George Foreman (First Career) Vs Oleksandr Usyk?

Ha ha, 100 pages? Sounds exhausting, like the forum equivalent of watching Heaven's Gate. My quote function won't work at the mo for some reason (on this thread anyway) but my opinion on classic match-ups is a bit like Greg's earlier- I don't often pick as it's too difficult to call sometimes- and when I do I like to vote for the guy with fewer votes (if i think they have a decent chance that is). I'm reminded of the many times Ray Arcel's viewpoint was evoked on here due to his place in boxing history- e.g. "Ray thought Dempsey would beat (insert everyone here)" but Arcel thought Patterson would beat Liston, so, if he doesn't know...

 

Yeah the sites playing up something chronic for everyone.

If you've ever got 3 or 4 days completely free and happen to be watching grass grow

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/ggg-vs-james-toney-at-160.655356/

 

I thought it was just me regarding quote function not working seems to be ok now.

 

There is a reason they used to call Foreman 'George "The Human Chisora" Foreman.' That reason is a lot more than just the way they used to use anachronistic nicknames back then. It is also because Chisora fought with a shaved head at times too.

 

At the beginning of our exchange, I highlighted the trickiness of a fixation on weight as the anchor for size comparisons and referred to Esch and Valuev being representative of the paradox in this thinking. The implication being, could Esch ever be heavy enough to be considered 'bigger' than Valuev?

This is an extreme example but it's meant to be, so as to highlight a principle I think is applicable across the board. Weight does not equate to size.

In a different example - If two men of identical external dimensions have a variance of 1lb in the weight of their respective livers, is the man with the heavier liver the bigger of the two?


I think the nub of the issue in 'size debates' lies in the varying ideas about what actually constitutes size. It's why I have come to be a bit tentative about entering such debates. There are many variables thrown into the mix, and people are often convinced of their position because size is, on its face, such a simple concept, right? Well, not really, as it turns out - not in my experience, at least.

To address your more explicit ask above, I would say that, given I do not necessarily consider a heavier man to be a bigger man, Foreman remains the bigger man in this case. Per the 'suit-fitting' wager I posed, If I am a tailor taking the measurements of both fighters, I would fully expect Foreman to measure higher across almost all of the derived data points. A few extra pounds on Usyk at an official weigh-in isn't making his frame any greater in size. Nor is a drop in weight for Foreman making his frame any lesser.

An alternative bet, in the vein of the above... ...Imagine a "magical orthopedist" examining their two skeletons. In this case, I would wager that Foreman's skeleton would measure up as the bigger - Not just in overall length and width, but also depth (e.g., bigger rib cage) and the individual bone composition - his major bones, joints etc, as well these being possibly of a greater density.

This is of course all speculative stuff and, even if those measurements could be made, they would be reductive, which is perhaps too simplistic for some. But skeletal mass is about as steady a marker as one will find in terms of establishing size. Other body tissues and water are variables which can be temporarily manipulated. Water content can vary widely. Again, does a swell in water content increase the size of one's frame, or just make them heavier?

People will have different views on the subject and might even find my ideas ridiculous and that's fine. I find the various opinions on the matter interesting, if only in terms of how divergent perceptions can be - although, the delving into points in history with relevant data is engaging too. However, from a sporting viewpoint - that is, from my perspective now as a spectator - it is not something I am particularly concerned with, beyond the usual tale of the tape stuff. I am happy with my basic outlook and it's a position I have taken in the past, in related debates (typically about boxers in lower divisions).

As previously alluded to, rather than size disparity, I am more intrigued by the differences in size utilization. On that basis, even if Foreman’s size is being imagined, his use of it certainly is not. This is a factor and a significant one - in my opinion.

 

Usyk easy win on points

 

Only in video games.

 

Usyk weighs more than "prime" Foreman.

 

Even if we don't suppose any big weight gains and none of Usyks cruiserweight opponents weighed over 210 or so that would still put them in the same weight range as Foremans contemporaries like Ali, Frazier and Norton. Norton was 210 when he beat Ali and Frazier was 205. Ali was as light as 206 in his prime and only 212 for some of his best performances.

Moreover they would still be closer in weight to Foreman than he is to most of today's top heavyweights Usyk has faced or is likely to face.

Throwing them out would be the equivalent of saying nobody Ali beat under 225 is relevant to how he would do against Bowe or Lewis and we can only focus on Bugner and Mathis. Or claiming that because Lyle, Frazier, Norton were under 225 they have no bearing at all on whether Foreman could beat Frank Bruno which again I think is silly.

 

I appreciate you directed this question to MM, just thought I'd explain my thinking.

It is possible Usyk could bulk up to a point I'd consider him bigger than 1st career Foreman. I'll always consider Foreman the naturally bigger man, though.

I think it is possible for 2 men of the same height to weigh the same, yet 1 be naturally bigger. E.g. Vinny Paziena weighed 171lbs vs Levan Easley. He was likely more defined than the slightly shorter Dwight Qawi was at 169.5lbs vs Lou Benson Jnr. Yet I consider Qawi the naturally bigger man.

I appreciate you see it differently, but hopefully that at least explains the concept of how I can consider 1 man to be naturally bigger than another of the same height who weighed the same as him at some point.

 

I think at the same ages Foreman is significantly naturally bigger than Usyk. That's why at their respective ages 20, 24, 29, 35, 45, etc. I think he was and will continue to be significantly heavier than Usyk, active boxers or otherwise.

Imo, Usyk at 221lbs is carrying more lean, dense (heavier), manufactured pure muscle (again, I appreciate you disagree) than Foreman at 218lbs. I'd consider Foreman marginally bigger.

Theoretically if Usyk bulked up to 250lbs, then dependant on how he did it, I'd likely consider him bigger than a 218lbs Foreman.

Theoretically GGG could bulk up to 250lbs and be bigger than the roughly equally as tall Mike Tyson was at 218lbs. Tyson would always be by far the naturally bigger. Thats obviously an extreme example, way out of kilter with my perception of the natural size difference between Foreman and Usyk.

 

I'm not sure, it would depend on a number of variables. It's possible for a naturally smaller man to bulk up to to a size in excess of a naturally larger man, so I accept it would happen at some point.

It's possible for GGG to bulk up to 221lbs and remain defined. If he did would you consider him bigger than or as big as a 218lbs Mike Tyson? I accept GGG wouldn't perform at Usyk's level, at that weight, but considering just size, and if you're interested in how I, and perhaps others, perceive your question, consider this question.