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

LOL. Total crap.

Country strong?? FFS Neither Ali or Foreman ever did a days graft on a farm at that point in their lives (Foreman did later but Ali never) to be “country strong”. What a load of codswallop.

Frazier was legit country strong. Still wasnt close to Big George in physical strength. Definitely close to Ali though as evidenced by him bullying him to the ropes in 3 fights as well as throwing Ali straight to the floor in their televised scuffle. Smokin Joe had zero chance of doing any of that to Foreman.

Case closed,

 

I operate 45 acres. Real recognize real.

 

Haha.

I’m Australian. 45 acres is a hobby farm son.

 

It's been hobby enough to pay the bills in the past. We're on the side of the Cascades. Ranch country is below. That's where you get the 10,000 acre spreads.

 

Ten years into his career Shavers was still good enough to ko Norton in a round, and give Holmes all he wanted ,flooring him into the bargain.

 

Foreman, without question.

 

Tyson was denser then a prime George… he was 218 for Spinks, Foreman was 217lbs for Frazier and 225 for Norton (though he weighed in with combat boots and jeans on…) you realise a man who is 5ft10 218lbs whilst leaner is “bigger” then a man who weighs 217-220lbs and is 6ft3? Whatever Tyson said in an interview is wrong, that’s just a simple fact of body composition. Tyson is more proven yes - Tyson beat: Ferguson, Tillis, Ribatla, Ratliff, Tony Tucker, Marvis Frazier, BoneCrusher, Berbick, Pinklon, Tucker, Biggs, Tubbs, Old Holmes, Brunox2, Williams, Tillman, Stewart, Ruddock x2, Mathis Jnr, Golota, Botha… that’s a list of opponents that range from okay to very good, a huge variety of styles all of these guys were about 210-240lbs-ish fighters - let’s look at Foreman…., Peralta x2, Lyle, Norton, Chuvalo and Frazier… Frazier was a 5ft10 out of shape guy on the decline, that’s his best win then it’s Ken Norton a fighter well known for confidence issues, being unable to back up, a front runner who freezes up… against a very hard punching heavyweight? - Lyle isn’t better then a lot of guys on Tyson’s list and neither is LHW Peralta lol, Norton gets wrecked by multiple in MT’s scalp collection - Frazier picks up a loss if he has to fight Tyson’s rat pack opponents, Tyson basically defined an era, defended his title multiple times a feat 70s George could never do and was the best HW in the world at one point something George also could never do… the 40-0 puncher whose stiffest challenge was LHW Peralta who fought Frazier was a marketing job who came on at the right time to ruin Fraziers rematch plans with Ali lol - About the punching question… Holyfield says he isn’t sure who hit harder between Foreman and Tyson, right from the horses mouth, said Foreman hit him with the single hardest shot of his career but that’s a different thing, if you don’t think so I won’t fault you but there obviously isn’t much between them and I don’t really care lol.

 

Foreman was 230 of muscle at the end of his first career once he got rid of ye olde trainers who wanted him to come in lean. Comeback Foreman fought at yhe weight he was most comfortable at which was 250+. He was a bigger man than Tyson and especially bigger than Tyson off the peds.

I’d favour Lyle over every person on your list (the version of that Tyson fought) except maybe Holmes.
You say Norton froze then what did Spinks, Bruno, Seldon, Tillman and Stewart do? I bet you put Tysons wins there to him being soo awesome whereas George destroying Norton has to be because Norton had “confidence issues”

Foreman played a major role in two eras. Foreman at 42 (and having a 10 year layoff) was giving Holyfield hell and winning the lineal title at 45. Tyson at 38 after a 3 year sojourn was quitting in disgrace vs Kevin McBride lol.
I don’t really care either. I’ll just go and watch 30 year old Tinkerbell getting dropped and beaten senseless by a past prime Holyfield lol

 

Haterade to clench the thirst?

 

You drank it all and vomited it on GF.

 

I operate about 850 sq metres. I call it my Ponderosa. Enough land for me. I certainly don’t need to mow anymore than that.

 

I don’t hate Foreman, I just don’t think he’s any good in the 70s - I like Old Foreman story, way of fighting and marketing, If people put Foreman in his right place… and that’s as a small HW puncher one that’s a bit outdated the way we do with Marciano it would be right, he’s a little guy now, wee sized a big cruiser and a bit too rudimentary for a lot of the bigger boxers after him he fights like a “big” guy he stylistically doesn’t have the goods after his time, actually in the 80s his size and strength became common place… what he did to Norton, Lennox and others would to do to him no doubt.

 

Foreman was 217-220lbs in his prime at his best, end of, using any other version is combining a fighter in different stages of his career… Tyson at 234lbs against Lennox looked a helluva lot more muscular then the version of Foreman who fought Jimmy Young at 226lbs… no matter how you try to shift things around Tyson was a freak specimen, a denser more muscular guy and it doesn’t really matter but that’s just it with the Foreman mafia LOL he for whatever reason to you guys has to he the strongest man to ever live lol and you die on that hill no matter how silly it is - Foreman in the 70s was just a pretty big 6ft3 guy, in the 80s-90s he was just a really fat guy at 235lbs in his comeback he was far away from lean, above that he was a strong looking fatty. If Tyson used PED’s or not it really doesn’t matter, he probably did everybody should to survive… we evaluate the fighters as they were, Foreman very well may be a bigger guy then Takam without PED’s but the version in the ring and real life would make GF his B in the weight room we evaluate based on reality. If you can’t understand why Tyson was more seasoned then a 70s Foreman you’re a moron, you’re ignoring a whole bunch of context to make a bunch of points nobody cares about expect for die hard haters I don’t give a F about McBride what does it have to do with my orignal statement? - old Foreman is also irrelevant btw, this is about YOUNG Foreman lol.

 

Tyson was 218 lbs against Spinks. Both him and Foreman weigh around the same prime-for-prime, only Foreman was 6'3-6'4 and knew how to use his strength in the ring, while Tyson did not.

 

Why was was he successful in the 90’s then?

You know he actually won the lineal world title as a fat old man in 1994 (not bad seeing as people like Foreman were everyday by the 80’s in your opinion). Or did you sleep through that bit?

Not any good in the 70’s??Child you don’t win a World Heavyweight Title when there was but one champion if you’re “not any good”. That is a ridiculous, disrespectful and asinine statement. I don’t think you get how stupid some of your sweeping generalisations are.

Do better you child.