inches or just under 5 "] for women. While it is evident that the height of Londoners changed very little in the 17th and 18th centuries, the same was not true of Americans.

American Colonists
A compilation of evidence from excavations of graves dating to the American colonial period gives averages of 173.2 [67.54 inches or 5 7 "] for males and 159.8 cm [62.32 inches or slightly over 5 2 "].3
"By the time of the American Revolution, native-born whites appear to have achieved nearly modern final heights. The analysis of a sample of recruits from the Revolutionary Army (1775-1783) indicates that the final height of native-born white males between the ages of twenty-four and thirty-five averaged 68.1 inches.The figure is not only one to four inches greater that the final height of European males reported for several nations during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, but is also virtually identical with final heights in the Union Army during the Civil War and in the U.S. Army during World War II." 4

Modern World
A study published in Britain in 1988, using data compiled from 1981, determined that the average height in the modern British population was 173.8 cm. [67.78 inches or 5 7 "] for males and 160.9 cm. [62.75 inches or 5 2 "] for females. For modern white Americans, the average stature for males is 69.1", or just over 5 9", and for women, 63.7", or about 5 3 ". 5



Continued
guilalah is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 06:24 PM   #100
guilalah
Contender
ESB Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 944
vCash: 1000
Default Re: George Foreman best bareknuckle fighter ever ?

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

"This paper presents five-yearly data on the height of young adult men in 15 Western European countries for birth cohorts from the middle of the 19th to the end of the 20th century. The results indicate that from the 1870s to the 1970s average height increased by around 11 cm, or more than 1 cm per decade."


----------------------------


[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


Time Trends in Average Height

Table 3 shows the time pattern in height of native-born American men obtained in historical periods from military muster rolls, and for men and women in recent decades from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. This historical trend is notable for the tall stature during the colonial period, the mid-nineteenth century decline, and the surge in heights of the past century. Comparisons of average heights from military organizations in Europe show that Americans were taller by two to three inches. Behind this achievement were a relatively good diet, little exposure to epidemic disease, and relative equality in the distribution of wealth. Americans could choose their foods from the best of European and Western Hemisphere plants and animals, and this dietary diversity combined with favorable weather meant that Americans never had to contend with harvest failures. Thus, even the poor were reasonably well fed in colonial America.
Table 3:
Average Height of Native-Born American Men and Women by Year of Birth

Centimeters
Inches
Year
Men

Men
Women
1710
171.5

67.5

1720
171.8

67.6

1730
172.1

67.8

1740
172.1

67.8

1750
172.2

67.8

1760
172.3

67.8

1770
172.8

68.0

1780
173.2

68.2

1790
172.9

68.1

1800
172.9

68.1

1810
173.0

68.1

1820
172.9

68.1

1830
173.5

68.3

1840
172.2

67.8

1850
171.1

67.4

1860
170.6

67.2

1870
171.2

67.4

1880
169.5

66.7

1890
169.1

66.6

1900
170.0

66.9

1910
172.1

67.8

1920
173.1

68.1

1930
175.8
162.6
69.2
64.0
1940
176.7
163.1
69.6
64.2
1950
177.3
163.1
69.8
64.2
1960
177.9
164.2
70.0
64.6
1970
177.4
163.6
69.8
64.4

Source: Steckel (2002) and sources therein.
Explaining Height Cycles

Loss of stature began in the second quarter of the nineteenth century when the transportation revolution of canals, steamboats and railways brought people into greater contact with diseases. The rise of public schools meant that children were newly exposed to major diseases such as whooping cough, diphtheria, and scarlet fever. Food prices also rose during the 1830s and growing inequality in the distribution of income or wealth accompanied industrialization. Business depressions, which were most hazardous for the health of those who were already poor, also emerged with industrialization. The Civil War of the 1860s and its troop movements further spread disease and disrupted food production and distribution. A large volume of immigration also brought new varieties of disease to the United States at a time when urbanization brought a growing proportion of the population into closer contact with contagious diseases. Estimates of life expectancy among adults at ages 20, 30 and 50, which was assembled from family histories, also declined in the middle of the nineteenth century.
Rapid Increases in Heights in the First Half of the Twentieth Century

In the twentieth century, heights grew most rapidly for those born between 1910 and 1950, an era when public health and personal hygiene measures took vigorous hold, incomes rose rapidly and there was reduced congestion in housing. The latter part of the era also witnessed a larger share of income or wealth going to the lower portion of the distribution, implying that the incomes of the less well-off were rising relatively rapidly. Note that most of the rise in heights occurred before modern antibiotics were available, which means that disease prevention rather than the ability to alter its course after onset, was the most important basis of improving health. The growing control that humans have exercised over their environment, particularly increased food supply and reduced exposure to disease, may be leading to biological (but not genetic) evolution of humans with more durable vital organ systems, larger body size, and later onset of chronic diseases.
Recent Stagnation

Between the middle of the twentieth century and the present, however, the average heights of American men have stagnated, increasing by only a small fraction of an inch over the past half century. Table 3 refers to the native born, so recent increases in immigration cannot account for the stagnation. In the absence of other information, one might be tempted to suppose that environmental conditions for growth are so good that most Americans have simply reached their genetic potential for growth. Unlike the United States, heights and life expectancy have continued to grow in Europe, which has the same genetic stock from which most Americans descend. By the 1970s several American health indicators had fallen behind those in Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark. While American heights were essentially flat after the 1970s, heights continued to grow significantly in Europe. The Dutch men are now the tallest, averaging six feet, about two inches more than American men. Lagging heights leads to questions about the adequacy of health care and life-style choices in America. As discussed below, it is doubtful that lack of resource commitment to health care is the problem because America invests far more than the Netherlands. Greater inequality and less access to health care could be important factors in the difference. But access to health care alone, whether due to low income or lack of insurance coverage, may not be the only issues -- health insurance coverage must be used regularly and wisely. In this regard, Dutch mothers are known for regular pre-and post-natal checkups, which are important for early childhood health.
Note that significant differences in health and the quality of life follow from these height patterns. The comparisons are not part of an odd contest that emphasizes height, nor is big per se assumed to be beautiful. Instead, we know that on average, stunted growth has functional implications for longevity, cognitive development, and work capacity. Children who fail to grow adequately are often sick, suffer learning impairments and have a lower quality of life. Growth failure in childhood has a long reach into adulthood because individuals whose growth has been stunted are at greater risk of death from heart disease, diabetes, and some types of cancer. Therefore it is important to know why Americans are falling behind.
guilalah is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2012, 06:50 PM   #101
janitor
P4P King
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 21,334
vCash: 1000
Default Re: George Foreman best bareknuckle fighter ever ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by moesizlak View Post
Lenny Mclean would have murdered Foreman bare knuckle and Foreman knows it
Please tell me you are not serious!
janitor is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013