¿Who was physically stronger between George Foreman and Jack Johnson?

Foreman was 229 vs Scott Le Doux and the commentators were saying how massive he looked. The man had a massive frame and if he used weight training and had access to modern ped’s he’d be huge.

Tyson was useless in a clinch. He did nothing but allow himself to be tied up and walked back. Comparing him strength wise with a demonstrably strong fighter like Foreman who made a career out of shoving and shunting big men around is laughable.

 

Cmon bro you’ve bumped this thread like 8 times just to dump on him, you’ve reached Lex Luthor hater tier

This content is protected

 

I personally think Foreman is a case of a guy being both big and unusually strong in a relative sense, as was his one time mentor Sonny Liston. Something you usually see most in boxers around the 50 - 70kg range. He also seems like the type to be very, very well built internally - thick, stiff tendons, strong, dense bones, great fascia etc. People don't realise how important that type of stuff is - way more important for fighting than single lift numbers (and I also can't recall Foreman having any glaring injuries in his career that overly impacted him long term). It also explains the power despite not being overly fast and sometimes throwing unloaded shots (Beterbiev a great modern example of this). I myself have personally seen big men in boxing gyms who are unusually weak despite their size. George is opposite imo. Foreman's sheer physical presence is very apparent against Holyfield, who was both educated in strength training and roided to ****.

I think Johnson had better application and muscular endurance, but whilst beneficial, wrestling isn't exactly infighting in the boxing sense, especially post Walker law. Johnson can't exactly shoot anything close to a double leg here, especially in a 70s ruleset. I personally think Foreman's rudimentary enough technique plus his physicality would still allow him to overpower Johnson. Jacks chance is to draw it out to an endurance comp, which wouldn't happen as he would be brutally KOd before the fourth round.

 

I don’t think you can follow an argument lol come on man, go back, read the original point… you made this about old Foreman for some reason my thing was Tyson was more seasoned then 70s Foreman - Old Foreman in the 90s fought little guys BTW he purposely didn’t cross paths with the dreadnoughts.

 

Can’t fault a man for having a hobby.

 

Oh yeah In GF’s time you’d be right, In JJ’s, JJ wins - if we are talking about strength though we don’t really know do we? I don’t see any verifiable numbers for either guy, wrestling being basically the closest we can get it’s pretty obvious who’d win at that.

 

You see this is where this Forum is confused all the time…. @Pat M and @greynotsoold have basically made a part time hobby of explaining why Tyson got pushed around in the clinches… look at how he’s standing, look at his hips, his feet - that’s your answer. George pushed people, Sumos can shove around Powerlifters it doesn’t mean they’re stronger unless your definition is grappling? Then in this case JJ would be stronger than both Tyson and Foreman.

 

About the Foreman > Holyfield situation, Foreman actually said himself regarding Bowe handling Holyfield that it didn’t mean he was stronger just heavier… Foreman outweighed Holy by like 50lbs.

 

You are exactly right and plenty of us have been stating this for decades. He's a freak in this regard. We've all seen them at some point in our lives. A guy, for example, 225 pounds with the strength you'd expect of someone 50 pounds heavier. Humans aren't created equal.

 

If we’re talking functional, in ring strength then Foreman has it over Tyson in spades. Tyson squared himself up too much in a clinch which we all can see. It’s a flaw he never overcame in his career.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing for if you can also see this. Unless it’s just to continue your giving Foreman no credit for anything narrative?

JJ it’s hard to say. He had some grappling skill (but hardly elite at it either) and was a very well put together guy at 6’1 208lbs. I’m sure he’s a strong guy too but not an outlier in the ring like GF was imo.

Anyway who knows? I wouldn’t fancy getting put in a bear hug by any of them.

 

Huh I never said Tyson was better at clinching / pushing people around etc what’re you on about? Lever guards, Shoving and steering someone with your glove isn’t a mark of strength… Larry Holmes doesn’t get the mileage he deserves for it then lol because he did all of those things better but isn’t called super human strong… Could you quote me so I can clear that up? Tyson was more muscular, denser, a freak he’d wreck 70s George in the weight room (and the ring) for example… really at 5ft10 and 235lbs lean against Lewis that’s whacky territory, even at 217-220lbs peeled up and cut he was helluva specimen… 70s George is just a run of the mill strong looking guy nothing special, his size and strength in the 80s-90s became ordinary… at about 217-220lbs 6ft3 in his prime it isn’t impressive he reminds me of a Trevor Berbick sized guy. My thing was Mike Tyson is more seasoned in and around his prime then George Foreman was… MT had more variable challengers, they were similar in size or bigger then himself by margins, there quality ranged from okay to very good and he had tough fights and defended a belt whilst defining an era - George Foreman did not have much “seasoning” his stiffest fight was Peralta old timers used to say a decision loss is more valuable then a 1st round KO for a fighter being brought up, GF was still green when he had the title… Foreman didn’t have a fully realised depth to his game because he didn’t have enough tough fights to bring it out of him or experience… the reason he has such an impressive record in the 70s is because they were finding bar room brawlers and hobos in the pro ranks so he could replace his lack of amateur experience… he basically went from amateur, Peralta fights, Frazier-Norton KO’s then exposed by Ali for not understanding fighting properly.

 

Older Foreman was another 35 pounds bigger does that make a difference here?

 

Lack of amateur experience?
Won an Olympic Gold after a handful of fights. Tyson couldn’t even make the Olympics lol

Ali was one of the very best fighters ever. George getting beaten by him is no shame. Tyson getting ruined by pedestrian Buster Douglas though….

Holmes couldn’t physically influence a fight like Foreman. What fights did you imagine watching lol

Tyson was built up on the boxing version of toilet paper. Half the reason any of the spuds he built his early resume on had any credence at all is purely because they fought Tinkerbell. Foreman’s record was arduous compared to Sammy Scaff and ***** Green haha.

Foreman would shrug whatever Tyson could lift in a gym then **** him out in a fight. No fear. Taller, heavier, stronger, tougher and meaner.

Tyson had far more embarrassing performances than any so called ATG’s than you could care to name. Some how he gets given a pass. If GF ever delivered a Douglas, Holyfield 1 & 2, Danny Williams or Kevvy McBride effort you’d be offering a gibberish discourse at length about how much he sucked. With Tinkerbell there’s crickets!

 

Well if you want to use that version? He was no doubt stronger, it was basically just a version of Foreman who didn’t dehydrate himself, lifted weights, had easier access to PED’s and realised fat or not being heavier has its advantages.

 

I don't understand why the notion of Foreman being strong for his size is seen as some fanciful yarn about old timers when there is actual footage of him throwing men his own size around.

And Holy called him the strongest he ever faced, while guys like Lewis probably had more lean mass.