I thought the arguement that the super heavies of today would be too big for the likes of power punchers from the past were redundant because of how big Foreman`s arms looked, but I saw a tale of te tape for his fight vs Norton and his biceps were only listed at 15.5 inches, that`s the same size as Tommy Hearns biceps were at middle! So how much bigger would Wilder`s biceps be if measured alongside a prime Foreman and were M.Tyson`s biceps bigger than Foremans?
Apart from hooks. It also acts as an antagonist when extending via eccentrically contracting, assisting in the slowing of the punch and subsequent retraction of the punching arm to original position. That being said, it's nowhere near as important as the extensor muscles.
They look pretty big buy he is lean. I'd say probably around 15.5 inches. Anything over 16" when at a low bodyfat is very very big
true, but importance to hooks and uppers relies on the biceps ability to stabilize the motion of the bent arm. the power comes from the torque you put on that rigid hook through the motion carried out by other muscles.
According to this tale of the tape vs Ali Foreman had 15.9 inch arms, considering it's all done in metric I'd see this as more accurate than any tale of the tape done in inches. So considering Foreman at only 6'3" had arms as big as Wilder's 16 inch arms I'd say Foreman had very big arms for his build. I'd also add size does not mean power. Tyson at 5'11" and 218lbs hit harder than a 7' 320lbs Valuev. Foreman despite not being as big as many modern heavies still probably hits harder than anyone right now. It's also why a 220lbs Wilder can hit as hard as anyone right now even the much bigger Joshua. http://photobucket.com/gallery/user...2VvcmdlLUZvcmVtYW5fenBzY2VkMzIxYjIuanBn/?ref=