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

Foreman physically actually looked pretty good at 235 vs Qwai ..

 

It might be related to camera quality, but he looked more solid against Qawi than against Dennis. If you have higher quality photos, I'm willing to compare them, it would be highly appreciated!

He definitely had, no disagreement with that.

 

I think he looked good against Qawi too.
And he looked good against Dino Dennis.
About the same.
And at about the same weight.
That's my point.

 

It's hard to answer the question because this forum (and any boxing forum really) can't make up it's mind on how to define the word "bigger" in the boxing sense.

Foreman was taller with the longer reach, but was lighter on the scale. Does the scale tell the whole story though?

If you use body fat percentages, Peter is clearly not 240 lbs of solid muscle. He could easily lose 20 lbs and still remain a healthy, functional, strong man. Clearly a product of the modern era.

Foreman was 218 and very bulky. The main difference in their training is that Foreman did not lift weights in this portion of his career and he also frequently dehydrated himself. He, along with other 70's fighters such as Norton and Ali, would walk around at 230 or more. They compete in an era where some heavyweights actually cut weight and then rehydrated. A healthy, hydrated Foreman who wasn't starving himself wouldn't look small standing next to any version of Peter. He might even look bigger in the sense that he had way more defined muscle and bulk, especially if he was also lifting weights.

But to answer the question, just taking Foreman as is from his title fight compared to Peter of the Wladmir fight: Peter is heavier and wider. Who was "bigger" boils down to your agenda apparently.

 

This is how I see it:

Ray Lewis at 6'1 is a full 2-2 1/2 inches shorter than 70's Foreman. At 240, he is similar in weight to Peter.

I would consider Lewis bigger than Foreman, but not Peter.

Lewis was a solid 240 pound freight train legendary for his brutal tackles. He had a low body fat% and could perform impressive athletic feats such as running, sprinting, tackling, grappling, etc for a very lengthy amount of time. It's also impressive because football you have to be very explosive and able to start/stop frequently at any given moment when a play ends, a time out is called, etc.

Peter has a very high body fat% and would still remain a strong healthy man even if he lost more than 2 dozen lbs. That extra weight is not very functional. Lewis' extra weight serves him well in a career as a human missile being aimed at other players making him both powerful and durable.

Similarly, a 6'1 or 6'2 body builder who weighs 240 lbs but has a heart attack jogging for more than 2 minutes or who gasses attempting to spar for 1 round would not be carrying around functional muscle/weight. They're basically just an inflated blimp of muscle attempting to look impressive and it would simply slow them down in an athletic setting. I would say such a man is heavier than Foreman but not bigger, because like Peter, the doctor would advise him to lose the weight for his own health.

Lewis on the other hand, was as far as I know pretty healthy and not dealing with diabetes or putting a lot of stress on his heart or joints carrying that 240 lbs.

 

In an every day setting I'd equal bigger with weight to a large extent. If I gain 10 lbs of fat, I'd say I have gotten bigger.

But a boxing context is a bit different, since we're mostly concerned with reactive mass - i e muscle mass. Duran probably often weighed more than Hagler between fights and in some fights as well, but I'd hesitate to talk about him as the bigger man in boxing terms.

So if young Foreman had as much lean weight as Peters, I'd say he was the same size for the intents and purposes of boxing.

 

That's different to doing a full muscle mass gaining program, Holyfield style.

 

Foreman has said himself he did zero weight training in the 70's.

 

I think Foreman did some weights in the 1990s to prevent and rehab injuries. Because he was older. This wouldn't have resulted in extra muscle mass. I remember him remark that all the heavy weights Holyfield was doing would have the opposite effect, ie. cause injury.

Anyway, Foreman doesn't look at all muscularly bigger in the 1990s. He looks the same but fatter. 30 or 40 pounds fatter at 250-260.
30 pounds of fat really isn't much on such a big man.
Foreman's waist looked several inches larger in the 1990s, there's no getting away from that.

 

Yes, I remembered that, so corrected/edited my post.

 

How much bodybuilding, intense programmed mass-building exercise did Sam Peter do anyway?
That's something I really haven't looked into.

 

Good stuff.

Here's a website with that exact fact including your comments on weight training for rehab if you hadn't seen it already -

https://www.muscleandfitness.com/at.../george-foreman-talks-training-and-comebacks/