How tall is George Foreman

Ben - 186cm said on 15/Sep/23
@Jordan87

He literally looks the same height. Is there something wrong with your eyes?

Ben - 186cm said on 15/Sep/23
@181cmguy

6’2 for George is ridiculous 😂

Grayloth said on 6/Sep/23
He looks about the same height as that other guy in the talk show when standing up.

181cmguy said on 1/Sep/23
And yet Rob lists McMahon at 6'3 and 1/4......6'2.25 for "Big" George seems fairer to me.

Jordan87 said on 31/May/23
@ Danimal,

George looks 6'2.5 there.

Jordan87 said on 30/May/23
@ Viper,

Not Trolling, I truly feel they are taller nowadays then the past, not by much. 3/4" can be hard to tell but I know my own Height well enough to honestly compare.

I feel that if you took White and Black Males now ( 20-40) they would be at least 3/4" taller than in the 60's.

Danimal said on 30/May/23
George Foreman in 1973 standing right next to Ed McMahon who was a legit 6'3.5" at that time: Click Here

Danimal said on 29/May/23
George next to 6'4" Kevin Nealon on Saturday Night Live in 1994: Click Here

viper said on 26/May/23
I've hung around that specific area a few times

viper said on 26/May/23
It didn't set me off per se as I wasn't sure If you were totally trolling. You've been a decent poster otherwise

Jordan87 said on 24/May/23
@ Viper,

Maybe the 50 and ups. I was very specific by saying The younger folk I see ( IN PA- My Area and NY During the week) look over 5'10. Not quite 5'11, alot seem 5'10.5 to me. I was also very specific to mention in my area. For some reason that seem to set you off. Please tell us why? .... C'mon, don't by Shy :)

viper said on 21/May/23
White and black folk look to average 5-9-5-10.

I shouldn't be towering over them to the degree I do at 6-3 If what you said was the case.

Jordan87 said on 18/May/23
@ Harry Sachs,

"Don't respond to him or acknowledge that he is here"

You responded every time LOL

You would like that bc then I would stop bringing to your Attention the fact that drives you crazy the most .....is that George Foreman would not be considered a larger heavyweight nowadays and that HW boxers are alot taller and Heavier than the past. Check Ali's record and the sizes of the men he fought. Again, that Google thing I told you about lol

For some reason that drives you crazy....and I'm not sure why but I am enjoying it very much lol...My Buddy Harry Sachs...BoxRec and Google...Try it....It's free :)

Jordan87 said on 18/May/23
@ Viper

"You can tell younger generation is a bit shorter".....

Not White and Black Males.....Average American height? ..Yes Asians and Hispanics have grown in numbers are are shorter than White and Black folk. But White and Black people are not getting shorter.

Harry Sachs said on 9/May/23
@Viper just ignore Jordan87 he is clearly trolling for attention and you are giving him the attention he craves. Actually everybody posting here should just ignore him. Don't respond to him or acknowledge that he is here.

viper said on 6/May/23
Sorry bro, it's not. Just going to college campuses alone you can tell the younger generation is a bit shorter.

Jordan87 said on 4/May/23
@ Viper,

Firstly If I am a troll....I must be doing a good Job b/c you responded---TWICE!.... LOL.

Dude, Focus. Younger gen is taller....Deal with it, not sure how else to say it. My Friends, and the people I see everyday in that age group ( on Average) are taller than 5'10. Not by much...But they are taller.

viper said on 27/Apr/23
Dude, If you arnt trolling you need help, lol

If what you said was true it would be a worldwide news story. The United States would look like the Netherlands.

And you have to put down shorter people by calling them "manlets". That's interesting

Also interesting If what you said was true then how come I'm taller than 99 percent of that demographic at 6-3?

The CDC isnt trolling, you are.

viper said on 27/Apr/23
Most white and blacks under 40 average no more than 5-10, so you are wrong.

I don't know why you are trolling with this.

Jordan87 said on 18/Apr/23
@ Viper.

How do you know ? If you look back at my original Quote, I mentioned the " People I know"....So maybe I see taller people than average....But IMO ...and from what I can see...Young White and Black males are taller than 5'10" in this country most of the time. Why does that bother you so much? Are you a manlet?

viper said on 15/Apr/23
That's not true, lol

Jordan87 said on 14/Apr/23
@ Viper

Actually...I said most White and Black Males Under 40 are 5'11"....Not "people" lol....Nice Try Buddy. Do better :)

Darksol64 said on 13/Apr/23
George was big but not huge height wise.

No less than 6'3 prime for sure. Doubt a full 6'4 but 6'3 up to 6'3.5 is possible.

Jordan87 said on 13/Apr/23
@ Harry Sachs,

And your Charles Barkley pic proves Lennox is Under 6'5, Since Barkley is under 6'5 and is leaning whereas Lennox is standing straight. Nice Job .....thanks for Helping me prove Lennox is under 6'5".

Jordan87 said on 13/Apr/23
@ Harry Sachs,

I mention your name b/c you are incorrect about everything ....and one of the only people on here that cannot and refuses to use the internet LOL

What Forman was Listed at during the Olympics at 19 years old does not make your statements regarding his size during his prime correct. FYI....It's still small for modern times.

The Fact REMAINS......That your Beloved Foreman would be a smaller heavyweight nowadays.

I'm glad you keep posting like I asked....this is fun :) I will continue to repeat what I said and watch you try to use the same numbers for Foreman to justify your statements. Numbers are numbers...And 1970's Foreman would not be " Big" George Nowadays. I know this angers you , not sure why really but I will continued to bring it up :)

viper said on 13/Apr/23
Jordan is a troll. He said most people under 40 in New York are 5-11 plus

🤣🤣🤣

Harry Sachs said on 13/Apr/23
Also @Jordan87 I can tell you have no life. If somebody online told me to stop bothering them I would stop bothering them. Yet you keep mentioning my screen name like you matter to me. The only person who is embarrassing themself is you. Lol Foreman was listed at 6'3 or even 6'3 1/2 as a amateur and around 230. Against Albert Wilson Foreman was listed at 226 as a 19 year old Click Here

Usyk still weighed 198 pounds back in 2018 when he was around 31/32 years old. Maybe you should learn to use the internet.

Here is a picture of Lennox Lewis standing next to Charles Barkley Click Here

I couldn't care less what you think. You are clearly a little child looking for attention online. I gave you enough attention and now I won't respond to anything else you type. Go away kid.

Harry Sachs said on 13/Apr/23
Lol why is @Jordan87 still typing to me? Also Uysk weighed 198 pounds until he was 32 years old. Foreman weighed 230 pounds as a 19 year old. Lol Foreman fought guys who were 6'7 250 pounds as amateur like Robert "Bobo" Renfrow. Foreman also fought guys like Jack O"Halloran who was 6'6 240. Foreman was never the biggest heavyweight when he boxed. Now get a life and stop mentioning my screen name kid

Roman K said on 7/Apr/23
They should measure everyone in centimeters and meters is much more accurate than feet and inches

Jordan87 said on 7/Apr/23
This is a recent quote by Tyson Fury ( Harry Sachs can read this....and weep later)

" Usyk's about 6'3 and 16 stone [224 pounds]. He's bigger than Muhammad Ali was back in the day. He's probably the same size as George Foreman. Everybody used to say 'big' George Foreman; now they're saying 'little tiny Usyk' at the same weight and size"

isnt that the Truth?

Canson said on 30/Mar/23
@Jordan87: maybe today he is sub 6’3 but I can’t see it in his prime. He looked a strong 6’3” guy meaning not under that mark

Harry Sachs said on 18/Mar/23
Lol Jordan87 you say the funniest stuff. Lennox Lewis was listed at between 6'4 1/2 and 6'5. Lewis was roughly the same height as Charles Barkley who was measured at 6'4 3/4 barefooted.

Miiiiiiighty_- said on 18/Feb/23
I think he was more 6'3.5" prime and around 6'3 when he won his title back.
He was noticeably taller than Moorer who was like 1-1.5cm taller than Holyefield... who is billed here as 186cm.

Holy 186
Moorer 187-187.5
Big George : Prime 191.5-192 Second champ 189.5-190 Nowadays 188.5

Rsingh said on 5/Feb/23
Google lists him 192cm,so is there any possibility that he was 6'3.5 at his peak?

Slamo said on 19/Dec/22
Young George I’d say 6-3.5. Certainly 6-3 guy

Jordan87 said on 14/Nov/22
@Canson,

I think however Bowe could have FOreman by 2" if he stood straight. I see Foreman as Sub 6'3" most of the times.

Canson said on 11/Nov/22
@Jordan87: I would give Lewis and Bowe about 6’4 1/2”. I met Riddick Bowe in person years back and I felt he may have been slightly taller than me although I probably didn’t gauge footwear. I’m still unsure but I think I was 6’4 3/8 at my low five or take and 6’4 1/2” at lunch give or take, but I’m about 1/8” less today. I’ll be 41 in January. As for Bowe, it didn’t seem like a big difference. Half inch at most or we had different size heads and eye levels.

@Rampage: I could see 6’3 out of bed for Ali and 6’2.25 at his low

Jordan87 said on 10/Nov/22
@ Canson,

Click Here

I used to have Foreman the 6'3 but Lewis and Riddick were usually close in height. I got them both at around 6'4" ( Lennox was listed at 6'4 a couple times) . Riddick has George by at least 1.5" here ( He is leaning and still has him by 1.5"). . I think 6'2.5" Fits George more than 6'3".

Canson said on 6/Oct/22
@Jordan87: I wonder if that was when he was not fully grown. I’d have never hesitated to give him 6’3”. Ali was likely a hair under the 6’2.5 when he was fully grown. Maybe he dipped to 6’2.25 at his low or 6’2 3/8 which is why Norton had the noticeable advantage that Harry Sachs says at 6’2.75

Jordan87 said on 5/Oct/22
@ Harry Sachs,

Yeah Forman only said he was 6'2.5"

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 10/Mar/22
Rob, is there a case for 6ft3¼ peak?


I'm beginning to think Ali was all in all very strong 6ft2 guy who maybe got 6ft2½ earlier in the day....got up at 6ft3

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 10/Mar/22
6ft2½ nowadays would be likely. Peak not under 6ft3, most likely a bit over

Rapha said on 17/Jan/22
Hi Rob

Do you think he started to shrink ? ( he is over 70 by now )

Tall In The Saddle said on 19/Nov/21
This is a good still of Foreman and Ali facing off in Zaire.

Ali’s head is bowed a bit you can reasonably project his straightened height relative to Foreman - and the vision of the fight shows him looking straight at George anyway. There was about 1” between them.


Click Here

Johno said on 28/Sep/21
Ali said 6'2.5 but yet he often looked a full 6'3. I can see a morning height above 6'3.

Harry Sachs said on 26/Sep/21
6'4" Leprechaun Lol Ali was 6'1? Ali was 6.2 1/2. Ken Norton was measured by the Marines at 6'2 3/4 and Ali was only slightly shorter than Norton. Foreman was never listed at 6'2 1/2. In his prime he was always listed at 6'3 and when he came out of retirement he was listed at 6'3 before Foreman started claiming to be 6'4

6'4" Leprechaun said on 24/Sep/21
Could sworn many years ago Foreman was listed at 6'2.5". 6'4" is a lie though he was the tallest an inch taller than Ali. Ali was 6'1" though they were both the tallest.

Canson said on 16/Sep/21
@Tall in the Saddle: he had a mean fro lol

Tall In The Saddle said on 13/Sep/21
@Canson

Boxer Jimmy Ellis might’ve sported one of the more prominent fro’s among the high profile boxers of the 70s, complemented by some very groovy sideburns.

Click Here

Canson said on 1/Sep/21
Man the 70s. The good ole days. Everyone wore fros then lol. Albeit a mini one

Click Here

Tall In The Saddle said on 1/Sep/21
@Canson

Haha. I wonder what heights they would’ve figured for the likes of Gerry Cooney and Chuck Wepner?

