Ali's real Height

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Bummy Davis, May 24, 2013.

  1. heavy_hands

    heavy_hands Guest

    TYSON LOOKED A TANK NEXT TO SPINKS HERE

    This content is protected
     
  2. AnthonyJ74

    AnthonyJ74 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,260
    14
    Feb 26, 2007
    Tyson was no more than 5'10" tops; maybe less.

    Norton in his book said he was 6'2 3'4"
     
  3. AnthonyJ74

    AnthonyJ74 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,260
    14
    Feb 26, 2007
    Holyfield 6'0 3/4"
     
  4. heavy_hands

    heavy_hands Guest

    yes sure :lol:
     
  5. heavy_hands

    heavy_hands Guest

    tyson was 5´4 and norton was 6´2 ,9999999 but he was not 6´3
    and the monk was 2 inches taller than foreman but above the platform to be weighed :lol:
     
  6. AnthonyJ74

    AnthonyJ74 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,260
    14
    Feb 26, 2007
    Tyson 5'10"
     
  7. Bill1234

    Bill1234 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,235
    323
    Jan 28, 2007
    Tyson, by nearly all accounts, was 5'10. When I saw him in person it seemed very accurate and he wasn't as broad as I'd expected. I was expecting to see a man who was as wide as a truck but instead found a n average height, very compact man. Tyson had a legitimate heavyweight frame but he still was pretty small for the weight class, smaller than the majority of heavyweights.

    Norton, even in his horrible current condition, is still a very big man. When I met him 2 years ago he still had his famously big arms and chest. He needed a walker to get around, but he still cleared 6' without a problem. I have no hesitation accepting his measured 6'3 during his fighting days.

    Foreman, like Holmes, seemed to always be listed as 6'3 or 6'4 and likely was somewhere inbetween. He clearly stood taller than Ali and Norton and was all around just a very big man, hence his nickname "Big." He wasn't the tallest (although still tall) heavyweight to come down the pike, but his overall mass was larger than average in every sense.
     
  8. dyna

    dyna Boxing Junkie banned

    8,715
    12
    Jun 1, 2012
    When comparing Mike and Norton, Norton was still just 5 lbs heavier than prime Tyson (Norton end of career)
    For the majority of both their careers Mike was the heavier man.

    Lifting couldn't be the cause as atleast prime Tyson didn't lift.
    I think Norton and Tyson had (almost) equally sized frames, one had a frame for work at long range, the other more to the inside.
     
  9. heavy_hands

    heavy_hands Guest

    5´10 is very possible, not less
     
  10. AnthonyJ74

    AnthonyJ74 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,260
    14
    Feb 26, 2007
    Good post! It always seemed strange to me how Foreman always had the "big" moniker attached to his name when during his prime years there were a lot of other big heavyweights around, guys who were as big or bigger than Foreman. I mean, Foreman is clearly a big man, but so are a lot of other boxers.
    Joe Bugner was a physical specimen; 6'4", 235 pounds or so in his prime. Then you had guys like Ron Lyle, Ken Norton, Mac Foster, Amos Lincoln, etc. who were all around Foreman's size. Norton was Foreman's height, but he had a more muscular, athletic body; Norton looked more like a gladiator than did Foreman.

    I think Foreman's punching power made him seem bigger.
     
  11. AnthonyJ74

    AnthonyJ74 Boxing Addict Full Member

    3,260
    14
    Feb 26, 2007

    He could have been 5'9 1/2"; just saying!
     
  12. dyna

    dyna Boxing Junkie banned

    8,715
    12
    Jun 1, 2012
    Norton despite looking like Hercules was still 12 pounds lighter than Foreman

    Mac Foster wasn't bigger either.

    Lyle after his 35th birtday his weight was between 210-220 pounds, still smaller than Foreman was getting later in his first career.(I don't count Lyle his comeback in 95 for hopefully obvious reasons)
    And older people are supposed to be heavier than when they are younger...
    Lyle wasn't bigger either.




    Amos Lincoln was way smaller than Foreman. (If you only consider length Vonda Ward would be bigger than Wlad and if she were a male she would have been a lightheavyweight... She was 170 lbs against Ann Wolfe and she's 6'6)

    Only Bugner I would say might have been as big as Foreman then
     
  13. heavy_hands

    heavy_hands Guest

    what? norton was more muscular he had a beauty body but foreman was by far stronger and he had more functional physical strength,and he was smaller than george, lyle,norton and foster were not of the foreman size, they were shorter and their frames were smaller than foreman´s. lyle was in good shape at 210-220, norton was in great shape at 214 in 1973, foreman weighed 214 against chuvalo and he looked drained like hell, he did not have muscle on him at this weight , he was all big frame at this weight, foreman was a natural 230 pounder he looked pretty good and solid at 225 against norton and i don´t know a boxer who had his natural functional physical strength. bugner was big man but he was not a strong man
     
  14. heavy_hands

    heavy_hands Guest

    agreed
     
  15. Bill1234

    Bill1234 Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,235
    323
    Jan 28, 2007
    Norton was definitely more cut than Foreman was. Mass wise, I think Foreman was a bit bigger, though. I think he was broader and his hands, wrists, forearms, and even biceps just seemed to be thicker. He did not have that "V" build that Norton had, though.

    Foreman was built for pure strength, Norton was built more athletically.

    Earnie Shavers was listed at 6' flat, which seems very accurate to me. He was very broad and thick, though. Not fat, his mid section was just thick. Like Foreman, Shavers was built for strength and power.

    Here is Shavers with Mike Tyson, and as the picture shows, Shavers is just all around bigger, despite weighing about 5lbs less than Tyson in his prime.

    This content is protected