Size and sports science vs Golden era

Have you ever tried explaining a joke?

 

So if I think Foreman was better in the 70's than the 90's that shows I don't know **** about boxing?

Is that your actual position?

 

He obviously could because he knocked the 70s version down.

There is simply no way that a fighter’s chin is going to be better in his 40s than in his 20s.

 

Totally disagree, chin and power can get better with age. Especially when you bulk up like old George did.

Personally, it's fair to debate it, but I think Old Foreman was better overall than young Foreman. The missing athleticism wasn't as important to his style as increased experience, chin, and probably power.

 

Chin does not get better with age it gets worse, because trauma is cumulative.

Bulking up doesn’t really make much difference, because the only thing you can do to improve durability is thicken the neck, and that is the one area where the training methods have never changed.

It may be safely assumed that the Foreman of the Young fight took a better punch than the version of the Moorer fight.

As for the older Foreman being a better fighter, I really don’t see an argument based on results.

It might be that he showed what the younger Foreman might have done with a more disciplined attitude.

 

You act like I think Wlad is a great fighter or something...

 

Nice job answering a question with a question.

Quality poster right here guys!^

 

Your obviously an Ali nuthugger and an idiot

 

so if foreman boxes hes not good but if he swings like a mindless brute he is then effective? see you guys cannot except the simple answer is foreman was somewhat overatted as a fighter in general. this can be seen in many fights,but nostalgic views will alwayds play reverse points. He was a big problem because he could hit hard,but the constant foreman was not mentally there, he was tired ,he had a belly ache gets old. Young shut down foreman pretty effeciently when he tried to go off,he even rocked Young a few times,the smarter fighter just prevailed ,had nothing to do with foreman not being aggressive. Maybe he would have wion / Maybe not? He certainly was known to come unraveled fast.

 

Yet you are trying to sell us the idea that he was the only fighter in history, who was somehow better in his 40s than during his physical prime!

That is simply ridiculous!

 

I dont have to sell anything if one cannot see this they are lost.. you also are calling Dundee ridiculous along with many boxing trainers,you lack logic in many posts and this is one of them ,no substance,empty statements.

 

If I am so lost then presumably you should feel sorry for me, and try to steer me towards a better understanding.

So how exactly did his chin improve in his 40s?

What was the mechanism for this happening?

 

No one really believes Foreman was better in his comeback.

No one.

He was good enough to beat the undefeated champion 20 years after he last held the belt but that's about it.

 

Says the guy with Fury's nuts on his tonsils.

 

I have always considered you one of the best posters on here, and this post kind of proves it.

Foreman was a super talent. No matter how good George was,He failed to achieve his potential first time around. Second time around georges Longevity proved somewhat of a greatness.