George Foreman best bareknuckle fighter ever ?

Foreman quit because he couldnt handle another loss and then used the whole religious thing as a cover story, similar to why Tyson bit Holyfield.

Judging by your comments, you sound like a ****ing ******

Deal with it

 

Lenny Mclean would have murdered Foreman bare knuckle and Foreman knows it

 

More crap posters on here. foreman had a religious experience after his loss to Young. What happened in his dressing room after that fight is well documented. He quit boxing and spent the next 10 years as a minister preaching in Texas. So obviously something very real at the very least in Foremans mind happened to him. He did have some level of breakdown after losing to Ali. I have read that so deep was his depression that he almost did not come out of it.

 

On quoting Foreman's height/weight vs. that of historical barenucklers:
If we are considering the George of history, time machined back into bare-knuckle days, then we may leave his height unadjusted; we should probably take his weight down a bit, as he'll likely be training down some for finish fights.
If we are considering George Foreman, with his natural potentials -- or, if you prefer, a boxer of that times with the same potentials as Big George (including his potential for growth) -- somehow born into a bareknuckle milleiu, and profiting from the both general resources, and specifically
fistic resources, of that time in a way analogous to how Foreman did in his own time ..... then we must also consider that Foreman's height may have been a bit different, as well. This difference should not be exagerated. I can't really suggest a specific formula to deal with this, and I think trying to give a specific height for 'born long ago' George would be a mistake. I think it's better to just generally think about Foreman's natural potential for height being the constant -- which could have been realized in different ways even in the era George really did fight in -- and try to use what you know of the times to shift the 'probability cloud' of Foreman's height down a little (BUT NOT TOO MUCH!) if you're 'birthing' him into an early time. I could almost say if you're not thinking about this vaguely, you're probably not thinking about it right!
Again, if we're dealing with the Foreman of history, time machined out of his own day back into LPR days, we don't need to 'tend down' his height at all.

Continued

 

www.coht.org/resources/.../Were_They_All_Shorter_Back_Then.doc

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

This content is protected

Continued

 

http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~hatton/Tim_height_paper.pdf

"This paper presents five-yearly data on the height of young adult men in 15 Western European countries for birth cohorts from the middle of the 19th to the end of the 20th century. The results indicate that from the 1870s to the 1970s average height increased by around 11 cm, or more than 1 cm per decade."


----------------------------


http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/steckel.standard.living.us


Time Trends in Average Height

Table 3 shows the time pattern in height of native-born American men obtained in historical periods from military muster rolls, and for men and women in recent decades from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys. This historical trend is notable for the tall stature during the colonial period, the mid-nineteenth century decline, and the surge in heights of the past century. Comparisons of average heights from military organizations in Europe show that Americans were taller by two to three inches. Behind this achievement were a relatively good diet, little exposure to epidemic disease, and relative equality in the distribution of wealth. Americans could choose their foods from the best of European and Western Hemisphere plants and animals, and this dietary diversity combined with favorable weather meant that Americans never had to contend with harvest failures. Thus, even the poor were reasonably well fed in colonial America.
Table 3:
Average Height of Native-Born American Men and Women by Year of Birth

Centimeters
Inches
Year
Men

Men
Women
1710
171.5

67.5

1720
171.8

67.6

1730
172.1

67.8

1740
172.1

67.8

1750
172.2

67.8

1760
172.3

67.8

1770
172.8

68.0

1780
173.2

68.2

1790
172.9

68.1

1800
172.9

68.1

1810
173.0

68.1

1820
172.9

68.1

1830
173.5

68.3

1840
172.2

67.8

1850
171.1

67.4

1860
170.6

67.2

1870
171.2

67.4

1880
169.5

66.7

1890
169.1

66.6

1900
170.0

66.9

1910
172.1

67.8

1920
173.1

68.1

1930
175.8
162.6
69.2
64.0
1940
176.7
163.1
69.6
64.2
1950
177.3
163.1
69.8
64.2
1960
177.9
164.2
70.0
64.6
1970
177.4
163.6
69.8
64.4

Source: Steckel (2002) and sources therein.
Explaining Height Cycles

Loss of stature began in the second quarter of the nineteenth century when the transportation revolution of canals, steamboats and railways brought people into greater contact with diseases. The rise of public schools meant that children were newly exposed to major diseases such as whooping cough, diphtheria, and scarlet fever. Food prices also rose during the 1830s and growing inequality in the distribution of income or wealth accompanied industrialization. Business depressions, which were most hazardous for the health of those who were already poor, also emerged with industrialization. The Civil War of the 1860s and its troop movements further spread disease and disrupted food production and distribution. A large volume of immigration also brought new varieties of disease to the United States at a time when urbanization brought a growing proportion of the population into closer contact with contagious diseases. Estimates of life expectancy among adults at ages 20, 30 and 50, which was assembled from family histories, also declined in the middle of the nineteenth century.
Rapid Increases in Heights in the First Half of the Twentieth Century

In the twentieth century, heights grew most rapidly for those born between 1910 and 1950, an era when public health and personal hygiene measures took vigorous hold, incomes rose rapidly and there was reduced congestion in housing. The latter part of the era also witnessed a larger share of income or wealth going to the lower portion of the distribution, implying that the incomes of the less well-off were rising relatively rapidly. Note that most of the rise in heights occurred before modern antibiotics were available, which means that disease prevention rather than the ability to alter its course after onset, was the most important basis of improving health. The growing control that humans have exercised over their environment, particularly increased food supply and reduced exposure to disease, may be leading to biological (but not genetic) evolution of humans with more durable vital organ systems, larger body size, and later onset of chronic diseases.
Recent Stagnation

Between the middle of the twentieth century and the present, however, the average heights of American men have stagnated, increasing by only a small fraction of an inch over the past half century. Table 3 refers to the native born, so recent increases in immigration cannot account for the stagnation. In the absence of other information, one might be tempted to suppose that environmental conditions for growth are so good that most Americans have simply reached their genetic potential for growth. Unlike the United States, heights and life expectancy have continued to grow in Europe, which has the same genetic stock from which most Americans descend. By the 1970s several American health indicators had fallen behind those in Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Denmark. While American heights were essentially flat after the 1970s, heights continued to grow significantly in Europe. The Dutch men are now the tallest, averaging six feet, about two inches more than American men. Lagging heights leads to questions about the adequacy of health care and life-style choices in America. As discussed below, it is doubtful that lack of resource commitment to health care is the problem because America invests far more than the Netherlands. Greater inequality and less access to health care could be important factors in the difference. But access to health care alone, whether due to low income or lack of insurance coverage, may not be the only issues -- health insurance coverage must be used regularly and wisely. In this regard, Dutch mothers are known for regular pre-and post-natal checkups, which are important for early childhood health.
Note that significant differences in health and the quality of life follow from these height patterns. The comparisons are not part of an odd contest that emphasizes height, nor is big per se assumed to be beautiful. Instead, we know that on average, stunted growth has functional implications for longevity, cognitive development, and work capacity. Children who fail to grow adequately are often sick, suffer learning impairments and have a lower quality of life. Growth failure in childhood has a long reach into adulthood because individuals whose growth has been stunted are at greater risk of death from heart disease, diabetes, and some types of cancer. Therefore it is important to know why Americans are falling behind.

 

Please tell me you are not serious!