Canson said on 1/Sep/21
@Chaos: I’d even say 6’3.75 to 6’4 out of bed

ChaosControl said on 31/Aug/21
George Foreman could have been 6’3.5 first thing out of bed

Canson said on 30/Aug/21
@Tall in the Saddle: lol I overheard two guys the other night at the bar talking about boxing. It caught my attention when I heard “6’4 Muhammad Ali and 6’5” George Foreman”. Then they were talking basketball and it was 6’4” Steph Curry. Lol I didn’t even bother to ask either their height or insert myself into the conversation. I just stayed in convo with my wife and a couple friends who were with us

Tall In The Saddle said on 18/Aug/21
@Rob

True. Whatever height people have peak George at, his claiming more than 6’3” wasn’t a new thing in his second coming. I used to buy old boxing mags from book stores, articles on young GF had claims ranging from 6’3 1/2” to 6’4”. One article written after his gold medal win and projecting his success in the pro ranks had him listed at 6’5”!!
Fortunately that was a one off claim never to be repeated. I guess in seriously heeled 70s fashion boots and full blown afro GF might’ve just got there but otherwise, computer says no.

Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Aug/21
Big George was robbed in his swansong fight against Briggs. Didn't matter. George showed pure class in so called "defeat". No whining or complaining. Great performance to seal off his second coming. He came such a long way from Zaire.

Harry Sachs said on 15/Jul/21
Here is a good video of Shannon Briggs vs Foreman go to 7:19 of the video Whatever height Briggs is Foreman is clearly shorter. Foreman looks equal height in some pictures with Briggs but this is with shoes on. Foreman clearly was wearing thicker sole shoes Click Here

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/Jul/21
Foreman I think was 6ft3 and change peak

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 8/Jul/21
O'Brien could be a fraction under 6ft4 at worst....Foreman in his prime was at least 6ft3, possibly a bit over

Canson said on 3/Jul/21
Foreman stacks up ok against Conan. Not sure if he’s still his peak but I also doubt Conan was ever more than 6’3.5”

Harry Sachs said on 2/Jul/21
I think I put this video up before. Here is George Foreman and Conan O'Brien back in 2005 Click Here

Canson said on 13/Jun/21
@Viper: that’s possible. Maybe in this order

Foreman 6’3.25 or 6’3 1/8” I don’t rule out 6’3 flat
Norton Sr 6’2.75
Ali 6’2 3/8 afternoon height 6’2.5 lunch

Foreman’s lunchtime is likely over 6’3” flat

Gman42 said on 12/Jun/21
I have seen more recent pictures of him standing next to Evander Holyfield, they look to be similar in height nowadays, so it seems Big George has indeed lost height. I think Rob has him correctly listed as 6'3 peak, but I don't think he is more than 6'1.5 today.

viper said on 8/Jun/21
Foreman wasn't taller than 6-3 1/4

Harry Sachs said on 4/Jun/21
Here is a video of George Foreman in 2011 with Lennox Lewis. Foreman probably has lost height by this point

Click Here

Canson said on 19/May/21
Could’ve been strong 6’3” range at his peak though

Canson said on 19/May/21
Ali wasn’t 6’3 if he was shorter than Foreman and Ken Norton along with Larry Holmes. See pics with Michael Jordan and it’s confirmed

DDDDDuane said on 16/May/21
In April 1982 I met Ali on on Madison Ave in NYC. I'm 6'2" and Ali was about an inch taller than me. Foreman was taller than Ali so in his prime Foreman may have been 6'4"...We do lose some height over the decades... Remember Foreman towered over Frazier who was probably 5'10" but stated he was 5'11"...

DDDDDuane said on 16/May/21
In April 1982 I met Ali on on Madison Ave in NYC. I'm 6'2" and Ali was about an inch taller than me. Foreman was taller than Ali so in his prime Foreman may have been 6'4"...We do lose some height over the decades... Remember Foreman towered over Frazier who was probably 5'10" but stated he was 5'11"...

Harry Sachs said on 29/Apr/21
Here is George Foreman vs Mike Jameson doing his comeback before Foreman started to claim to be 6'4. He is listed at 6'3 and Jameson at 6'4 Click Here

Canson said on 9/Apr/21
@Covvvid1984: probably a result of his build and his posture

Covvvid1984. said on 28/Mar/21
Prime 6-3.25. Now looks 6-075.

Tall In The Saddle said on 28/Mar/21
@Richie

I envy you man. To meet one of the legends from Boxing’s golden era has to be a treasured moment. Loved how GF reinvented himself but the fact remains he was one scary guy during his first incarnation. The look on his face during pre fight instructions in Zaire suggested he literally wanted to kill Ali. Of course that meant GF wasn’t sufficiently cool and measured which played right into Ali’s hands. Prior to Zaire, GF had been progressing nicely in terms of boxing fundamentals and pacing which opened the door for his power shots. GF forgot all that in Zaire, trying to KO Ali with each and punch he threw.

OriginalAnon said on 22/Mar/21
I am starting to think that Foreman might be as low as 186cm. He just doesn't look at all look the same stature. If he was 190cm during his prime then a 4cm loss is not that much for a heavy tall guy who is now 72.

Richie said on 3/Feb/21
I had the pleasure of meeting George Foreman at the Cardiff Arms Park in October 93', when Lewis & Bruno faced off & he is 6'3".

Tall In The Saddle said on 29/Dec/20
I hadn't seen this clip before of both GF and Norton being interviewed prior to Shavers vs Roy Tiger Williams 1976. Click Here
I would say that it appears at least 1/2 inch advantage to GF but he is slightly closer to camera. Footwear unknown and varying big heels were big back in the day. I watched Holmes vs Norton and it was interesting that upon seeing both men in the ring the commentator suggested that Larry appeared to hold at least 1/2 inch advantage and possibly up to a full 1 inch.

Canson said on 17/Dec/20
191 flat could be the compromise between 6’3 and 6’3.5

OriginalAnon said on 17/Dec/20
Was 190cm/191cm during his prime. Today he looks about 188cm.

Canson said on 30/Aug/20
@Harry Sachs: he was a bit bulkier I agree. I would’ve always guessed GF to be taller than Ali.

Harry Sachs said on 15/Aug/20
@Canson Ali was trying to hype himself up. He also claimed Foreman was only 217 in his prime. Foreman weighed 230 as a 19 year older while Ali weighed 190 into his early 20's I believe. Foreman lost weight. Possibly a combination of Foreman fight 34 times in 32 months. In any case Foreman was natural more bulky than Ali and a little taller than ALi.

Tall In The Saddle said on 13/Aug/20
Gotta love GF. In his second coming, he said a lot of things that were tongue in cheek, not the least being his claim that he somehow "grew" after his first retirement. Sure, he "grew" in terms of girth but certainly not in height. LOL.

Canson said on 12/Aug/20
@Editor Rob: that’s odd. He looked taller than Ali but that’s what Ali claimed he was too. 6’2.5”. I don’t buy 6’4” for him But after all I see, I can’t see under 6’3” at the same time. I could even see an argument for a hair over before 6’2.5”

Editor Rob said on 12/Aug/20
Found another quote from Foreman, a bit bizarre - said when he quit boxing he was 6ft 2.5, and now (in 1988) was almost 6ft 4.

Canson said on 10/Aug/20
Alir?za said on 9/Aug/20
Click Here

This guy said very confidently Foreman was 6'3.5. This may be true considering his other claims.

I don’t rule completely out 6’3.5 for him after seeing more pics but I would lean more toward 6’3.25”. The problem with someone saying they’re 6’4 and that he looked slightly shorter is .75” could be taken for .5” and we also don’t know what time of the day this “6’4 guy” was measured. However, at times he pulls off 6’3.5” so it’s Certainly possible.

Alir?za said on 9/Aug/20
Click Here

This guy said very confidently Foreman was 6'3.5. This may be true considering his other claims.

Alir?za said on 30/Jun/20
George foreman has naturel strength. Even Mike Tyson didn't want to fight George Foreman. And Foreman was 45 years

I think Foreman has no height complex. I think he was beetwen 6'3-6'4 but he can say 6'3.

He is not someone to say more than his height.

Tall In The Saddle said on 21/Jun/20
@Mon

Freak of nature is right. As evidenced in his first career and perhaps more particularly so in his second coming. Whatever peak we personally have him at, I think all agree that with age GF has lost some notable height and bulk. His forearms used to be inhuman.

I was still at school when it seemed GF was already long and permanently gone from the sport only to come back after a 10 year hiatus. IMO, only a fighter with the exact attributes (size, durability, power, courage etc.) of GF could pull that off, which is to say only GF could've managed it. It's often said GF "re-invented" himself personality wise. I've come to believe that GF simply dropped the cloak of menace he copied from his idol Sonny Liston to reveal his true and orig. self. Prior to looking like he wanted to kill all and sundry, a very young GF, fresh off the Olympics, was an upright, courteous and respectful guy, very much the basis of the man we see today.

Mon said on 15/Jun/20
Foreman had an Afro in 1974, which is probably why Ali excessively downgraded him. But Ali was clearly almost as big in the ring with certainly equal footwear. Rob is spot on. Afro-ed Foreman looked like a giant next to Joe Frazier because Frazier's stated height was boosted for selling tickets for the Fight Of The Century with Ali, but watching Ali-Frazier, Joe looks surprisingly small. Joe Frazier was not over 5'11''.

Foreman was exactly what Tale of the Tapes always said he was: a flat 6''3'' . This is confirmed by photos of him next to Ken Norton at 6'2.75. Foreman proved he was freak of nature strong, so he never bothered to exaggerate his height to bolster his image.That is unusual.

Alir?za said on 2/Jun/20
I saw him personally. He was over 6'3 10 years ago. Probably his peak height was clearly 6'4

Jaidien Faust said on 13/May/20
I'm 6ft3 so he is just and inch taller so we will just say he is 6ft4 flat

184guy2 said on 3/May/20
Rob , don't you think you could Give big george a peak and current ? He looked about 2in taller than Evander and more than 1cm taller than Ali . Could be a case for 6'3.25 peak and 6'2-2.25 now

Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 30/Apr/20
Ali at 6ft2½ could put Foreman at a bit over the 6ft3 mark

Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Apr/20
Well of course I've linked the GF vs Ali face off a few times prev. IMO, a comfortable 1" diff.

But how about that face off? One of the best. Ali disdainfully talking up an absolute storm of smack - looking GF up and down like he was nothing - meanwhile, Foreman trying to remain impassive emulating his idol Liston but looking increasingly like he is about to explode and try and kill Ali even before opening bell - exactly as Ali designed for - Ali had to have some measure of fear - Ali had already caught 39 rounds of hell in total from both Frazier and Norton - GF dispatched those same guys in about 3 1/2 rounds total. At least back in the day you had an undefeated Champ Frazier facing an undefeated former Champ Ali and then an undefeated Frazier facing an undefeated GF and undefeated GF facing a twice defeated Ali after Ali reversed both losses. They didn't muck around.

@movieguy12 - Lewis and Bowe should've fought, particularly as undefeated Champs - and that is the shame of it. I would lean toward Lewis but no easy fight. As to their heights, they appeared pretty close. I recalled this vision live - the confrontation between Bowe and Lewis at close quarters after Bowe defeated Holyfield. Classic. Lewis in a proper English accent saying "Bring it on, man" and "You ain't nutt'n' to me" and "Chicken Bowe". LOL. Overall Lewis IMO has the edge in height but he is obviously in dress shoes vs Riddick's boxing shoes. Now, if that exchange didn't whet people's appetites for those two to get in the ring together - I don't know what else would. Yeah, they should've fought but didn't so we are now left only to speculate what might've been.

Click Here

Bring it on man, you ain't nuth'n' to me. Go to 18 sec mark.

Click Here

movieguy12 said on 15/Apr/20
It was a massive shame that Bowe and Lewis didn't fight. Both were top class and in their prime. I'm not sure who'd have won and I don't know which of the pair was taller. Both were between 6'4'' and 6'5' I'd guess probably nearer 6'5''.

As for Big George well he was given as 6'3'' when he was first champion and looked 6'3''. I don't think he grew to 6'4'' after his first retirement. I read his autobiography and he said his boxing shoes from his 20s didn't fit when he started fighting again in his mid to late 30s. This is not due to true growth though it's a consequence of putting on weight I understand. Happens to some people.

Canson said on 14/Apr/20
@Rob: yea it looks a little more than half inch in that one

Canson said on 13/Apr/20
@Editor Rob: In the video, how much difference do you see around 19:50-20:40 during the stare down between he and Ali?

Click Here

Canson said on 31/Mar/20
@Harry Sachs: Rob won’t do something like that unless he were to ban a poster altogether. There are people out there who have flagrantly broken rules here on the site and weren’t even Banned st all, only issued multiple warnings; or have been Banned for an extended period of time more than once and let back on. A lot worse than what has been posted on this page from any of us

Tall In The Saddle said on 31/Mar/20
LOL. Aw, c'mon, "Sachs", don't be like that. It's just Tall In The Saddle BTW, thankyou. Heads up, the @ is for when you address another poster, it's not actually part of the name. TBH, if your posts can get through, well, obviously, ANYONE's can so I wouldn't complain. Pretty much everyone ignores you now without such a feature so it's obviously easy done. Take a leaf.

