Was 70s George Foreman a bigger or smaller man than Samuel Peter?

Most likely the same size.

 

Peter, clearly. The scale doesn't lie.

Now, as to who was more effective per lb, well, clearly that's also a different story.

 

Samuel Peter was a fat, lazy slob. George Foreman was a professional fighter, brought along by real boxing guys. The idea\ that an extra 30 pounds of blubber is an advantage is a new concept and it has coincided that bulk is a suitable replacement for skill.

 

Willie "fat boy" meehan

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/10585

And 'Two ton" Tony Galento

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/12125

would like a word with you

 

I fail to see where the blubber gave either the competitive advantage in their careers.

And as far as who’s bigger, I’d say let George hoist a whole cow over his shoulders for the weigh-in, then see if Fat Sam could do the same.

 

There are always exceptions to every thing. I would submit that, while Galento was not an ideal physical specimen, the number of rounds that he fought give lie to the assumption that he trained on beer and hotdogs.

 

I have to add that Fatboy Meehan, in that shot, doesn't look especially fat. And Two Ton Tony doesn';t look nearly the immobile caricature that Tua decided to become.

 

Where's the evidence that Foreman got heavier in the 1990s due to some sort of different training? What are "1990s training techniques" that he used?
He was heavier because he was fatter.

Sam Peter and George Foreman are about the same size. Peter was always heavier than the lighter weights Foreman came in at (212 to 232 in his 'first career') but Peter was always a bit fat. Foreman is taller by a couple of inches, probably, with longer reach perhaps. But they are roughly the same.

 

I will add that if by bigger means heavier then Peter was larger.
But at 243 you do not think Peter was as lean as '70's Foreman right?
Who Saddler often had come in dehydrated.
So at most i would say Peter had about as much lean body mass as Foreman.

 

I think it's clear that Foreman had bigger muscle mass when he was older. He wasn't as fat as some people think.

 

Bigger guy.

 

Sam Peter was a lazy fatso with a poor work ethic. Think of him like a 00's version of Briggs

Prime Briggs was around 225lbs in the 90's

Briggs was 275lbs when he fought Sultan Igbragimov.

Peter could never commit to an optimal weight. If he did he'd have been 20 -25lbs lighter.

 

Compare him against Qawi (his lightest 'second career' weight) against him against Dino Dennis (his heaviest 'first career' weight). That is 235 against 231 1/2.

Old Foreman was fat. At 250 against Moorer he looks 24 pounds fatter than he was against Ron Lyle, easily.

It's not a huge amount of fat though, for a huge Heavyweight who is 225 looking lean.

Foreman always had ample muscle mass.