ChokLab Says This Clip Proves Louis Was The Same Size As Foreman and Norton

This content is protected

 

It doesn't matter if Louis could compete with Foreman given the size disparity, whether big, or small; but rather, Foreman is simply bigger than Louis regardless of how they "look" next to each other.

 

Bingo. It seems some are extremely reticent to concede size differences here lest it potentially be used (rightly or wrongly, cases vary) by some as meaningful in fantasy match ups of newer era fighters vs older legends.

 

Amen. In the next thread we'll have a debate whether night follows day and you can bet your boots the board will still be split 50-50. Probably with some saying it didn't back in the 20s.

 

I still agree with choklab.

 

Exactly. Size is only one intangible. Some still will not concede an inch, or is it an inch and a half!

 

While I would favor Louis head to head, he is not the same size as Foreman.
You have to look at overall size, skeleton, bone & muscle mass, including without adding muscle through dedicated weight training.

Foreman was lean in his first career. Many threads talked about him being fehydrated by Saddler early on, & you can see him still lean in his 20's when that may have stopped well into the mid 70's. Louis was ~ 207 max when still near peak, & due to having a thicker bone structire, if anything Foreman may have had lower body fat then.

So the difference when Foreman was not weight drained is often more like 25 than a good 20 lbs.-& that is using Louis's weight from ~ the start of WW2, not his Schmelling bout weights.

The differential was made up of a copmbination of being a little taller, having thicker bones, & clearly more muscle mass.

You could say that Foreman did not dwarf Louis, but he was significantly larger overall.
Some thought Norton was too muscular for a HW then-of course they got bigger subsequently-& he was the same height & not that much lighter than George, but Foreman just looked bigger due to his body structure.
And Norton clearly is taller with more muscle than Louis.

So Louis would clearly appear the smaller & narrower man in the ring.

 

George Foreman had a substantial size advantage over Joe Louis even if their height measurements were about the same. One reason is the weight difference in favor of Foreman was a large one.

Bob Foster was 6 feet, 3 inches in height, 3.5 inches more than Joe Frazier. Did that mean Foster was bigger than Frazier? Keep in mind that Frazier had a weight advantage of 21 pounds over Foster when they fought each other.

- Chuck Johnston

 

LOLOL