Can George Foreman survive 12 rounds with Oleksandr Usyk

Of course.
Gloria Gaynor "i will survive".

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/bo...ard-and-breath-holding-for-dubois/ar-AA1IsD1U

If there is anyone that is doing that I would imagine Usyk's team is. They seem to be at the cutting-edge of sport science technology.

 

Honestly, Usyk was probably one of the most skilled heavyweights of all time. He had great defense, got to the jab quick against way bigger opponents while outboxing. Usyk was as skilled as Muhammad Ali and Wladimir Klitschko.

 

I agree. He is one of the most skilled heavyweights ever.

 

You do realize testimony is the least reliable form of evidence, right? Fighters contradict each other all the time. The actual results matter more, Lewis knocked out Briggs, something Foreman couldn’t do. That tells you more about who had more power than any anecdote.

And you keep saying I haven’t proven bigger heavyweights hit harder, but you haven’t proven the opposite either you’re just asserting that punchers from the past were equal based on selective examples and testimony.

The difference is I’m pointing to general principles. Power comes from mass and speed. If two fighters have comparable speed, the one with more mass will generate more force. You haven’t shown that modern heavyweights lose enough speed for that advantage to disappear you’re just assuming it does.

Your examples also don’t prove what you think they do. Fighters like Tyson Fury, Joseph Parker or Derek Chisora not being huge punchers doesn’t mean bigger heavyweights don’t hit harder, it just means not every big fighter is a knockout artist. Power isn’t determined by weight alone, but weight is still a factor.

And bringing up guys like Zhilei Zhang or Joe Joyce actually proves the point about trade-offs. At a certain size, speed drops off enough to limit power output. That doesn’t mean 240–250 lb heavyweights don’t hit harder on average than 210–220 lb fighters it just means there’s an upper limit where diminishing returns kick in.

Most importantly, you still haven’t established equivalence of power across eras. Without that, you can’t claim Ali or Holmes faced “equally hard punchers” as modern heavyweights you’re just assuming they did.

 

lol


Foreman was damn near 50 when he fought Briggs and had zero speed. Lewis was at the peak of his powers and was quicker which is why he could land more easily on Briggs. Briggs had immense respect for Foreman’s power which is why he didn’t try to jump on him.


Foreman hurt Holyfield every bit as badly as Lewis did. Again Holyfield was a lot younger, faster and fresher fighting Foreman than he was vs Lewis. Yet Foreman demonstrated on film just how formidable a puncher he was.


So yes, based on this and the actual testimonies of the guys who were hit by them, it’s abundantly clear that Foreman had similar power to Lewis. Again denying this is just silly. Just as silly as when you claimed Dubois would have a comparable chin to Holmes if he fought in the 80’s. lol. The dude who went down to Kevin Larena and an Usyk jab would somehow have the same durability as Holmes.


I mentioned the law of diminishing returns several times and you chose to ignore it. When I showed how flawed your argument was using 270 plus pound heavies, you then claimed that the law of diminishing returns does exist but you believe the cut off is 240-250 lbs.


Let’s run an experiment. Start a poll on the hardest heavyweight punchers of the last 50 years and you will see that the majority of the hardest hitting heavyweights were between 210-225 lbs at their peak.



Even it you want to be in denial regarding Foreman, see Tyson and Lewis. They had a similar ko performances vs similar fighters. Lewis destroyed Ruddock quicker but Tyson destroyed Bruno quicker. Tyson flattened Botha with one shot and Lewis dominated him too. Both guys mailed Golota. Clearly we can see from their common opponents that they demonstrated similar power.


If the 240-250 lb heavyweights hit harder on average, which you claim, then you need to demonstrate that. You have an equation stating speed x mass equals power. This does not account for X factor. It does not explain how someone like Tua, who was not quick handed, was such a devastating puncher.


The truth is there is an X factor in power. So a scientific equation does not show that bigger heavies hit harder.


Fury is fairly quick and yet he has never been a huge hitter. Parker added a ton of mass and still has fast hands. Parker hasn’t lost any hand speed from bulking and clearly it hasn’t made him a bigger puncher.


The examples I have are countless. There is no evidence that the law of diminishing returns cut off point is 240-250 lbs because the

Majority of the most notable modern heavyweight hitters were between 210-225 lbs.


I can’t keep arguing with silly arguments. Ignoring actual fighter testimony and pretending that fighters would simply lie about something like power is silly. You made the assertion that 240-250 lb heavyweights hit harder on average and hence you need to prove it.


One way you could show this would be to take the last 40 years, show that 240-250 lb heavies scored a higher percentage of ko’d vs common opponents compared to 210-225 lb heavyweights.

 

You’re arguing with a simpleton mate.

And you are quite right…the burden of proof is on him, not you. He is asserting that overall bigger guys hit harder. It’s up to him to prove this. It’s not up to you to disprove it. See Hitchens’s razor.

 

You keep treating this like an all-or-nothing argument when it isn’t. Nobody is saying size scales infinitely or that every bigger heavyweight hits harder that’s where diminishing returns come in.

But that actually supports my point. There’s a range where added mass improves force and durability before trade-offs in speed start to matter. The jump from 210–220 lb heavyweights to 240–250 lb heavyweights is significant, and that’s the range where you’d expect physical advantages to show up.
Pointing to extreme cases like 270+ lb fighters doesn’t disprove that it just shows the relationship isn’t linear.

You also haven’t established equivalence of power across eras. Listing punchers like Shavers or Foreman and using testimony doesn’t prove they hit as hard as modern heavyweights, it just shows they were exceptional for their time. There’s no consistent method you’ve provided that demonstrates the overall level of power was the same.

And your “X factor” argument actually undermines your position. If power is some unquantifiable trait that can’t be explained by physical factors like mass and speed, then you can’t claim as a fact that past fighters hit just as hard as modern heavyweights either you’ve removed any objective basis for comparison.

And if anything, looking at outcomes like stoppages over time suggests larger modern heavyweights are harder to put away on average, which is exactly what you’d expect with increased mass. The core issue hasn’t changed: you’re claiming it’s an “undeniable fact” that past heavyweights had better durability, but that depends on assuming they faced equal power and that’s the part you haven’t actually proven and never will. Throwing outlier examples doesn't prove anything besides the fact you don't understand basic statistics. but that depends on assuming they faced equal power and that’s the part you haven’t actually proven and never will. Throwing outlier examples doesn't prove anything besides the fact you don't understand basic statistics.

 

-call me simpleton
-doesn't understand basic physics
LOL don't think I'm the simpleton here tbh but keep projecting

 

Fighters generally hype up guys they beat over guys that beat them. The Foreman fight is Briggs main claim to fame without it we probably would have never heard of Briggs so it's understandable he would try to hype it up. Against Briggs Foreman landed 280 plus punches without dropping him. In his prior fight he landed even more punches against Savarese again without putting him away.

The only huge hitter Briggs fought was Lewis who knocked him out

Against Morrison it seems Foreman could land good punches but wasn't able to follow up because Morrison would move away. However he should have been able to put Morrison away or badly hurt him with individual punches. Lewis as I recall was dropping Morrison with single shots. He didn't have to follow up with combinations to drop Morrison

 

Ali was a big heavyweight by the standards of his day though. Very few top contenders were bigger than him in his own era.

 

Yeah Ali was a big man for his era that's true.

 

You’ve got nothing pal.

 

More then you ever will buddy

 

Usyk can be hit with uppercut, I think George puts him to sleep.