I *agree* about their respective natural weights man. But I believe that you are mistaken that Saddler would have allowed him ENOUGH water to rehydrate back to what he likely should have been-not less than around 230. Because he wanted Foreman that light, foolishly. When in some fights he was something under 220, & even as late as The Rumble in the Jungle he was only 220. I agree Foreman looked significaqntly larger than Norton. They were about the same height, but two other factors could account for the discrepancy. Foreman having a larger bone structure. And a large factor you missed that *may* apply-if Foreman had less muscle in his legs. I do not know if he did, but when 60% of our mass is normally in the lower body... Having larger upper legs & butt dignificantly effects one's weight.
I am not going down with the ship for the rehydration theory. I don't mind being wrong, it's just speculation. I actually agree with you that if they were trying to preserve stamina and speed that regaining lots of weight overnight could be counter productive if not done correctly. As for muscle in the lower body, the only problem with this assertion is that foreman was pretty bulky in the legs too. Not David Tua level obviously but fairly solid all around. This actually seems to apply more to Norton whose legs werent nearly as shredded as his upper body.
I can see where George was more symmetrical...he was big all over. I can almost compare the two fighters' physiques in another way: Foreman was built more like a powerlifter (heavily muscled but relatively smooth) while Kenny was more a bodybuilder (lower body fat, striations, vascularity).
check out this other thread... [url]https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/joe-frazier-lifting-weights.646074/[/url]
OK, I just do not think Foreman could have weighed much more in the actual fights. Also if they had done that, it would waste most of the effort for him getting lean-while the value in doing so is overwhelmingly in making a certain maximum weight. The leg theory-though know that the glutes are the biggest muscle in the body, so we must say lower body-may well not apply here. Though I would not use the word "shredded" to describe Norton's legs-since I believe you mean that he had less mucle on them. Shredded implies first & foremost muscular definition; which has little correlation to muscle mass. Someone could just have less body fat-& to a degree it could be amount of visceral fat-& look bigger than they are, & have *much* less muscle mass than someone who has little definition. But your presumptive point stands that Norton does not seem to have had more, or likely as much, lower body muscle compared to Foreman. The most likely cause for Foreman not weighing at least aroyund 230 is that he was relatively dehydrated when weighed. ...And likely in his fights as well. Which would help account to what happened with him against Young. Though ironically he was a little heavier then. Now Sonny Liston's weight seems puzzlingly low for how he appeared. It would make sense IF he was just heavily muscled like Foreman, but given he was barely over 6', he could be only 210-215 in his prime. BUT he also clearly was carrying more body fat. In fact, look at him compared to say prime Ali. Who was nearly 3" taller, but this is easily compensated for by being much leaner... Then consider how much more muscle Liston appeared to have-all over his body... Do the rough math, how could they weigh virtually precisely the same at their peak? Liston also had a large bone structure & his buly arms were very long. Take Carlos Takam-please. (Just kidding ;-)) He weighed 253 vs. Joshua, at most marginally taller than Liston was, with less body fat... Sure he was muscular, but not that much more than Liston, correct? Unless someone shows me he had disproportionately large lower body, how on earth did he weigh at least 40 lkbs. more than a prime Liston? Some guys just look bigger than they weigh, & unless someone shows Liston was coming in to the ring dehydrated (highly unlikely)... We may never solve a seemingly simple question of why Liston was not weighing in at least 15 lbs. heavier than he did!
I dunno. I watched Foreman vs Scott Ledoux today and Foreman was apparently 229 against Scott’s 220+ but Foreman looked absolutely massive even by comparison. He was just a huge, physical specimen who’d look big and burly against anyone (as we saw against Kenny). If I didn’t know better I’d call BS on 229 but it makes me put some stock Glass City Cobra’s theory on George. Take a look at that fight and tell me he looks puny against any modern guy. He simply wouldn’t.
You are correct. Norton never lifted weights during or prior to his boxing career. At the lead in to his rematch with Garcia on CBS, announcer Tom Brookshire noted that even with Norton's build he had never touched a weight. He was just one of those guys that had a natural tremendous build. He did, in fact, start lifting after his boxing career and lamented that he wished he had started lifting while boxing. Mike Weaver, by the way, did lift weights as a boxer.
I think the dehydration might be the key to solving this mystery. If we assume the opposite (that instead of rehydrating the way modern guys do to bully opponents with size), and Foreman was "drying out" both leading up to and during the fight, then the scales simply aren't telling the whole story. Some people gain muscle very easily (in particular endomorphs, people with robust and bully bone structures, etc). Foreman is doing all this killer training like running 7-8 miles, digging 6 foot holes, chopping trees, and hitting the heavybag for 45 minutes. Big muscles require lots of oxygen and hydration, so if his trainers are squeezing out "water weight" that doesn't mean his muscles stop getting bigger (even if it's unhealthy). What im getting at is that his actual weight is probably way higher than his given recordings like 220, 224, 229 etc and that explains why he looks much bigger than people like Norton or Scott ledoux who were close to the same weight/height. The biggest clue i think is that the "tale of the tape" shows that while foreman does have impressive numbers, he it's not like he's absurdly bigger than the opponent's stat for stat. Muscle can make you weigh much more than fat, so if he's "drying out" and his actual weight is closer to let's say 235ish then it makes perfect sense why he LOOKS so much bigger when he finally drinks even a little bit of water and has a meal before a fight despite having similar weight (he stated many times saddler would give him "a" glass of water after the weigh in). Maybe it's the complete opposite of my original theory? He was basically hiding just how much he actually weighed. [url]https://external-preview.redd.it/0hXfUWp7-_93MTQKQrJYEA6O6JZPkD9Pcumz1lTA0sE.jpg?auto=webp&s=b3d5dd9d1cce96857a4982442ba4d619d089868b[/url] As for Liston, we know Foreman was in his training camp so maybe he got the idea from them? Maybe Liston was doing something similar but had a better way to maintain his stamina and cardio? Unlike most sluggers Liston didn't gas out and could go 12 rounds no problem. But he does looks deceptively large. Good comparison to Carlos takam, Liston should have theoretically been closer to his size with his enormous arms and stocky build but he somehow compressed himself into a 215-220 frame. Ive read several books and articles on Liston and have yet to find anything explaining this.
Thanks for the considerations you have made GCC! I think you are missing that while most of what you say about Foreman's training is true, if he had a bit of water or a meal after a weigh in-especially when the fight was soon afterwards-he could not have weighed much more in the ring. That is very different than the massive rehydration over a day, often near or over 10% of body weight, that many do. Also it was never the intent of Saddler to do this, or need to make weight or appear lighter...He just did it as a foolish way to increase endurance. Also, when doing so much cardio training, not only would Foreman not get bigger muscles-it is hard to even maintain the bulk with so much of this. If Saddler did not want him becoming as big as say Bruno or Joshua at his largest for endurance, that might have made sense. But the dehydration drained strength & was completely foolish. Also, Liston weighed between 210-215 at his peak, not 215-220. I do not think it is at all likely he dehydrated. We would have heard about it, & he would likely have gassed sometimes. Even without being tall, without either having a really low body fat, &/or being like Holyfield with a disproportionately small lower body... It seems a real mystery how Liston did not have enough of a combinaton of bone, muscle & fat to weigh...Way more than he did! :-0
Back in the day every other athlete wasn't built like that like they are now. Back then it was pretty much just Norton