Harry Sachs said on 29/Mar/20
Since all comments have to be reviewed before they are posted. Rob should just stop posting @Tall in The Saddle comments or just create a ignore feature so people can just block comments from people they don't want to see type.

Tall In The Saddle said on 26/Mar/20
@Rob

Thanks for your reply.

GF and Evander Click Here
2"+ for GF.

Tall In The Saddle said on 25/Mar/20
ONLY out of due and genuine respect for ROB and contributors not involved, I won't re-type my prev. post now pulled nor the reply I submitted in response to another post that was also pulled. I do, however, stand by all that I have posted/submitted.

Mod. duties are difficult. I've never appealed to a mod. to intervene. Whatever the case or issue, I deal directly with the poster in question. The happenstance problem is that while certain posts may be duly pulled or blocked, the inflammatory posts of other certain posters remain and are likely to continue.

I don't blame Rob for that at all, it just happens. Who can possibly read and filter all the e that comes through.

So of course I respect and completely understand Rob's vetting and decision to pull or block certain posts. No prob. The ONLY prob. is that while one may dutifully wear the cuffs, they still have to read posters who are not similarly reigned in. Posters who I would ordinarily deal with myself IF I wasn't wearing the cuffs.

So, I will be very clear here. IMO, whoever posts as SACHS, fundamentally posts as an unrestrained TROLL, as per definition. I could copy and paste pages of quotes of completely unjustified insults directed at numerous posters, including posters who requested Sachs do desist from this behaviour. This behaviour arises immediately in the face of ANY poster who merely expresses a dissenting opinion. His favoured insults are labelling posters as FOOLS, LIARS, STUPID, TROLL, KID, CASUAL FANS, STUPID etc. He also constantly proclaims that he will IGNORE this, that and the other poster while ALWAYS failing to do so.

@Ed Rob. Could you do me a favour and peruse the posts of SACHS and tell me what you think?

For further qualification, SACHS also posted as Super Piccolo on Boxingforum24.com. He started a thread there Mod. HWs (size and weight) vs 70s HW and on - (something SACHS has also argued about and insulted other posters in respect of on this site). On that thread, he invoked exactly the same terms and affectations as above, insulting every respondent who expressed a mere diff. of opinion. He even insulted a respondent who agreed with him, such was his poor comprehension. He also proclaimed to block and did block anyone who disagreed with him - a feature SACHS enquired about on this site as an insult to yet another poster on this site who simply disagreed with him. Here's a link to said boxing forum and the 2 pages in question - Click Here

He signed as Super Piccolo on 26 Mar 18 and was BOOTED 3 Apr 2018. Over just 2 pages and a few days, he insulted every respondent whose mere diff. of opinion he simply couldn't cope with. He even argued that Briggs was 6'4" and GF 6'3.5" on the boxing forum, something he vehemently argued AGAINST on this site around the same time.

Tall In The Saddle said on 25/Mar/20
Height listings for boxers do not constitute as evidence in their own right.

Cherry picking a certain height listing and presenting it as actual evidence to suit an estimate puts one in a world of self contradiction UNLESS one accepts all other height listings to be correct, which of course, they are not.

Unlike GF, Ali was in fact listed as 6'3" virtually 100% of the time. Of course the frequency and exclusivity of Ali's 6'3" listing doesn't make it so. As per the visual evidence and available comparisons, Ali is more reasonably pegged at 6'2.5" and there just so happens to be one document, Ali's passport, that matches that estimate. This height would've been advised as at the time the passport was acquired since a later passport had Ali back up to 6'3".

GF was variously listed/referred to as 6'4", 6'3.5" and 6'3" in his FIRST career. This FACT is being provided to squash the suggestion that GF was only listed as 6'3" in his first career and only claimed 6'4 in his second coming.

19 yo GF vs Chepulis 1968 Mex. Olympics. Boxing Historian Jim Jacobs refers to GF as 19 yo, 6'3.5". Go to 32 sec mark. Click Here
20 yo GF vs Bob Hazelton Dec69. Howard Cosell describes GF as 6'3.5". Go to 57 sec mark. GF vs Bob Hazelton Dec69, Cosell describes 20 yo GF as 6'3.5", go to 57 sec mark Click Here
GF vs Pires Oct71. Don Dunphy describes GF as 6'4", 215 lbs. 31 victories. 28 KOs. Ranked only behind Frazier and Ali. This is PRIME GF who was already being framed to be next Champion and who would face and defeat Joe Frazier in little over a year. Go to 58 sec mark. Also go to 3:54 mark for face off - GF is more than 2" taller than 6'2" listed and described Pires. Click Here

On point subject related comment contained in a previous post since pulled and now containing link in question Foreman vs Denis Click Here

Both men listed as 6'3". Not one but two more than affording front and back view angles are provided. As per both view points, GF is clearly the taller man. As stated, GF's height was variously listed, Denis' height WAS NOT. Denis was always listed as 6'3". If Denis' listing is correct, and Denis did appear about 6'3" vs Bugner, then by comparison GF reasonably stacks up to an easy 6'3.5" at the least.

Both GF and Ron Lyle were also described as 6'3.5" when they met in 1976, and,'FRO accounted for, GF still clearly the taller of the two with Lyle looking up at GF.

In readdress of another repeat offering of the GF and Bowe pics. No, GF does not appear as a flat 6'3" only next to Bowe. Possible minor height loss for 44 yo GF (vs peak 26 you Bowe) could also be reasonably considered.

Harry Sachs said on 17/Mar/20
Here is Riddick Bowe with George Foreman again Click Here Click Here Bowe always looked shorter to me than the 6'4 3/4 Lennox Lewis. Foreman is clearly shorter than Bowe. So not only was Foreman flat out stated to be 6'3 in his prime and when he first came back. Tons of people have flat out proved that Foreman has always been around 6'3.

Harry Sachs said on 17/Mar/20
All @Canson please just ignore that kid. I don't know why people keep feeding trolls. Since you can't block people on this site just let him type away. Never respond to him, don't give him the attention that he clearly craves.

Harry Sachs said on 17/Mar/20
@Canson it is hard to say. In any case Ken Norton was 6'2 3/4 inches according to him but his height was rounded up to 6'3. Let's say Dennis was listed at 6'3. He could of been 6'2 3/4 and had his height rounded up too. Hell Muhuammad Ali was 6'2 1/2 and had his height rounded up to 6'3

Canson said on 15/Mar/20
@Harry Sachs: who would you say is taller in the first video that you posted? With Dennis?

Tall In The Saddle said on 14/Mar/20
LOL. After being called out while the thread was still well and truly active, the Sachs moniker notably goes MIA for more than a month. Now, after the thread has been inactive for nearly two weeks, he crawls out from under his troll rock yet again. Yes, we know exactly WHO Sachs is and the sad attention he bays for. BORING. Haha.
Here's GF looking a good 2 plus inches taller than Letterman in 1990.Click Here
Here's 56 yo GF, angle accounted for, STILL clearly looking at least as tall if not a touch taller than Conan O'Brien in 2005.Click Here

Harry Sachs said on 12/Mar/20
I made a opinion? I don't make opinions, I give facts. Again here a 27 year old George Foreman fighting John Dino Dennis. Foreman is listed at 6'3 231. Click Here

Here is George Foreman vs Rocky Sekorki and guess what? Foreman is still listed at 6'3 and now he weighs 244.Click Here

Why are we still having this debate? Also why are people still feeding trolls looking for attention. Ignore them and just enjoy yourself here.

Tall In The Saddle said on 1/Mar/20
@Canson

You've got me. Got me laughing. Self congratulatory back slap I suppose you would call it. Just more baseless misdirection from you. LOL.
Your usual failed 5% snapshot address, ignoring the other 95%. Re post length. It takes more space to refute your BS than it takes you to frivolously invent it. You don't address all refutes. Your constant broken up multi same day posts, across threads are stupid, lending to fragmented exchanges & don't fool anyone, altogether long, tedious, repetitive and self contradicting. The VEILED quotes at the top of your post, ALL to Sachs who you acknowledged provoked same. Keep channelling MIA Sachs. Act & react AS IF those posts were to you. You brought up Sachs up 13 Feb, then baulk at due critique of Sachs and then claim I brought up Sachs. I've already detailed your notable entanglement with Sachs including the similar tandem approach to Reece. If there are implications of possibilities, that's the facts speaking for themselves. You introduced name calling 16 Feb. You asked where did you say Sachs and Bazza had anything to do with each other? Seriously? YOU brought up Bazza 23 Feb in flawed analogy. Already addressed. You brought up Sachs post 10 Jul 18, 1 of 3 SAME DAY posts which included comments by Jordan87 falsely attributed to me (of course you side stepped that). Defer to Sachs, quote Sachs, agree with Sachs in absentia & in an about face, baulk when your entanglement with Sachs is detailed and Sachs similar trolling (you ignore) of posters Reece, Jordan87 and Bazza is appropriately highlighted. Of course it appropriately discredits Sachs. What, now you're baulking at the provision of due evidence? Drowning, as I said.
There are no new or recent "triggers" as per you imbecilic theory. You always agreed with Sachs, ignoring his trolling. You always posted in tandem with Sachs. I already disagreed with you & called you repetitious BEFORE you flipped your position and "agreed" with Sachs. You just repeated repetitious back to me (oh, the irony) and later reached back and "found" Sachs post 10 Jul 18 in with Sachs falsely citing repetition, so YOU "recycled" Sachs word YET AGAIN. O'Brien thread is a perfect, legit example of that repetition and self contradiction with no disagreement re estimate in place. That's your problem with that example.
You did jump in, already addressed. Are you claiming you haven't jumped in before re disagreements between posters to either take a side or play conduct policeman or ridiculously answer on someone's behalf? Absolute BS. LOL.
Never said or implied it's my site. I certainly haven't told Rob he must change this or that listing as you have done. Rich. And no, other people don't "surely" repeat themselves as frequently as you do. No contradiction on MT thread. On 18 Feb I said in & around that time posts appeared to be delayed, not ALL posts ALL the time, OBVIOUSLY. I PREFACED same to anyone bothered to read my replies to your BS so that the chronology of my responses were understood and that I certainly wasn't posting back to back as you OFTEN do. A short, apt preface, the rest of the post addressed to YOU. Otherwise, as per yet another of your deluded theories, I would've kept you in the 3rd person, appealing to my "audience". LOL. You sound paranoid.
This GF thread clearly indicates posts weren't delayed around 8,9,10 Feb. On both GF and MT threads, I posted 9 Feb replies to 8 Feb posts (NOT yours). You posted here 10 Feb in ref. to my 9 Feb post. You also posted to MT thread same day, 10 Feb, following my 9 Feb post on that thread. I saw my post appear alone on MT thread, normal submission to post turn around, no delays, which is the case more often than not. So, basically, you're full of sh1te.
Also, here you say you will refrain from insults but same day post on MT thread you stated "making an a$$ out of yourself" and “stupid” and then "tweeted" another BS post on top. LOL, you're collapsing in failed refutes, self -contradictions and overt hypocrisy. I'm not wrong as I have indicated and it's obvious that you're the ONLY A$$ clown here who has been soundly refuted and refuses to acknowledge it.
Precluding more BS responses, Moving on again.....returning to normal programming.

