I appreciate the thoughtful response, and I understand your logic. However... I don't see Wlad or Vitali using a rope a dope, because they are big enough to throw their weight on Foreman when he gets close. I think Wlad could be vulnerable to the body, as Calvin Brock showed, but that was fighting out of a crouch and counter punching, not bulling to the ropes and digging like Foreman did. Sanders didn't have to cut the ring, he set traps, let Wlad lead and countered with his superior hand speed, long reach, and south paw angles. Yes, I believe Wlad and Vitali like Lyle, Ali, and even Young would have success with lead rights.
You see the same argument for pre 70s fighters against modern fighters. There is some confusion I feel. The description of Sanders and Brewster as "not big" didn't ring true to me in this context so I pointed out they actually are bigger than Foreman if only by a small margin and would be giant contenders in the 70s.
I'm not arguing. It's a fact that Foreman cut weight and aimed at 217lbs. Foreman's height is variably reported as 6'3", 6'3.5", 6'4". The matter of size, brought up by @dmt , was in the context to Wlad's prior failure against guys smaller than himself. So compared to Wlad, Sanders and Brewster were "not big". As for there being a size difference between Foreman and Sanders, as well as between Foreman and Brewster - if there is one (and I don't think there is), it is inconsequential.
And it's a fact that fighters prior to 70s, trained to cut down to a target weight. If you want to give Foreman the benefit of the doubt that he's bigger than his weight, it should be applied fairly. I'm using the argument points we see in other threads like this to point out the hypocritical approach. As the responses have been similar.
I'm not sure what your complaint is here. What hypocrisy? Foreman was more or less the same size as Sanders. It's a really, really simple comparison to make, between two well-documented heavyweights, and it doesn't need to be expanded beyond that.