Who had the greater physical advantage Vitali or the 70's George Foreman?

A simple search of my previous posts would have told you that I am not British, you wanker.

 

Does this sound like a remark a British person would make?

Plus, it's kind of sad to try to use a victory over Haye to try to bolster the image of Wlad. It's kinda like when Mike Tyson knocked out Peter McNeely and everyone was screaming, "Tyson's back!"

But if you think I'm British, that's fine. Either Clit would still be face-down-ass-up against Foreman.

 

I'm a bit torn here. On one hand I do like to get my troll on; but on the other hand, the British are fools.:?

 

Foreman had an inch on Ali who was listed as 6'2 1/2 in his early fights, 22 to 24.
So 6'3 1/2 for foreman make sense, which also explains why 20 years later when he perhaps lost 1/2 an inch he was two inches shorter than Lennox Lewis.

Boxrec over inflats heights not under estimates them.

Vitali was originally listed as 202cm or 6'7 1/2 and Wladimir 199cm or 6'6 1/2 which they have both always looked.

Idiot who posted this article is just wrong about 70's fighters heights. Foreman had an inch or two on most fighters not 4. Fraiser was short for a heavy, Ali was about par for the 70's.

Vitali has about four to five inches on most heavies these days. Foreman came down from 235 to 220 to fight and complained about always being hungry. He had 10-20 pounds on most heavies.

Vitali is a natural 250 fighter not a fat 220 fight getting in the ring at 250. Vitali has about 20 pounds on an in shape average heavy these days.

Foreman had a similar weight advantage in his day, heightwise Vitali has at least twice the advantage.