Did Foreman cut water weight at weigh-ins?

Foreman would be at least 245 if he had the fat Chisora did. Bakoles big ass used to weigh in the 230s when he was fit, now he's a fat slob weighing 280+, half of these guys aren't in the best shape

 

Keeping an opponent at bay by putting your hands on his shoulders or pushing him works much better if your arms are loinger than his than the opposite. If your arms are shorter, his hands will likley reach your face before your hands reach his shoulders.

 

That applies to everyone fighting at a disadvantage, Foremans main strategy against taller fighters is to walk them down behind a jab, work the body during the clinch, arms away and do damage on the ropes. He actually did use more head movement than usual. That's how he approached O Halloran the first 6'6 fighter he ever fought. His tactics can work, I don't see why not

Lyle actually had the shorter reach btw

 

I think it showed that you are holding the modern period to an unfair standard.

You criticized the modern period because an old man like Chisora with shot reflexes was still making noise.

But that kind of reasoning can be turned on the 1970s. If a fighter with physical disadvantages still making noise damages an era's reputation, well, the 1970s being ruled by a half-blind fighter and a man with Parkinsons should be even more damaging. Foreman, meanwhile, had superheavyweight stamina in a small heavyweight's body by today's standards. Those guys weren't just fringe contenders. They were champions despite suffering from those issues.

Old Foreman also trained very differently from his younger version. Aside from the Moorer fight, which was genuinely impressive despite Moorer not being the best heavyweight in the world at the time, Foreman's second career wasn't exactly studded with wins at the highest level. But yeah, Foreman was an example of the modern trend of older fighters still maintaining some competitiveness.

Nobody's denying that Foreman could compete today. Even the younger version could compete. Lots of fighters do. Chisora competes. Even Kownacki got ranked at one point. I'm sure young Foreman could do OK. Would he be the best guy today? No.

I assume most cruiserweights would go up if they thought they could earn the money there and be successful. But I agree with you that you might see a couple more successful small fighters if you abolished cruiserweight. You'd also see lots more examples of 1970s-sized fighters getting run over by superheavyweights, though.

As to my focusing on the limitations of past fighters: heavyweight boxing has moved on since the 1970s. The modern guys, on average, are better than the 70s guys. That's what I believe. Since the Classic forum doesn't believe this, I end up arguing against that position a lot.

That doesn't mean 1970s boxing history was boring, or that the fighters sucked, or that none of them could carry the modern guys' jockstraps, or that the 1970s guys would be journeymen today, etc. It just means I think that the best heavyweights today are better than the best heavyweights from the 1970s. That isn't an agenda, but it's definitely a statement of what I think.

If you have any doubt how much the landscape of heavyweight boxing has changed, consider the example you cited. @Bokaj was criticizing Foreman for never fighting a superheavyweight who was any good. Lots of modern fighters have beaten such opponents. Usyk, Kabayel, Fury, Joshua, Dubois, etc. have all beaten good, ranked opponents like that. But in the 1970s, those guys were so scarce that you have to find a journeyman (or at best gatekeeper) like O'Halloran as an example of a big guy Foreman beat. That's how rare the good ones were back then.

It's almost a mirror imagine of Marciano fans trying to show that Marciano could beat a top guy the size of Foreman or Holmes or even Klitschko because he defeated a "superheavyweight" like 6'4" Carmine Vingo.

 

I think he'd adjust if he continually fought much taller guys than he did in the 70's, how succesful he'd be is hard to know. But the defence he did use most frequently, with greater success against smaller fighters, would not be very effective against opponents that have the reach, height and skills to just punch in between his outstreched arms imo.

 

Mike Tyson was one of the biggest paydays to ever exist in boxing, and despite the overall high quality of fighters in retrospect, there weren't many who could approach his numbers money-wise in the late 80's and 90's, as far as I'm aware at least. China was willing to pay 25 mills for the fight to happen.

Before comparing inches, you can compare the dynamite of a punch, and the granite of the chin, and Foreman possessed both along with craft, timing, and experience. It was his reflexes, speed, and output that were failing him with the old age, making him vulnerable to a lost decision in which he could only give a good account if himself (the Holyfield fight without a belt essentially.)

 

It's a false equivalence, Chisora was never a top guy in the first place, and had no such problems in his prime. Now he's aged with clear physical disabilities that effect him significantly in the ring compared to the past and he's still beating contenders because of pure heart, basic blocking, just being aggressive. Dude probably has way more brain damage than the average 70s fighter at this point. Are you start to get the picture ? Chisora doesn't even have Foremans power to boot.