Tall In The Saddle said on 24/Feb/20
@Canson
You continue to make a FOOL of yourself. You keep giving yourself more than enough rope after your own self proclamations that you were DONE.
Another DAILY DOUBLE posting effort for 23 Feb 2020 from YOU. Obsessive, repetitive, self contradicting and, overall, weird. No, I don't do that. Own it. Don't project it.
Canson said "I’m accusing you of it because you accused me of it". EXACTLY. That admission perfectly illustrates your own childishness you falsely try to project onto me. LOL. As I said, you adopt a puerile "No, that's what you are" line without any of the same facts that back me up.
You really are posting like a drowning man. Bazza? You're comparing Bazza to Sachs? Like I said, you're a dolt. Bazza has posted a handful of times on this thread. Bazza agreed ONCE with me and I replied to Bazza ONCE. Nothing like the Canson and Sachs routine. And guess what? Your old mate Sachs (conspicuous by his ABSENCE) TROLLED Bazza also and TROLLED another poster Allen Bowers in the same time frame.
Let's see, you said on the Tyson thread that Sachs did cite repetition on 10 July 2018. Well, I was obviously referring to Sachs most recent post, the post YOU were OBVIOUSLY referencing and later agreeing to, not the post dated 10 Jul 2018. Let's GO to that 10 Jul 2018 post anyway. Surprise, surprise, Sachs made THREE separate posts on the SAME DAY, while YOU managed TWO on that SAME DAY. Insane.
1st post for me was May18 and JUST SEVEN POSTS in Sachs is stating that I am repeating the same wrong dumb information and that he will IGNORE me. Of course you CAN'T agree with that statement, it was false, and PURE TROLLING by Sachs. He was referring to my conclusion, NOT my content otherwise. And what's more, Sachs was also trying to TROLL Jordan87 and confused comments made by Jordan87 with my own in the ONE POST. Sachs was also trying to have a shot at another poster McMurphy at that time. And with all that, Sachs didn't ignore me as he proclaimed. Just as you are never DONE when you have claimed you were done multiple times. The similarities are astounding.
Also, I CLEARLY didn't say you posted on every thread. It was clear I was referring to the threads you invest yourself in, and yes, on those threads you need to keep your opinion atop, posting over every alternative opinion, even posting just to repeat your height estimate and nothing more with NO new rationale to provide. See my 1st post here, 8 May 2018, on the SAME DAY you did exactly that, repeat your est. stats for GF. Prior to that, you had already posted in Jan18 that GF was 6'3" as listed and my post was the only post SINCE THAT TIME that contended otherwise. Similar to the Tyson thread when you just re-posted "listing is good" because I guess you figured I might've contended otherwise since your last recent affirmation of Tyson's height. If you weren't expressly going over the top of my post or replying to it as you claim you weren't doing then you were just REPEATING yourself stone cold for no reason. Like I said, I've got you pegged and NO I don't do same.
You CLEARLY don't read or choose to ignore that which proves you are wrong. YES, you are WRONG on every count.
Summation. I posted my initial opinion May18. I wasn't aware of the preceding posting history at that time. You immediately posted your contrary opinion same day, expressed as a mere repetition of stats. Did I present as having an issue with that? No. Any one can see that. I engaged & discussed. Sachs came in and presented as an offensive TROLL. He did same to anyone expressing an alternative opinion on this thread AS I HAVE CLEARLY ILLUSTRATED. He has done same to other posters on other threads due to mere alternative opinion. I dealt with Sachs, no prob. Your "defence" was signatured by it's needless dignifying of the comments of an obvious TROLL poster. Leave it alone and Sach's comments are appropriately responded to by the person he is tyring to malign or they blow away in the wind.
So we proceeded. Same repetition from you & Sachs, in tandem. Same multi day posting. In some instances, even the same photos linked. Sachs always TROLLING and disagreeing with every other new poster who held a diff. of opinion with you agreeing with Sachs. Later, I looked back and saw that the same posting conduct by Sachs preceded my 1st post and the same Canson & Sachs tag team efforts already in play. Does the name Reece ring a bell?
Of course I've no regard for Sachs. No one does BUT you. I've said before which you ignore, you must also agree that all the posters that Sachs has labelled as liars, trolls, idiots, down-graders, need glasses etc. are exactly as Sachs states. And LOL,the last two apparently apply to YOU since Sachs, the reliable source ONLY you imply him to be, claimed it to be so. BTW, I've read you assign what you believe to be "agendas" to a number of posters, applying labels like "inflators" etc. in lieu of accepting their estimates on face value because they don't suit you. Make such claims BUT playing it sensitive as you are now is hypocritical.
Your disagreeing re GF height, which preceded me and was made clear upon My DAY 1 on this thread, was not an issue. Your obsessive, tedious, repetitive posts & self contradictions are. Same tiresome posting conduct on the O'Brien thread, to name one, a thread in which I agreed with your estimate. Guilty conscience? Now that is comical and sad to even suggest that.
Moving on, yet again....

Canson said on 23/Feb/20
On the Tyson thread, you randomly posted "listing is good" after recently posting "I agree with this estimate" with no one contesting otherwise in between. So, I see why you're taking a false and self contradicting line of accusing someone else of replying to themselves because that's EXACTLY what you did on the Tyson thread.

I’m accusing you of it because you accused me of it. Speaking of being a dolt, I’m showing you why you’re hypocritical because you do the same.

Canson said on 23/Feb/20
As I said, pointless, tedious repetition to keep yourself and your opinion atop the thread.

And that is exactly why I call you childish and you’re the clown that you’re accusing me of being. All because I agree with Harry Sachs and not you? And That’s making false accusations just to knitpick. You started an argument that you won’t admit that you started is what the problem is so you cling onto that. I don’t do that Tall In the Saddle. If that were the case I would have my name at the top of every page which Is impossible because I don’t comment on every page. So don’t make false accusations. So speaking of “Idiot” that takes the case accusing someone of that. And again, I will bet money that none of this would have been an issue had I agreed with you on your assessment of GF. Hence certain words being negative such as your quote on So look below at where this started to turn sour. I’m done arguing about it but I want you to see what you did

Here is me defending you

Canson said on 30/Jan/20
@Harry Sachs: to be fair he is entitled to his opinion as it is a free site and as we are our opinions.

Here is your response back to me which I actually found insulting.

Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Feb/20
I typed a reply before but it didn't appear.

Here goes again:-

@Canson

Re-read your entire post to me and see how that sounds to someone Tall in the Saddle. Unprovoked. So here is where this turned sour after we had no issues before that and it is also where you began “picking and prying” and knitpicking about stuff that I do as a poster where you have been interacting with me for quite some time and never said a word about it before that. And re: Tyson I wasn’t replying to you. You probably assumed that because of our interaction here is what it was. And that is something you started so that’s probably a guilty conscience on your part. And The reason I keep calling you childish is because You’re complaining about something like that (something that does not affect you and that is out of your control) is childish. And you essentially summed it up in your post back to me that it’s because I agreed with Harry Sachs. Yet you sure as hell won’t say the same with Bazza agreeing with you and I don’t say anything about him agreeing with you either. Yet you took exception to Harry Sachs and I agreeing which to me is the root cause of your issue because you didn’t like him as a poster

Tall In The Saddle said on 18/Feb/20
@Canson

Basically, you're a hypocritical dolt with clear double standards.
These are the FACTS laid out succinctly.
3 separate posts 13 Feb 2020 ALL CANSON without a response appearing from me. Replying to yourself as per your own standard. AFTER THE FACT, in all hypocrisy, you claimed I did what you were already guilty of doing.
Here's the chronology. ONLY two of the above CANSON posts 13 Feb 2020 appeared to me when I posted my response 14 Feb 2020. I then responded to the CLICK HERE post of 14 Feb 2020 on 16 Feb 2020. The 3rd post of 13 Feb 2020 I either oversighted or it appeared later, as has happened before on this site. Either way, I then responded to that post, THUS my 2 posts 16 Feb 2020 both in obvious reply to YOU, not myself. Also, YOU made 3 same day posts in the first instance WITHOUT a response appearing from me so I wouldn't complain if responses are broken up since YOU chose to break up your orig. same day posts in the first place as you OFTEN do. Idiot.
On the Tyson thread, you randomly posted "listing is good" after recently posting "I agree with this estimate" with no one contesting otherwise in between. So, I see why you're taking a false and self contradicting line of accusing someone else of replying to themselves because that's EXACTLY what you did on the Tyson thread. As I said, pointless, tedious repetition to keep yourself and your opinion atop the thread.
You continue to dig your self contradicting hole even further by posting another TRIPLE UP on 16 Feb 2020, adding 2 more posts to your orig. post on the same day without a post appearing from me since your first post on 16 Feb 2020 in which you grandiosely proclaimed you were done. You really sounding more than stupid by now.
Sachs.Keep bringing him up like his opinion matters. It doesn't. Obviously. A false alignment. Stand on your own two feet. Your defence was not required or asked for. It only served to dignify an OBVIOUS Troll. If inclined to defend, WHY NOT also address Sachs blatant troll conduct, he has unjustly labelled numerous other posters as trolls, liars, idiots, morons, kid, casual fan etc merely due to a diff. of opinion. Jordan87 and Reece to name two being among the recipients of same. So you're trying to call in the support of an obvious TROLL whose own neg. conduct you curiously ignore. You are defined by the company you choose to keep, viz Sachs, and that company you clearly keep ALONE.
I already stated that aside from 6'3", Sachs workings don't agree with you otherwise but you repeat back that Sachs doesn't always agree with you. Sheesh. At the very least Sachs presents as a convenient as and when albeit useless side kick you try play off as legit support. Random disagreements don't preclude a number of possibilities.
Even before I posted on this thread, you and Sachs played co-respondents to other posters, including the aforementioned Reece. Nothing changed since. Sachs hasn't flamed you the way he has tried to flame others,keep ignoring that flaming, it speaks volumes.
Of course no issue that you have GF 6'3". You already repeated your opinion a number of times well before my first post May18 and have been doing same ever since in tandem with Sachs the Troll. In fact, my very FIRST post didn't see the day out before you flatly posted GF as 6'3" yet again. Insane, obsessive compulsive posting and yes,the need to put your ad nauseum opinion atop the thread. So your little theory is blown, you have disagreed literally since DAY ONE, not just recently. It's your tedious, OTT frequency, repetition and contrary back tracking that's painful.
Backtracking like, sometimes GF or LH can appear the taller and later, GF never appeared taller to suit your conclusion. Blatant.
To further blow your little theory, I agreed with you on the O'Brien estimate and for the most part, the rationale behind it. However, it seriously became boring posting on it, not the least due to your posting the same stuff over and over and constantly trying to override or dismiss alternative contributions. A real bore. So I receded somewhat. I later made a post to highlight the angle advantage to the guest to bring objective balance to the discussion whilst maintaining my estimate. A follow up poster agreed re the angle. Then you flatly posted shortly after that there was no advantage to the guest, obviously because it didn't suit your conclusion. Of course, you were wrong and you recently invoked the angle for a different argument. Hypocrite. And seriously, how many posts have you made to just the O'Brien thread alone? Crazy.
As to Rob's opinion. Spare me the constant back tracking. You don't agree with all Rob's estimates, O'Brien being just one example. You selectively called Rob's opinion in. Don't try and flip it. It's the card YOU tried to play, not me, and I called you on it. Clearly not talking to myself, rather, I was addressing YOUR post.
So clearly no issue with honest diff. of opinion and I clearly don't obsessively post, repeat myself to the word for no reason or backtrack and contradict myself as you have done and continue to do. You were "done",but you weren't. You made 3 consecutive posts 13 Feb 2020 but later claim I talk to myself?? and then you follow that with 6 more consecutive same day posts (5 after you were "done") "harping" and "moaning" (replete with signature repetition), across 2 threads and tack on a side note whinge moan post (more repetition) on yet another thread. You're a clown. Now you're done.

Canson said on 16/Feb/20
Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Feb/20
I typed a reply before but it didn't appear.

Answer this. Who ELSE, besides Sachs, proclaims to ignore (then fails to do so) and instruct anyone else to ignore other posters as Sachs has often done and often putting that instruction specifically to YOU? Who posts in such tight chronology with YOU? Sachs posts infrequently and it is uniformly to flame it up. The breadth of his address re height is NARROW but whenever I see either of your names, particularly on this thread, then there's a good chance the other is likely to follow shortly thereafter. What's up with that?
Read more carefully. BUT for the ultimate conclusion of 6'3" for GF that you agree on, Sachs IN FACT does not agree with you otherwise.

So before I address this, you obviously don’t realize that I was defending you to Sachs saying you’re entitled to your own opinion. I didn’t agree with what he said to you (at the time at least) but now I think otherwise and it appears he was right. But I bet had I thought GF were 6’3.5 and “repeated myself” or “tried to have my post at the top of the page” wouldn’t be a subject that ever came out of your mouth. You and I both know that. So quit fooling yourself into believing it because it all changed recently.

