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

I'm not sure if those are flattering pics where he is sucking in his gut and flexing his abdominal muscles. It's the oldest trick in the book.

You can find dozens of pics where Peter looks like a couch potato slob

https://images.app.goo.gl/3uTxSWQP4mg8LG3V7

https://images.app.goo.gl/x7tdKGbwhUcxrHdB7


And to prove I'm not cherry picking, here are photos from the Maskaev fight which is a title winning effort in his prime

https://images.app.goo.gl/2gm6A3yNMVqogVM7A

https://images.app.goo.gl/9NiLzQ1EpkJfKKgw7

https://images.app.goo.gl/Ld3Z6H3hdKwBM6ys9

Peter was only 27 in these photos and it was arguably the best string of wins in his career. Beat Toney twice, Mcline, and then Maskaev for the WBC title.

And yet he's got the beer got, flabs, lunch lady arms, puffy cheeks, double chin, back rolls, stubby prison legs, back fat, and a huge badonkadonk.

Anyone looking at these pics of PRIME Peter claiming he was at a healthy, functional weight and couldn't possibly lose an additional 15-20 lbs and still be very strong and athletic is straight up lying to themselves. It's pretty obvious a significant amount of that weight was just fat (not denying he was a very strong man and carried some muscle).

 

I'm a switch hitter like Crawford myself. I attack from all angles and I'm an excellent finisher. Trust me, it's worth it to expand your game that way.

 

I can agree with this.

I think an in shape Peter whose prevented from chowing down and a 70's Foreman who isn't dehydrated or starving himself would be about the same size give or take. Peter might be slightly wider overall and more bottom heavy, Foreman having the wider upper torso and arms maybe. But generally the same overall mass and bulk and not a whole lot separating them in raw physical strength.

 

True, but poor old Hagler didn’t know whether he was coming or going with that start as a righty, switch to a lefty stuff.

He needed to afford each hand equal time to become a truly effective, ambidextrous savant.

 

Speaking of Ruiz, he does appear to have legitimately dropped a fair amount of weight in more recent times - given his natural size it remains to be seen how effective his punch will be now that he no longer carries his prior “condition”.

 

To be honest Tony Galento was a blocky dense guy with massive legs who was built more for wrestling or football IMO but these guys were not the norm in either era though in Meehans era the optics were not as big of a deal but he wasnt usual due to the tougher lives people lived then.....my personal take is there are fat chubby guys who can fight all night like Andy Ruiz and Arreola and there are muscular guys who cannot I saw it in the military but the blubbery fighters who clearly are not at their physical best coming into the ring and sucking wind halfway and slow and IMO clearly not hungry to be champion at least not hungry enough to sacrifice for it are a fairly modern issue, guys like James Toney were not like guys like Archie Moore....Ruiz unlike Arreola has seen the light and seems to be working on the advantages of fitness and hardcore training for his advantages of speed. The phenom always seemed to be in the not so distant past a fighter was just milking his career now days we have a slew of fighters who are fit to fight but certainly not disciplined as in coming into the ring at their best.

The one thing I really like about Joshua is his training discipline but professional athletes who climb into the ring looking flabby send a clear signal about their life choices and discipline....they don't intend to stay at the top IF they make it.

 

It’s hard to believe that GF “only”’weighed for 217 1/2 lb for the first Frazier fight - though I understand and appreciate the dehydration factor.

Foreman looked so massive compared to Joe - but Joe’s own size has to be factored in. If you only saw Ali and Frazier together and then Foreman and Frazier - without being able to directly compare George to Muhammad, you might’ve expected GF to appear that much bigger than Ali - but not so. Bigger yes but Ali not too far off.

The point being, it’s difficult to divorce GF’s natural and appreciable size advantage relative to his own era, which he still carried, though less so - (compensating with extra weight), into the 80s and 90s.

Among the Sam Peters and the like, GF simply wouldn’t stand out as much, size wise - though GF did have a better than average (among boxers), well defined, heavily muscled physique which would still hold up very well among the super sized HWs. GF also always had massive forearms which are mainly due to genetics though some gains might be achieved in the gym - though many complain that, despite their best efforts, forearms are often not as responsive to weight work as other muscle groups.

Even at 224 lbs (as he was for Frazier II) Foreman looked fine and his strength/power even relative to that size was still very much transcendent IMO.

 

His stomach is shaped like Motomoto and now I can't avoid the comparison in my brain..

This content is protected

That's it, I've had enough staring at shirtless chunky guys for a whole year.

 

This is very good reasoning. I would just add that at weights around 220 I believe Foreman also was coming in to some degree dehydrated at the behest ofn Saddler.
At 232 in one fight he still looked pretty lean. Maybe just little to no dehydrations on that occasion.
That would mean Foreman with the same amount of water in his system was likely a bit bigger.

 

There was a lot of fat around his belly which slowed him down, his biceps were bigger thanPeter`s though.

 

I don't think there was that much fat around his belly, people don't realize how much belly muscles you can have under the thin layer of fat. Again, sumo wrestlers and strongmen are the ultimate examples of that.