A physically declined Foreman did OK in an era with more talent that today

How big is the best heavyweight in the world today ? How many world level cruiserweights did they beat ? The logic can easily be flipped. Mediocre Cunningham gave Fury a scare. Old Povetkin was outboxing aj until he gassed

Here's another example, Parker couldn't stop fringe cruiserweight Massey and got rocked, Opetaia dominated Massey and stopped him. I'm confident Opetaia would dominate and technically dismantle Parker if he moved up. The gap doesn't exist between the top cruiserweights and heavyweights because cruiserweights have their own advantages, albeit Foreman was already about as strong as some of the stronger SHWs around

The top 70s and 60s fighters Ali, Fraizer, Foreman are absolutely beating the top guys today including Dubois, Parker, Fury, anyone not named Usyk who's 70s sized. I'm favoring someone as chinny as Norton to do a job on Parker and Kabayel stylistically

 

Fighters tend to look leaner when they're contracting their muscles in the middle of firing punches. Let me know if this one goes through. The Foreman from the Frazier fight isn't firing punches, and is leaning over, and he looks chubby.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/CzSqG9JMGbY/mqdefault.jpg

https://www.si.com/.image/t_share/MTY4MjYxMzkzNTUzMTcxNjIx/joe-frazier-and-george-foreman.jpg

In reality, neither young Foreman nor Chisora were fat. Watch them move in the ring, and it's obvious they're both muscular guys. Neither is as lean as somebody like Deontay Wilder, of course.

 

He's an atg puncher and durable not to mention underrated boxing skills. He has more than enough for this era lol. Even Savarese or Briggs would easily be top 10 today if Wallin and Miller got in there

He would do better than obese Ruiz who had even less defense that's for sure

 

“Smaller framed” you want me to argue about bones? You’re saying that and it doesn’t mean anything… all we know factually is Chisora was bigger end of, I can’t weigh any bodies bones or try to conduct some weird research on what makes a smaller man bigger despite being much lighter and less muscular? Weird argument.

 

Chisora isn't anywhere close to the title today, though. Nor is he half-blind. Nor does he have Parkinsons. If we are marking an era off for physically inferior fighters doing well in them, it really speaks poorly of the 1970s. Especially the later 1970s guys, who couldn't take the title from an Ali who had more medical issues than someone like Chisora.

I also don't think your argument proves much as far as the 1970s go. Your single example of Chisora -- at best -- is some limited evidence that the Klitschko era might have been better than the one after it. But I don't think you should put so much weight on a single example. You could run similar chains of guys who did well in later eras all the way back, proving that Jim Corbett's era was better than Ali's.

How do you know the 1990s were more talented than today?

Usyk, who did not fight like Foreman. As @Journeyman92 said, the good small guys who stay in business are the ones who can box. Foreman would come right at superheavyweights.

So again, why don't they move up? Why stay in the less lucrative cruiserweight division?

What's your evidence for this?

The 70s gets enshrined as a golden age where boxers were better. Based on what? What objective metrics do you have? The guys today have comparable workrates, they're bigger, they have PEDs, and they aren't being ruled by champions with medical issues as far as I am aware. They come from a globalized talent pool with lots of big men. It's a meme that modern boxers are supposed to be basic and utterly incompetent, but most people making those judgments aren't professional boxers themselves -- who are in the best position to know. And you've got guys today like Usyk, who is definitely not incompetent.

People speak with complete certainty that the 70s were better, as if this is just an established fact. Is it Foreman and Holmes crossing into the 90s? Is that the comparison point?

To be honest, I think the 70s being a golden age of boxing in a head to head sense is a tradition that comes from lots of boxing fans being Baby Boomers who loved the sport at that time; its competitiveness and drama. They grew up with that, and passed it on to the next generation. I don't really think it's going to survive another 20-30 years in that position, though. Ali might, since he was a genuine standout, but I don't think the rest will.

 

And fatter, with average power, less trap setting and less ability as ironic as that sounds

 

What are you using Chisora to prove, though? Is the following your argument?

Chisora made the top 10. Therefore, Young Foreman could do it.

If so, I guess I wouldn't have a problem with that. Kownacki made the top 10, too. I think Young Foreman was better than Kownacki, so presumably he could do the same. It's not hugely difficult to do for a guy with Foreman's talents. In his own era, Foreman climbed to being the second-best heavyweight in the world head to head. I don't think boxing has changed that much that the top 10 would be closed to Young Foreman.

 

So we have Chisora who is bigger, stronger - likely on better PED’s proven to hang with the dreadnought sized guys with his style of fighting and you have George… 217lbs-220lbs in his prime fighter who almost lost his head against Ron Lyle (220lbs) and was man handled by Muhammad Ali? How exactly do you propose a guy like George fights a BIG HW falling around the way he did when his limit was Lyle? He’d have very mixed results but he’d be in the top 10… just he’s not overly strong, small and no inside fighting ability at all, upright and a shot defence… to quote Muhammad Ali “Didn’t I look stronger then him?” Maybe he could go the Bib Satterfield approach? He’s just completely untested against anyone any good the size of a real HW it’s become the Marciano argument for the Foreman people where they’re trying to put a bunch of mumbo jumbo together to cope with the fact the division moved on.

 

Note as well that @MarkusFlorez99 made a good point: Lyle had a shorter reach than George.

So Foreman didn't even suffer the full effect of his mummylike guard being outreached in that fight.