And let’s address another part of your post. Amidst your other childness on this page that commenced in February, Are you now accusing Sachs and I of being the same person? It appears that you may be or that we react to one another. Neither of those comments would have come out of your mouth to me if I had agreed with you or if Sachs hadn’t said that to you. If you are questioning any of that, you are free to bring your concerns about us allegedly being the same person to Rob so that he can answer for you thoroughly.By the way Sachs and I have disagreed before on Letterman’s page so it’s mighty clear that we aren’t the same person. I’ve also never had a disagreement with Jordan87 since I’ve been here or (at least until now) you. So It seems that you have a problem with us agreeing on him being 6’3” here. Yea I did say that either Holmes or Foreman could look taller depending on the picture but I came to the conclusion that they are likely about the same height. I don’t have a problem with you thinking he’s 6’3.5” but it appears that since I’m not saying or believing it myself that it’s an issue to you. You need to grow up and practice what you preach when you said everyone is entitled to their opinion since you’re coming at me about it

Canson said on 16/Feb/20
Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Feb/20
Oops, how did I miss this gem.

This post only just appeared to me

Canson said on 13/Feb/20
He did not have one inch on Ali. It’s pretty evident when Rob himself said it

Rob stated that? When, where? Please illuminate. So, by your own reckoning, it must be "pretty evident" that Conan is 6'4" since Rob lists and maintains him as such. Am I right, or is that reasoning only selectively applied when you happen to agree with Rob? Never mind, rhetorical question.

You must really enjoying talking to yourself because you just responded to yourself with two separate posts today alone before you even saw a response from me. You admitted that you didn’t see one to you 14 Feb post. But It’s obvious that you are a hypocrite and you clearly either want your name at the top of the page or that you just want attention here. So I’ll let you continue to carry on because it’s actually pretty comical and sad at the same time watching you make a fool of yourself. Funny thing is I defended you with Harry Sachs but that’s a huge mistake because it’s looking more and more like what he said was right. And as far as Rob estimating him and estimating Conan, if you look carefully Rob estimated Conan at a certain height based on contemporaries or if he had someone over listed or under listed. Ok you may pull that card if you’d like but I’m going off the combination of how Rob lists them along with Foreman’s listing In boxing which was 6’3” for most of his career. Many boxers were over listed. Tyson was listed 5’11 at one point and Holyfield 6’2”. Does it mean they were that tall? No it doesn’t. And again, you didn’t start beating the dead horse and making false and baseless accusations about me until recently within the last week. And that happened after I disagreed with you about Foreman’s height. None of this was ever a subject before. So we can tell what the real issue is. You have to revert to being childish when someone doesn’t agree with you.

Canson said on 16/Feb/20
@Tall in the Saddle: I did respond but unfortunately it didn’t go through. I’ll just leave it at that since you appear to be acting childish now. Having my response At the top of the page? How silly does that sound? You’re the one doing that being you responded back to your own post? Anyway have a great time posting because I’m done dealing with you

Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Feb/20
Oops, how did I miss this gem.

This post only just appeared to me

Canson said on 13/Feb/20
He did not have one inch on Ali. It’s pretty evident when Rob himself said it

Rob stated that? When, where? Please illuminate. So, by your own reckoning, it must be "pretty evident" that Conan is 6'4" since Rob lists and maintains him as such. Am I right, or is that reasoning only selectively applied when you happen to agree with Rob? Never mind, rhetorical question.

Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Feb/20
No specific response to points made, as I guessed and as is always the case. Just the obvious effort to get the name to the top of another thread for its own sake. LOL.

Okay, I'll play the dummy and click the Click Here.

Wow, an unqualified linked 1989 pic of an older GF, older Ali and older Joe. And with GF clearly not straight and leaning in as GF was prone to do, the purpose of this inadequate photo is? Looks familiar. I recall something similar posted by you know who a while back. Similar to the double up offering of the GF Bowe pic from two different monikers. I'll tell you, it does make one think, doesn't it? Ultimately, nothing new.

Okay, I'll meet that pic and raise you this pic from the same event. Click Here
Well, GF straightened up a bit does make the difference doesn't it? I know, it's probably the angle or done with mirrors etc., right?

Canson said on 14/Feb/20
Click Here

Tall In The Saddle said on 14/Feb/20
@Canson

C'mon. Be straight. No bait and switch. Track it back.

My post 9 Feb 2020 CLEARLY was not addressing your opinion.

Your following post 10 Feb 2020 HOWEVER did address the opinions I expressed in my prior post of 9 Feb 2020. My post 12 Feb 2020 was then in obvious response to your prior post 10 Feb 2020 in which you chose to inject yourself. I read your prior claims which I did not originally address and naturally called those in also into my response.

Read my posts anywhere on this site. I am up for healthy even handed discussion and have NO issue with different opinions, which I have literally stated before. I have had no issues with any poster bar ONE and that poster has created issues with numerous people. However, I will address contradictions and inconsistencies in approach and methodology as I see them and I will also highlight when relevant counter points are ignored. Nothing wrong with that at all and that is ACTUALLY what you're baulking at.

You have thrown out the possibility of Norton and Ali being less numerous times which I have addressed before and yes, I see that as a means to fit GF into 6'3".

I posed the question before, why muse over Norton and Ali being even less than their already reduced heights (reduced as compared to their orig. 6'3" claims) and not consider same for GF or (a new one) even Holmes for that matter? You've also varied the terms on your opinion OR are you saying you never said possibly .75" in GF's favour over Ali or that GF sometimes appeared to have the edge on Holmes? Now the position is that GF never appeared taller than Holmes and GF's advantage over Ali was no more than .5" Anyway, that doesn't matter. You didn't answer that before and won't answer it now.

I addressed Ali's claim that GF was 6'2.5" and put in its proper context so it isn't falsely manipulated to serve a conclusion. I also added several more ref. points as to why I think GF was 6'3.5" but again, not addressed. All fair and reasonable cross referencing.

Don't twist. I OBVIOUSLY said tedious because you don't address what's put back to you, rather, you repeat the same incoming points over and over that have already been addressed which then have to be re-addressed.

I did say have 6'3", literally no problem, I've got 6'3.5".

Then you post AGAIN, playing yourself as falsely aggrieved but you still didn't address any specifics from even my last post and now I see it's back to posting another pic of GF and Bowe again.

As to "helping my cause". What cause is that? There is no cause and nothing to defend. I don't have issues with other posters at all. You brought up Sachs, I didn't. Why would you? So my ref. to Sachs NOW is in reply to your own ref. to him. Sachs labels everyone as TROLLS and tries to insult them (do you want to acknowledge that OR pretend you're not aware of his general conduct and attempts to flame a number of posters?). He does this because he is the TROLL and as I have said before, you're the only one that gives him the time of day and dignifies anything he has to say. Sachs also jumps on any post that expresses an alternative opinion.

The moniker Sachs is easy to deal with but often he presents as your alter ego and literally when responding to or discussing a point with ONE, somehow you get the OTHER chiming in. It hasn't occurred just with me. What's up with that then, eh? Right now, Sachs isn't even on the radar yet you had to reference him? Interesting. Let's see if my profiling isn't prophetic.

As to dealing with alternative opinions, again be straight. I deal with them fine, how about you?

I recently posted to the Mike Tyson thread, sidelining on boxing talk, not Mike's height. I went back in to check and saw that you had since posted that the 5'10" "listing is good" yet again. Ages ago I posted my opinion that Tyson was 5'10" or even perhaps a touch under and we exchanged some posts on that. I moved on. Anything I've added to that thread has been different stuff.

You've been posting the SAME thing over and over again on the Tyson thread. Especially after any "alternative" opinion is given, you're over the top of it regurgitating the same stuff to ensure your "opinion" is up top, front and centre again. LOL.

I clearly did wrap this up in my last post but it's obvious that you keep needing to post the same thing again so obviously you're not coping with alternative opinions even when they are well rationalised with all your own points addressed.

I recently addressed the proffered Bowe GF pic again and rationalised my case. As I said, that's what is tedious. I will say that you often don't agree with the majority re certain obvious height differences in single shot photos or vision WHEN it doesn't fit into your overall conclusion. Comparing the vision of Bowe and GF to GF and Ali in Zaire, I think it inconsistent that the same person can see at least 1.5" adv. to Bowe over older GF in a photo (which I disagree with) but then can only see .5" to GF over Ali in the contemporaneous and perfect live vision example of an actual peak GF facing up to peak Ali in Zaire.

Anyway, like I said again, agree to disagree on GF's height, not a problem. I've got 6'3.5". Move on.

Canson said on 13/Feb/20
Foreman with Riddick Bowe. next to Foreman that’s too much height for Foreman to be 6’3.5”. Foreman was as tall as Larry Holmes

Click Here

Canson said on 13/Feb/20
@Tall in the Saddle: I don’t get who you are directing your comment toward. That’s my opinion on his height just as yours is 6’3.5” and I threw out the possibility of Norton and Ali being less even though it doesn’t mean they are. But it’s no different than your argument you are making as that is your opinion. You say “tedious” because I’m not agreeing with you is what it is. I don’t agree with Harry Sachs about what he said about you but comments like that sure don’t help your cause

Canson said on 13/Feb/20
He did not have one inch on Ali. It’s pretty evident when Rob himself said it

Tall In The Saddle said on 12/Feb/20
Really, again? Okay, one more time.

GF had a clear 1" on Ali in the Zaire face off. Perfectly square POV, equal footwear. You're the ONLY person I've read or heard who claims not to see the obvious diff. in the Zaire face off. The diff. in height is also clear throughout the fight if one actually watches it. It's obvious you will only see .5" diff. in order to limit GF to 6'3" vs Ali's 6'2.5".

Ignoring the true diff. in height and jigging the figures otherwise isn't going to change it.

I have to note again that you have even entertained Ali to be as low as 6'2.25" while at the same time allowing GF up to .75" height adv. Obviously again, that adds to a convenient 6'3" for GF. Norton then presents a problem fitting into the modified equation so you mused a downgrade for Norton also to 6'2.5". Everyone's getting shrunk lest the numbers dictate that GF was over 6'3".

As to common sense, well yeah, please do. Firstly, don't take Ali's comment out of it's orig. context and of course Ali's word doesn't constitute itself as evidence at any rate. Ali said everyone talks like GF's a giant. Relative to his era, GF was among the biggest men and he was clearly taller and bigger than Ali. So, Ali was simply trying to talk down the size difference, not just in terms of height but weight also. GF in perfect shape at 217? GF was in perfect rock solid shape weighing 224 3/4 lbs in his prior defence against Norton.

In 1967, Dundee claimed 6'4" for the 25 yo Ali and added he was still growing. Would you take Dundee's word as gospel or perhaps more reasonably understand the context that it was in relation to? That context being Ali's upcoming fight vs 6'6" Terrell with Dundee falsely talking his own man up to water down the actual height pull?

No one suggested GF "grew" in the 90s. No point musing over that. Pure misdirection.

But it begs recap of the ignored fact that GF was listed and described as both 6'4" and 6'3.5" before winning the title and listed as 6'3.5" after losing the title. So GF didn't just pluck 6'4" completely out of the air in the 90s as implied. Notwithstanding GF's listed 6'3" as champion, many boxing publications deemed him to be 6'4" given his obvious height adv. over Ali who himself was believed to be a full 6'3".

As to purported shoe height, NBA players are known for measuring in shoes, that doesn't necessarily apply to all other athletes but you're free to assume it if it suits.

As to assumptions, your attempt to rationalise away GF's 6'4" and 6'3.5" listings and firm on the 6'3" listing as a barefoot low is an incredibly convenient and long reach. You do understand that you're stating that the figures represent respectively, GF in shoes at lunch time, GF barefoot in the morning and finally GF barefoot late in the day for a perfect low. Very affording of GF to provide his height both shoed and de-shoed and across various times of the day. I very much doubt it.

It's far more reasonable to assume that GF was near enough to 6'3.5" as per multiple comparisons, sometimes listed as so and sometimes rounded up to 6'4" and down to the generically favoured 6'3" of the 70s. During his comeback, GF simply opted for the best peak rounding. If you're informed about HW boxing in the 70s, you should understand that an impossible number of HWs were listed as a perfect 6'3" but face to face they were clearly not all the same height.

As to a legitimate .5" height diff., it only presents as a slight edge and clearly was NOT the obvious 1" adv. GF actually held over Ali. .5" is so slight an edge that if the .5" taller man's posture was slightly imperfect he could well appear equal to or even slightly shorter than his shorter counterpart. For true .5" height difference, look to 6'2.5" Ali as compared to Jim Brown and Don King, both men 6'2" a piece.

Also, look to how GF himself compared to Brown and King, and common opponents Chuvalo, Frazier and Norton, with GF looking that much taller again than Ali did as compared to them. Easy 1" taller.

Anyway, same old stuff over and over. All the same incoming points I've previously addressed and answered. All valid outgoing counter points still being side stepped. Tedious. Have 6'3", no problem. I'll keep a well reasoned 6'3.5".

