Could a prime "big" george foreman be effective today?

George is old in this picture. Also, George has had both knee and back surgeries, so he most likely lost some height.

 

Joe Frazier was demolished twice. What are you talking about.

 

Not with the poor technique the "Prime" Foreman had.

 

I'm a huge Ali fan, but he could never have replicated that win again.

George underestimated him due to his age and how easy he handled his toughest opponent in Frazier. George thought that he was going to destroy him. Yet Ali psyched him out. But it came at a terrible cost. Even through those ropes were loose, Ali took a hell of a beating.

It would have been suicide to have rematched him at any stage.

 

Another baffling post.

 

George is built so much more solidly than Parker. His body type is almost twice as thick. Parker is a terrible comparison. Luis Ortiz is a good example of that body type. Thick thick thick. Big heavy muscle. You aren't going to understand what thick guys like that can do by looking at a normal built classic proportioned guy like Parker. Think Marciano or David Tua. Think Earnie Shavers. Foreman looked fat because he was 45. Parker is only 26.

 

Foreman is about the same size as Dillian Whyte or Joseph Parker but with WAY more firepower.

He would have zero problems in any era. Just too powerful to ignore.

 

So Foreman never lost any height despite being 60+ years old?

 

a guy his size would have lost a couple of inches to atrophy by that stage, even without the skeletal injuries he has dealt with.

 

I'd bet my life savings on it.

 

Probably he did loose some height, but Foreman (even when he was in his 40s) was approximately same height as Briggs, and Briggs is significantly shorter then the Klitschkos. Vitaly dwarfed Briggs during their fight. There's still a big size difference between fighters like Joshua, Klitchkos, Fury and Foreman.

 

I agree that they have different body types but I disagree with the conclusions that you are reaching.

You only have to look at 250lb Foreman or 240lb Ortiz to see they have huge shoulders, arms, thick musculature generally, and also at those weights a fair amount of fat.

Parker at the same height and weight is no fatter than those guys (arguably less so) and visibly less muscular.

Putting two and two together- Parker seemingly can be less fat, less muscular, and yet the same weight. Logically, how does this mean he is "smaller"? Doesn't it mean he is "bigger"? He weighs the same but is visibly less bulky.

I think you are underestimating those Polynesian legs and big bones which make even a visibly average looking guy like Parker the same mass as tanks like Foreman or Ortiz.

I am not trolling but how do you explain the logic of "Person A is the same height, same weight, but fatter and wider, therefore he is the bigger guy"? Logically the opposite would have to be true. Weight doesn't come from nowhere.

Foreman looked like a tank at 220, Parker looks kinda scrawny at 225, ergo Parker must have the heftier bone structure

 

For people who think that Parker is a lot "smaller" than guys like Foreman, Ortiz etc who he is a similar height and weight to (both in shape and out of shape)- I am interested in your explanation as to where he carries his weight then, and why you don't think that counts towards his "size".

 

It's a bit of an enigma for sure.

Parker seems to carry a lot of his weight in his trunk and legs, and relatively little in his upper body. Foreman in comparison had quite a lean waist in his prime, and relatively average legs, but with broad shoulders that people tend to associate with a big frame.

Guys with broad shoulders and tapering V sections tend to look bigger at first glance than solid block like guys who distribute the weight more evenly, though they can actually weigh less. I think a similar situation is happening here.

 

You are 100% right of course, and I need to stop getting roped into this stupid argument here.

People on this forum are obsessed with the "size" of guys with big shoulders, narrow waist and skinny legs.

If you look at Parker compared to prime Foreman or even next to Joshua, it's obvious that an in-shape Parker has a much wider waist/hips/lower torso. Nothing to do with being fat, just his bone structure is actually wider from east to west. Guys like Foreman/Joshua have narrow waists. Nothing to do with BF%, that part of their body is just naturally "small"- yet ironically it tricks people into thinking they are even bigger.

Now maybe you could say that having wide hips/waist is not as conducive to strength/athleticism as wide shoulders/chest and narrow hips/waist- but I would challenge anyone who thinks that to have a look at the disproportionate success of Polynesians in rugby and the NFL. This physique may not be aesthetic but it certainly leads to strength, athleticism and deceptive raw size.