Dude, I hate to be the one to break it to you but the 1990s foreman sucked as a fighter. He was fat, slow, no reflexes, he had awful defense, limited skill, and he couldn't put away any top 10 contenders outside of a fluke shot on moorer. Shulz and Stewart two B level fighters beat him. He also lost his title to the worst champion of all time.... Shannon Briggs. I dont buy that he grew an inch ****...you dont grow in height when your 40, you actually shrink. I doubt foreman defied science.
Why do you hate Foreman? He was old man and he won the Title. So what if he was fat and slow. He won the title at 45, nearly 46. Don't hate on a old man who is probably old enough to be your father. He beat Walcott's record by 8 years.
WHOOOAAA!!!!!!! Older Foreman was a beast....... He had good defense and a rock solid chin....... His power was there, as was his jab..... Okay.. Foreman was indeed slipping by 1995..... However, prior to 1995, Foreman was a lethal weapon at heavweight....... As for Foreman's loss to Briggs on HBO in 1997... C'MON!! That decision was bogus bull****....... 99% of the onlookers know that, as well... MR.BILL P.S. Foreman was unmotivated and looking past Stewart in 1992.... That was NOT a serious Foreman in that ring....... Discount that fight....... BUT! He still gets the nod from me........
It is a good point though. I have seen Tyson listed as low as 5 ft 9. He is suddenly 5 ft 11 in some tales? The point is that many of the modern fighters are not as tall as they are listed. I am not sure whether reach and other statistics are also sometimes exagerrated, but it means that when comparing to fighters of yesterday (and even today) we cannot be sure about many stats. (at least that is what i think his point was).
if you get 3 shots at the title in your 40's with his power and then fight the weakest chinned guy in Michael Moorer, you have a good chance of winning and he did. What would have happened had Bowe or Lennox fought Moorer? We saw what happened when Tua did later.
One thing that always suprised me about Foreman was his weight when he beat Frazier back in 73. He was only 217 lbs, he looked like he was about 240. Frazier who looked so much smaller was only 3lbs lighter at 214lbs, and he's about 4 inches shorter than George.
I actually wouldnt be suprised if George came back an inch taller for his comeback. George is definitely a freak of nature, unlike most humans. Not invincible of course, I remember being at work the day before he fought Holyfield in 91, everyone including myself was saying that he was going to get brutally knocked out, then came Monday and everyone who saw the fight was suprised that he went the distance and was actually competitive with a prime Holyfield. And 3 years later when he knocked out Michael Moorer I was one of many who jumped out of his seat when me put MM down for the count.
Good point. He always looked physically massive, which is why some people are surprised when they found out he was only 215-220 in his prime. He did look a lot bigger than that.