Canson said on 10/Feb/20
First and foremost he didn’t have an inch on Foreman. That was half inch difference which is why Ali assumes they are the same height. Rob mentioned it that it’s half inch difference. Common sense. 1991 he said 6’3 when he was in his early 40s already then claims 6’4 at 50. Did he grow in his 40s somehow? No I doubt it. Shoes maybe? Possible or could be that he measured early morning and got 6’3.5? Maybe as well. CH isn’t based on either though so he’s 6’3. We could possibly argue 6’3 1/8 Afternoon so 6’3.25 lunchtime but no higher. I only throw the 1/8 out because he’s not noticeably over 6’3 so that’s the extent of it

Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Feb/20
Another waist up photo offered to us. This time a 43 yo Briggs vs 29 yo Marrone and yet another pointless ad nauseum ref. to a 6'3" listing for GF.

Great. Wonderful.

And what is the point of these offerings using older versions of GF and Briggs? To prove that GF was 6'3" flat? LOL! More like building the case for the argument that GF was over 6'3".

Whose line is it anyway?

Recap. First we get the 26 yo Briggs vs a 48 yo GF pic and GF appears equal in height. Wow. Then we get the pic of 43 yo Briggs vs 191 cm listed 29 yo Marrone and Briggs appears clearly taller. Double wow.

Don't be mis-informed. Let's repeat again, GF was variously listed and described as both 6'3.5" and 6'4" on his way to the Title. They settled on rubber stamping GF as 6'3" for a time when GF won the Title but GF was also again listed as 6'3.5" vs Lyle in 1976. Clearly, GF wasn't ONLY listed as above 6'3" in his comeback as repeatedly and falsely claimed.

Ali was listed as 6'3" 99.9% of the time, far more often than GF. Did that make Ali a lock 6'3" even though he was clearly 1" shorter than GF? Talk about cherry picked and inconsistently applied methodology. It's all been soundly refuted before.

Denial is pitching the same stuff over and over again and ignoring all previous logical refutations.

Knocked out of the park again.

Canson said on 9/Feb/20
@Harry Sachs: him claiming 6’4 is no different than other athletes being most claim in shoe heights as opposed to barefoot. Now that said GF if measured Earlier in the day could get 6’3.5 peak but 1 hour out of bed probably best case. It’s also possible he would only get 6’3 3/8 after the first hour

Bazza said on 9/Feb/20
Lol at you Harry for not reading my post right. You was saying he was listed during fights in the 70's as 6'3 well i was pointing out in the 90's he was listed on screen 6'4 so basically this means and proves nothing.

Now repeat that back to me 'kid' i want to make sure you understand.

Harry Sachs said on 8/Feb/20
Lol @Bazza when Foreman came back in the late 80's he was still listed at 6'3. So because he inflated his height back in the early to mid 90's it means he is 6'4? Most boxers lie about their height. Shannon Briggs claims to be 6'4 here is him with the listed 6'3 Click Here

Here is Foreman vs Steve Zouski when he first came back. He was listed at 6'3 244. Click Here I feel sorry for people like you kid. Even when proven wrong you still will deny the truth. Foreman only claimed to be 6'4 in the early 90's to inflate his own height.

Tall In The Saddle said on 8/Feb/20
@Bazza, we agree on 6'3.5" for GF with similar reasoning including GF's relative adv. over both Ali and Norton.

My opinion is thoroughly rationalised, as well as addressing all counters including the single pic Bowe comparison. See previous post.

A number of HWs in the 70s were rubber stamped as 6'3" even though they were clearly not all the same height, some more, some less, some on the mark. GF was variously listed and described as 6'4" and 6'3.5" all the way to the title and he was also listed as 6'3.5" for his post title fight vs Lyle in 1975. He was taller than Ali and Norton by margins which reasonably reconcile him to 6'3.5".

No points have been addressed from my previous post and nothing new in counter except a repeat on the already addressed Bowe comparison which doesn't hold.

So it remains, GF 6'3.5".

Nik Ashton said on 8/Feb/20
People should remember their past claims! Anyways I’m chuffed to offer this gentleman his 270th comment!

Canson said on 7/Feb/20
Foreman if he did measure 192 was in the morning. He was max 190.5-191 range afternoon which is evident next to Riddick Bowe

Bazza said on 7/Feb/20
@harrysachs - Foreman was listed at times 6'3 in the 70's perhaps because inflating height or rounding up was not such a big thing back then. I think Foreman was 192 in his championship days so every chance it was just rounded down to 6'3.

Jeez check out the 90s george on youtube who is listed several times before the fights as 6'4 even though he has certainly lost height by that time.

Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Feb/20
I typed a reply before but it didn't appear.

Here goes again:-

@Canson

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. It goes without saying. Anyone who doesn't accept or understand that and needs to be advised of same has no business posting here. Sheesh.
It's your prerogative to ref. and agree with Sachs but it's a fact that you are the ONLY poster to pay any heed to his opinion simply because he agrees with you. Whoever is behind the Sachs moniker is an unequivocal TROLL. His posting conduct is a joke. I am not the only poster he has tried it on with. There is a long list of others which you would be aware of. Not the least being Jordan87. Jordan87 and I don't always agree but the exchanges are always respectful and Jordan actually rationalises himself.
Answer this. Who ELSE, besides Sachs, proclaims to ignore (then fails to do so) and instruct anyone else to ignore other posters as Sachs has often done and often putting that instruction specifically to YOU? Who posts in such tight chronology with YOU? Sachs posts infrequently and it is uniformly to flame it up. The breadth of his address re height is NARROW but whenever I see either of your names, particularly on this thread, then there's a good chance the other is likely to follow shortly thereafter. What's up with that?
Read more carefully. BUT for the ultimate conclusion of 6'3" for GF that you agree on, Sachs IN FACT does not agree with you otherwise.
I provided a QUOTE no less indicating that Sachs observed a CLEAR 1" height adv. to GF vs Ali. Sachs also stated in his last post that Ali was 6'2.5". Sachs has also stated previously that GF appeared taller than Conan (I agree) and asked YOU if GF might in fact be 6'3.5". All this you disagree with YET somehow Sachs arrives at 6'3" like you. Obviously by way of contrary and flawed methodology. Boy, if Sachs agreed with me on anything I would thoroughly re-check myself and certainly wouldn't call in his opinion as any sort of support at any rate. LOL.
Apparently Norton stated in his book an exact 6'2.75". You do know Norton joined the Marines in 1963 so he was 19 or just 20, right? If we guess he was measured upon enlistment a further .25" growth is hardly out of the question at that age. Why not also muse on when that measurement was actually made in terms of Norton's age?
Height loss during the day is real but the question of same is open to cherry picking to make the numbers fit which I read often. Why entertain a further decrease of .25" for both Ali and Norton but not Foreman? I've asked that before but am still awaiting an answer.

I highlighted the perfect GF Ali pre fight faceoff in Zaire and the fight in general to support the 1" height pull in GF's favour and many agree, including the QUOTED Sachs as above. You previously said you saw almost no difference and perhaps only .5" at most. That's interesting given that you conversely can somehow see a min. 1.5" adv. to Bowe vs GF. I don't see that advantage and here's another shot from the same event Click Here. Additionally, do we entertain 44 yo GF having lost a touch of height vs 26 yo Bowe?

Norton edged Ali but not by the margin seen outside the ring since Norton always wore huge heels. I have exemplified this before. A number of the pics offered, particularly useless waist up shots, are woefully inadequate with more affording video being ignored. Norton and Ali weighed in on Carson both wearing sandals, Norton had the edge but not by much. The most recent pic of GF and Norton posted came from their presser for their fight. Click Here. Now here's the vision of the same event. Go to 1:22 for Norton and GF at the podium, Norton obviously wasn't taller than GF let alone that much taller as it appears, Kenny is clearly rocking some major heel. Want to see that heel again? Here's a promo pic of Norton chasing Ali with serious cowboy boot heel. Click Here
As to GF and Holmes you have previously stated depending on the pic, either one appeared to have the edge on the other. Now it's GF never appeared taller. Okay then.
Then there's the useless waist up pic of GF with Briggs put up by Sachs. Wow, GF appears equal in height but then Sachs states Briggs wasn't 6'4" and also mused that GF might've had adv. in footwear. Seriously? He linked the pic himself and didn't even offer what height he believed Briggs to be while trying to talk down GF appearing equal in height. All listings of Briggs suggest 6'4" but I would say more realistically between 6'3.5" to 6'4".
Really, enough said. My position is thorough and well rationalised and numerous points made and not addressed. This boils down to those who simply can't deal with a difference of opinion.
Now let me guess, a post from resident TROLL Sachs to follow with no meat yet again? LOL!

Canson said on 30/Jan/20
Foreman was also clearly shorter than 6’4 listed Joe Bugner.

Canson said on 30/Jan/20
@Harry Sachs: to be fair he is entitled to his opinion as it is a free site and as we are our opinions. You and I certainly don’t think Foreman was 6’3.5. He was 6’3” as Rob lists him. I don’t rule out something like 6’3 1/8” but no higher than that. And I’ve mentioned multiple times that Foreman was no taller than Larry Holmes whom Rob has met. You mentioned Norton and Ali which is also correct. I could see a guy like Ken Norton Sr 6’2 5/8 or 6’2.75 and Ali as 6’2.25-.5 range. I mentioned the lower ends because I base my estimates off afternoon heights or at very most lunchtime (1/8” higher than afternoon). And there is no telling when these guys measured. But he’s entitled to believe that Foreman is 6’3.5 if he likes. To his credit GF did claim 6’4 while I do believe that’s his height in shoes. But I’m sure on Occasion I have had times when my estimate was lower than or higher than the popular vote but I stuck to it and that’s all Tall in the Saddle is doing. I don’t agree with his opinion here but I do agree with some of the others he has such as Conan O’Brien and a few others he’s commented on. But it’s no different than other posters. There is also Pierre on Fury’s page pushing that Fury is 6’6 or even less which is impossible. Fury is 6’7ish as we all know. 6’7.5 no chance but 6’7 or a hair under the mark is as Magic had footwear advantage on him. I only even entertain the “under the mark” because of the pics with Deontay Wilder and Magic who is not as high as 6’7.5” at least not today. People here on Celebheights have met Magic and so did a colleague of mine who is good with estimating height and they all guessed Magic around 6’7”. That could mean 6’7.25” of course. Magic didn’t have but about 2cm in the pic where both guys stood side by side and that’s with footwear advantage. Fury also was only marginally taller than Wilder. If Wilder is 6’6 range Fury is not that much taller. Wilder didn’t look quite as tall as Carmelo Anthony who in person was at most his listing here if not just a plain 6’6” but the pic appeared to favor Carmelo. By the way I also posted the pic of Bowe and Foreman and yes that’s minimum a 1.5” difference.

Harry Sachs said on 25/Jan/20
@Canson could you just please stop typing to @Tall in the Saddle? If people stop responding to it, he will go away. He needs this attention. You always find people like him online. They can't get attention in the real world so they try to get it online.

You know Ali himself stated himself to be 6'2 1/2. You know Ali was shorter than the 6'2 3/4 inch Ken Norton. You know that Foreman was always listed at 6'3 during his prime. I put up tons of links showing this. You know Foreman was listed at 6'3 when he first came back. I put up pictures of Foreman standing next to Riddick Bowe and Foreman is clearly shorter by more than 1 inch.

You also now boxers constantly embellish their heights. Andy Ruiz claims to be 6'2 when he is more around 6'0 or shorter. Tyson Fury claims to be 6'9 when he was listed at 6'7 earlier on in his career. If somebody wants to believe Tyson Fury is 6'9 then let them. If a person wants to believe Ruiz is 6'2 let them. If somebody wants to believe Foreman is 6'4 then let them.

But please stop feeding these trolls. I makes viewing this site far more frustrating than it should be.

Harry Sachs said on 25/Jan/20
@Bazza Here is a picture of Foreman and Norton. Foreman at best is only slightly taller than the 100 percent factual 6'2 3/4 inch Ken Norton. Click Here

Harry Sachs said on 25/Jan/20
@Bazza then why was Foreman always listed at 6'3 in his prime? Why was Foreman listed at 6'3 when he first came out of retirement? Here is a picture of Ali and Foreman from back in 1989. Foreman looks a little bit taller than Ali. Click Here

Harry Sachs said on 25/Jan/20
@Allen Bowers. Yeah Ali was a solid 6'3 even though Ali himself claimed to be 6'2 1/2. Ali was clearly shorter than the 6'2 3/4 Ken Norton. Your logic is brilliant. Keep it up.

