Back then he was nothing short of a monster, pretty sure he was a little smaller than Parker and he dwarfed his opponents like he was fighting mostly MW's for crying out loud
Back in the 70s he was a monster because he was beating up guys who'd compete at CW today rather than at HW. Today he'd be an average sized HW. Next to modern day SHW's like Wlad or AJ he would look small.
Today, he'd be a small hw, 6'4" 225 in his prime, Parker ballpark and the only true negative that's said about him is he might just be too small
Big George was a certified and proven beast and one of the biggest punchers ever. I remember watching one of his training videos, dude would lift baby cows as part of his workouts. There's a reason why Ali never gave him a rematch. True, in this HW era he would be considered a small HW but would be the number 1 puncher. Nobody in this HW era comes close to his punching power and punch resistance, he took punches from Norton and Lyle who were considered big punchers in that era.
Foreman's size advantage wasn't as big as the size advantage of Wlad's or Lewis' over their opponents. You're making it sound like he had 100 lbs over his peers in his prime, which is incorrect.
No I'm just saying Foreman is nowhere close to as "big" or "hard-hitting" by modern standards as the nostalgica heads are making it out to be. Foreman would be a totally average HW today, both size and punching power wise -- that's why all these assertions like "Foreman would be the most vicious puncher in today's division" just make me chuckle.
He'd be an averaged sized HW, yes. But we've seen smaller fighters than him being good punchers, we've seen former cruiserweights having above average punchers, so him being the most vicious puncher in today's era isn't the craziest idea at all.
Nostalgic fairytales would be saying he's the GOAT and being biased. These are facts on a proven great HW that would manhandle almost all HW of this era.