Allen Bowers said on 6/Jan/20
Muhammad Ali was a solid 6'3" and looked up at George Foreman when the referee was giving instructions. George Foreman was 6'4" in his prime.

Bazza said on 6/Jan/20
I fully agree with Tall in Saddle here; If Ali was 6'2.5 then Foreman in his prime was easily 6'3.5 prime. He also had a the same obvious clearance on Norton who was exactly the same size as Ali.

Canson said on 5/Jan/20
Click Here

Harry Sachs said on 3/Jan/20
Lol @Tall In the Saddle you can't put people on ignore here.Or you would of been ignored. Also kid I was typing to @Canson and not you. You are the one who keeps mentioning my screen name. @Jordan87 keeps mentioning my screen name. I couldn't care less about either of you. This is just a site for celebrity height. So as I said @Canson just ignore people like @Tall In The Saddle. If he wants to think Foreman is 6'3 1/2 even though Foreman was measured at 6'3, was always mentioned as being 6'3 in his prime then let him. He isn't worth typing to.

Canson said on 3/Jan/20
@Tall In the Saddle: his 6’4” claim was a shoe height. He wasn’t as tall as Riddick Bowe in pics and Bowe in person looks around what he was described. 194-195 is possible as is the full 6’4.75. Bowe had 1.5” minimum maybe 1.5-2. I could buy a touch over 6’3 like 1/8 over and maybe early morning he got 6’3.5 but he never looked any taller than Larry Holmes and barely taller than Ali

Canson said on 3/Jan/20
@Tall In the Saddle: his 6’4” claim was a shoe height. He wasn’t as tall as Riddick Bowe in pics and Bowe in person looks around what he was described. 194-195 is possible as is the full 6’4.75

Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Jan/20
@SadSach

You're a TROLL.

No one was/is conversing with you. You said you would ignore me but STILL can't do it. Just as you said you would ignore Jordan87 but still can't do it. We've owned you over and over. No one needs to be advised to ignore you because everyone ALREADY does ignore you. LOL. The only fantasy world is your delusion that anyone is interested in your unqualified opinions at all.

It's just fun sometimes to dismantle your lame arguments.

Most recently you linked a pic of GF and Briggs. Click Here. GF appears at least equal in height to Briggs. You said you didn't know if GF was wearing shoes or not. You linked the photo, WHY would you suspect GF of wearing shoes and not Briggs also? Why link a pic from only the torso up and then muse over footwear? Stupid.

You also stated that Briggs, uniformly listed as 6'4", is clearly "not that tall". How is Briggs "clearly" not that tall. It's a listing just like the listings for GF you claim are gospel. Again, how stupid, contradictory and self serving.

GF 6'3.5". Try not to lose more sleep over that.

Harry Sachs said on 30/Dec/19
@Canson why are you still trying to explain this to @Tall in The Saddle? If he wants to live in his fantasy world where Foreman is taller than let him. You explain to him why Foreman is 6'3. I put up videos of prime Foreman being listed at 6'3 and videos of Foreman when he first came back being listed at 6'3. Just ignore him.

Tall In The Saddle said on 19/Dec/19
Foreman did have an inch on Ali in his prime and it is clearly evident during the pre fight instructions in Zaire. Equal footwear and the POV is almost perfectly square. It doesn't get any better than that.

Canson said on 18/Dec/19
Foreman didn’t have an inch on Ali in his prime. The most Foreman would’ve been was a hair over 6’3” peak like 6’3 1/8” afternoon height. I doubt he even woke up to the full 6’4”. Similar size to Holmes. Rob’s listing is fine

Tall In The Saddle said on 18/Dec/19
@Bazza

I agree. About 6'3.5" peak. GF had 1" on 6'2.5" Ali which was exemplified in the pre fight face off in Zaire.

Bazza said on 17/Dec/19
Watching some footage of Young George lately and still feel he was strong 6'3 to weak 6'4. 192 would be fair for him in mid 70's.

Harry Sachs said on 15/Nov/19
@desky Shannon Briggs is listed at 6'4 but clearly isn't that tall. Most boxers heights are inflated by either them or by casual fans. Tyson Fury claimed to be 6'9 even though he was measured at 6'7.

Anyway here is a good picture of Briggs and Foreman. I don't know if Foreman has he shoes on or what but here you go.

Click Here

Foreman was always listed at 6'3 when he was fighting in his prime. When Foreman first came out of retirement he was still listed at 6'3. Foreman just started saying he was 6'4 years after his comeback and it just stuck with some people.

Desky said on 10/Nov/19
In his fight with Shannon Briggs Foreman looks easily an inch or more taller than Briggs - who was billed at 6ft 4ins?!

Harry Sachs said on 3/Oct/19
Click Here Here is the good picture of George Foreman with the listed 6'4 1/2 Riddick Bowe.

Canson said on 2/Oct/19
@BoxingFan07: Holyfield was a 6’1” range guy. Rob met him and has a picture with him and he looked the same height as Will smith. Maybe the camera angle gave that impression but between Holyfield and Foreman at their peaks it would’ve been about a 1.5-2” difference imho. Holyfield also looked taller than Tyson by around 3” and Tyson looks 5’10” in person

Harry Sachs said on 1/Jul/19
@Boxing fan 07 you clearly just ignored my video with Holyfield standing right next to Foreman? Let me put up the link again. Click Here Go to the 1:55 mark. Foreman is clearly more than .5 inches taller than Holyfield.

Boxing fan 07 said on 18/Jun/19
I say Foreman is 6’3”. He looked 1.75” taller than Morrison. Even though he only looked .5” taller than Evander.
But I can’t picture him being under 6’3”. Just look at him with Frazier who is 5’11.5

Canson said on 17/Jun/19
@Jordan: peak heights may have Foreman the full 6’3 maybe 1/8” over and Norton a weak 6’3 6’2.5-.75. Ali May have dipped to 6’2.25

Harry Sachs said on 17/Jun/19
Lol Jordan87 you know George Foreman has his head titled down and Ken Norton has his head straight up?

Jordan87 said on 13/Jun/19
Harry Sachs.

Norton looks taller. Foreman has a big hair advantage there. Norton look taller in the picture you posted. Look at it again.

Harry Sachs said on 30/May/19
Click Here

Foreman and Holyfield back before they fought. Go to 1:55 in the video.

Harry Sachs said on 7/May/19
@Junior Hernandez 1990 Foreman is probably around 6'1 now.

Junior Hernandez 1990 said on 5/May/19
Unfortunately Jeff Dye only look at most 6'3.25" on Jimmy Fallon show.

Harry Sachs said on 23/Apr/19
Click Here

Here is the measured 6'2 3/4 Ken Norton and the 6'3 George Foreman

Tall In The Saddle said on 20/Apr/19
@Canson - Essentially the same stuff that I've already thoroughly addressed.

It takes some obvious nipping and tucking to keep GF at a flat 6'3" - and that's what I am still reading.

Why isolate only Ali's lowest ever listing to make room to assume even less when less isn't being assumed for the lowest ever listings for fellow athletes GF and LH? Why assume 6'3" (Ali's listing 99.9% of the time) to necessarily be a round up for Ali as opposed to a possible high?

Why isolate LH appearing taller than GF in some photos while ignoring the previously acknowledged fact that GF also appeared taller than LH in some photos too? Why first reject any height diff. in the Zaire face off and then only allow for just 2 cm max. "perhaps"? It all serves to keep a lid on GF at 6'3".

Ali was mainly listed at 6'3" - so much for those inclined to link one listing after another to present as so called weighted "evidence" of height - if that's the case then we can link almost every TOTP and reference otherwise for Muhammad to conclude that Ali MUST'VE BEEN 6'3", right? - well no, Ali wasn't a full 6'3". That height has now been reasonably reduced to 6'2.5" - based on just a few isolated reference points to that height - no reason to assume less - IF there is reason to assume even less for Ali based on the assumption of athlete measurements being made early - then that same rationale/assumption is not being applied in kind to the lowest ever 6'3" listings for GF and LH, is it? The treatment isn't even.

No reason to change here. Ali reasonably set at 6'2.5" - and appeared as such by most comparisons - GF held 1" advantage over Ali - perfectly exemplified in the Zaire face off - square shot, evenly framed, equal footwear, no deceiving angles, no camera advantage - that puts GF at about 6'3.5" peak - and even an older GF with less than perfect posture still broke even with 6'3.25" Conan O'Brien.

Harry Sachs said on 17/Apr/19
Click Here

Click Here

Here is a few pictures of Larry Holmes and Foreman back in the late 90's.

Canson said on 16/Apr/19
@Tallinthesaddle: there’s always room to assume less because the 6’2.5 was likely rounded to 6’3”. But 6’2.5 was a measurement he received at some point during the day. It’s not clear what time of the day. His passport stated that he’s 6’2.5 so that means he wasn’t over that mark and you also see above that he himself stated that he’s 6’2.5 214lbs meaning he measured that at some stage. Some stage could mean he woke up at 7 am and measured at 10 or even earlier. I’m going to assume that he’s not much less but I still don’t rule out 6’2.25 being Celebheights uses a normal low for the day. Most athletes measure earlier in the day. IMHO Ali looks similar to someone like Michael phelps who could be 6’2.25-.5 as well. And Harry Sachs made a great point. Ken Norton Sr measured 6’2.75. Norton is taller than Ali as well and shorter than Foreman by a hair. Again don’t know if that’s a low but I will assume he’s 6’2.5-.75. While Foreman could be a little bit over 6’3 and I don’t rule that out, a little bit above means 6’3 1/8 perhaps. Meaning he’s closer to 6’3” than 6’4”. I don’t even have him waking to 6’4”. He has always looked a proper 6’3” guy at a low whereas Larry Holmes also did. But as I mentioned, I’ve seen pics that suggest Holmes is taller which is likely posture related. Either way, I think Rob has GF listed appropriately. It matches what the person who I know has met him estimated him at.

My guesses:
Ali 6’2.25-.5 at a low
Norton 6’2.5-.75 at a low
GF and Holmes 6’3-6’3.25 max at a low

A guy falling inside of the 6’3-3.25 range is in essence a legit 6’3 guy

Tall In The Saddle said on 13/Apr/19
@Canson - I've seen numerous pics also and plenty of boxing vision on top of that. Ali's listing of 6'2.5" is on the money at the very least - again already .5" down from Ali's popularly listed height of 6'3" - no reason to assume any lower. The faceoff vision in Zaire is as good as it gets - GF has a clear 1" adv. - and I've read a number of people seeing it the same way as me.

Canson said on 12/Apr/19
Foreman actually does not even look as tall as guys like Buster Douglas or even Holmes in some pics but the latter due to better posture. I genuinely believe he was a legit 6’3” like Rob lists him which would make him probably close to 6’4 out of bed and perhaps 6’3 1/4-1/2 if he received an early morning measurement.

Canson said on 11/Apr/19
@Tallinthesaddle: in pics I’ve seen which are numerous he is not over 6’3”. This includes with Larry Holmes, Riddick Bowe, Ali and many others. Ali measuring or listing 6’2.5 again does not mean that’s his low and GF does not have an inch on Ali.

HarrySachs said on 11/Apr/19
Click Here Here is a tale of the tape between Foreman and Ken Norton. George Foreman was 24 here and was listed at 6'3

HarrySachs said on 9/Apr/19
@Canson there is no point in keep trying to explain this to @Tallinthesaddle either he is a troll or he is one of those people who can't be told. As you stated and others stated Ken Norton was 6'2 3/4 according to him and George Foreman was only slighter taller. Here is the video of Foreman vs Rocky Sekorski again doing Foreman's comeback. Foreman is listed at 6'3 and 244. Foreman was 38 here.

Click Here 0:42 time stamp.

Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Apr/19
@Canson - I don't doubt that the person you know genuinely perceived 6'3". Problem is there are numerous similar testimonies that also claim 6'3.5-6'4" by people who claim to be in a similar height range.

Also if one believes that Ali's perception was genuine (I don't) when he said that he and GF were the same height then we can perhaps accept at least that a .5" difference might not be discernible in an informal face to face without a formal comparison - but then as I have said before Ali was able to view Eastwood as taller face to face - I saw no more than .5" between them if that - and I don't think Eastwood was taller than Foreman at all - IMO Clint being no more than 6'3" peak and perhaps a shade less.

Canson said on 7/Apr/19
@Tallinthesaddle: according to a person who I know that has met him in his prime he was nothing more than a classic 6’3”. The person who met him was 6’3 as well

Tall In The Saddle said on 6/Apr/19
@Canson - In stating that he and GF were the same height Ali was simply trying to offset the general (and correct) perception that GF was clearly the bigger man (size and height) - that was the context. Ali often talked himself up beyond the facts - filtering out anything that could chip his confidence -

Ali specifically avoided watching GF hit the heavy bag in Zaire - who would want to see GF denting the bag as he did before fighting the man?. I doubt very much that Ali believed he and GF were the same height - Eastwood for example barely had .5" on Ali IMO but Ali still noted Clint as being taller - and IMO GF was that bit taller again.

The height advantage GF held over Frazier in face offs was obviously greater than Ali held over Joe.

Again I don't see why we would muse over Ali being even lower than his lowest ever listed height of 6'2.5" - a height that I think reconciles with most reasonable comparisons and already .5" less than his popularly listed height of 6'3".

Chucky said on 5/Apr/19
I met George 30 years ago, I am 6 feet 4 and he was easily as tall as me. I suspect he has shrink an inch as we all do

Canson said on 1/Apr/19
@Tall in the Saddle: the most I can see is 2cm perhaps. Even then it’s not shrinking Ali to accommodate anyone because Ali has also admitted to the two being the same height so he must suspect that they’re pretty close in height. And if Ali measures 6’2.5 at some point he may be less if including a low. I won’t completely rule out 6’3 1/8 perhaps for a peak Foreman but much more I would.

Sonny Black said on 1/Apr/19
Most people aren’t gonna agree with this estimation but I got Foreman under 6’3, I think Ali was 6’2 flat and Foreman was about 6’2.75inches.

Tall In The Saddle said on 31/Mar/19
@Canson - thanks. I don't think they look the same at all. Foreman is clearly the taller of the two - in my estimate by 1". Also, Foreman does not have camera advantage - both men are facing (one another) at an almost perfect 90 deg. to the line of the centred camera view - if anyone is closer it is Ali ever so slightly.

I don't know that I would shrink Ali anymore than 6'2.5" to accommodate George being a flat 6'3" - Ali was popularly listed at 6'3" and has already be downgraded by .5" which I think is probably fair because I always suspected Ali wasn't quite the full 6'3" - and at 22 yo Ali was orig. listed 6'2.5" for the first Liston fight.

Also as to whether 6'2.5" was Ali's true low at peak - well, listings/official records for everyone else could be questioned similarly if we feel what we think we see somehow doesn't fit.

As to Ali's passport listing him at 6'2.5":- I checked online and came up with 3 passports -

one that Ali used between 72-74 listing him at 6'3":-Click Here

Another issued 1974 listing 6'2.5" - which was used for both Zaire and Manilla Click Here

and finally this passport used between 76-81 which listed him at 6'3" - Click Here.

I guess passport heights are merely quoted to the authorities but at least statistically in that regard 6'2.5" represents Ali's "low" - checked for a GF passport but came up nix.

Canson said on 30/Mar/19
@Harry Sachs: he’s always looked a legit 6’3”. He and Holmes were the same height peak. They definitely were not as tall as Riddick Bowe who was probably 6’4.5ish. He had probably a good 1.5”

Canson said on 30/Mar/19
@Harry Sachs: he’s always looked a legit 6’3”. He and Holmes were the same height peak

Canson said on 29/Mar/19
@Tall in the Saddle: they look the same in the video. Foreman has camera advantage but maybe the 1/2”. That’s also assuming Ali was really 6’2.5 at a low in his peak. 2cm and 1” could be hard to differentiate just from the video

Tall In The Saddle said on 28/Mar/19
@Canson - Disagree. For one thing IMO GF had 1 inch on Ali (listed here as 6'2.5") - as evidenced in general and best by this specific vision of the Zaire face off which is in fact perfect for comparing the two men - see 14 sec mark - Click Here. If anyone disagrees please tell me what difference they see.

HarrySachs said on 28/Mar/19
Tall in the Saddle didn't you just type that before? Then I put up links to videos of Foreman in in his prime being listed at 6'3 and then I put up videos of when Foreman first came back and he was still listed at 6'3.

Canson said on 23/Mar/19
IMHO 6’3.5 looks too tall. I think he would measure 6’3 maybe 6’3 1/8 peak. Rob has the listing perfect

Tall In The Saddle said on 21/Mar/19
IMO GF was 6'3.5" peak - there was no better opportunity to compare GF to Ali than the pre fight instruction/face off in Zaire. Perfectly framed equal footwear. Foreman held a solid 1" advantage over Ali who we have since established was 6'2.5" (not 6'3").

GF was actually described at both 6'3.5" and 6'4" (IMO the latter fig. a round up) during his first career, not just during his second career.

Like a number of 70s HWs who were obviously all not an exact 6'3" (Ali, Norton, Lyle, Al Blue Lewis etc.) -GF eventually got rubber stamped at that height.

Upon his second coming I think GF might've revisited the "round up" figure of 6'4" from the 70s because by the time GF returned in '87 HWs were that little bit taller on average - including a good number of actual 6'4" guys proliferating the scene - GF had to remain size relevant - he had the weight covered so a little tweak in height was the order of the day.

I think the only that thing that "grew" on George from 77 to 87 was his nose. Lol.

texluh said on 6/Mar/19
The two quotes at the top are interesting. I lived, breathed and slept boxing history in the 80s and I can tell you one thing about each quote.

In 1987 when Foreman came back, there was an article in The Ring or KO where Foreman talked about what happened between 77 when he retired (aged 29) and 87 when he came back: "I grew an inch taller and my feet got bigger"....... All I can say is that I believed it, because between age 15 and 20 my feet were a clear size 10, and then through bodybuilding and gaining nearly 2 stone (22 pounds) May to August 91 (aged 20), I had to start wearing size 11 shoes in that short time - and my spine straightened. I speculated that finding peace allowed George to release more growth hormone. Height gain after age 25 is not unprecedented. Certainly bone density in athletes can increase until age 35....

Ali (with his quote) - was the ultimate salesman. He loved to talk. Quality wasn't always important. Simultaneous with making something up, he would wholly believe it himself. The Nation of Islam might not be the best example, but it's a start.

I say Foreman was 6 ft 3 in 74 and 6 ft 4 in 87.

Sotiris Gravas said on 3/Feb/19
Here's 6'4" Jeff Dye TOWERING over Foreman (2016)... Click Here , Click Here Safe to say he's no longer 6'3".

berta said on 5/Jan/19
i think he coud have been legit 6 foot 3 maybe fraction over

mohammad said on 23/Dec/18
Excellent-good listing .

Canson said on 25/Oct/18
@Tall in the Saddle: hmm. not sure about Stewart. I have GF at 6’3” flat peak however like Rob lists him

VicLions said on 24/Oct/18
I will give Foreman at least 6ft3.5 in his prime. He looks like he has considerable length and is very proportiante.

Sonnecker said on 28/Sep/18
Big George could have been 6'3" and a half in youth...he haven't lost so much since then, maybe a couple of cm...

McMurphy said on 1/Sep/18
Foreman is listed as 6'4 and 257lbs in his figth against 6'2 listed Holyfield.

Click Here

You can see he has like 2 inches advantage, if Holyfield stands above 6'1 as said in this site, Foreman should be over 6'3.

Tall In The Saddle said on 30/Jul/18
@Canson - well no one could call you out - the height you report is rock solid. Found a pic by accident - didn't expect to see them together - Ali and James Stewart. The image is a bit small but old Jimmy still standing tall and looking taller than Ali though head bowed a bit. Don't know if you've submitted an estimate for Stewart - I actually already have Stewart at 6'3.5" peak (not fixated with that fig.- ha ha) but of course it is an older off peak Stewart.

Click Here

Tall In The Saddle said on 28/Jul/18
Ho hum. Yet again linking less than ideal photos from chest up, foot wear indeterminate etc. The advantage with boxers is that you can actually view them full length in the ring together, identical footwear with plenty of vision to compare. I watched GF v Schulz and GF had a clear edge in height. Here's a link to the weigh in - both men bare feet - again I see GF holding the edge in height after he steps off the scales - even though GF barely stands straight as compared to Schulz

Click Here

Canson said on 27/Jul/18
@Tall in the Saddle: lol yea I’m good at 6’4.25. I just claim 6’4” usually or a hair over 6’4” when someone asks. I used to claim 6’4 1/2 but not as often now. I may have lost height (2-3mm) or May have been because of my hair. As far as benefit of the doubt, I don’t see what good it does people really. The half imho is poorly used. Really half should be reserved for someone measuring above 3/8 and maybe under 5/8.

Tall In The Saddle said on 25/Jul/18
@Canson: Lol not confused just giving you the benefit of your upper range fig. for your low + a wee round up - 194cm = 6'4.377" = 6'4 3/8 - as near to 6'4.5" as it is to 6'4.25". The treatment varies, some are happy to add their high/low and take the average - if you did it that way any way you slice it you'll get at least 6'4.5". Of course that doesn't account for most height (about 80%) being lost in first 5-8 hours after which it plateaus - representing the most reasonably static fig for the greater part of the day with relatively little loss to follow. Anyway, of course as you say in perfect honesty, 6'4.25" (193.67cm) it is.

HarrySachs said on 24/Jul/18
Foreman and the listed 6'3 Axel Schulz. Click Here Here is a picture of Foreman with a few tennis players. Click Here Max Mirnyi the guy with the white shirt 2 spots over with the white shirt on is listed at 6'5. Jonas Bjorkman the guy with the white right next to the left of Foreman is listed at 6'0. The wins to the right of Foreman are Bob and Mike Bryan. I seen some sights that listed Bob as 6'4 and Mike as 6'2 and 6'3

Canson said on 23/Jul/18
@Tallinthe Saddle: it’s all good! No worries! As far as reflection of my true height, I’ve said 6’4.25 is since that’s my low. I used to think 6’4.5 but because I measured taller previously (6’4 3/8) and thought that was my low. Turns out it’s not. 6’4.5 is a morning height for me since it is 3-4 hours out of bed. I think you may have gotten confused when I said that “194cm” would be my claim in Metric but that’s just metric. Feet and inches 6’4 1/4 and I round down to 6’4” not up. example

I wake up 195.5-196 out of bed and am 193.5-194 at a low so I use the 193.5-194 as my true height

Tall In The Saddle said on 21/Jul/18
@Canson - just to you let you know I didn't ignore your last post. I submitted a few posts that didn't get through - perhaps due to content of the "side" discussion going on. My post to you however was strictly in reply to you nothing else. I totally respect Rob, the site he runs and all other contributors. I simply didn't see the other party with a history for same being reigned in at all - which is fine - I can deal with that myself. Just see their last post 15 July 2018 - how does that get through and the right to reply does not? ROB - I hope you understand where I am coming from at least - you can delete this portion if you want but if you could retain the following reply.

@Canson - Just to you let you know I didn't ignore your last post - some of my posts didn't get through. Yes, I understand the morn, noon and night variances. I appreciate the considerate provision and breakdown of your own personal data. We all move to diff. drums so labels such as midday/afternoon height might not hold equal value. Let's say perhaps on average we get 8 hours sleep (hardly true for me - lol) and 16 hours awake. From the min. of the first waking hour we have our HIGH and over next 8 hours we'll lose most of the height we will lose in a day (say 3/4") for our LOW and then maybe another (say 1/4") for an ABSOLUTE LOW over the next 8 hours or more. I could be wrong but I think you have said that 6'4.5" is reflection of your true height - which falls between the two extremes for yourself about 6'5" to 6'4" so 6'4.5 is a more than fair call.

As to this sites height listings - I think I've read site owner Rob state that they are not necessarily meant to represent morn. or afternoon though Rob suggests that he thinks afternoon height (after say 5 waking hours) is the most realistic height to claim OR perhaps a height exactly in the middle of your HIGH and LOW.

As to Ali - like all other celebs - we simply are not availed of the same data from them as you have provided of yourself and what data they do provide - well obviously the integrity of same can be questionable. That leaves some reasonable scope to move them up or down from their listed height if we guess the measurement to be a high, low or max. low but it is still guessing at the end of the day. I would say our main ref. is the vision - how tall we perceive them to be relative to other individuals of "known" height - if the listing suits what we think we can see we agree with it but if it doesn't then we might guess a high or low measurement, a round up or even a flat exaggeration.

I take Ali's 6'2.5" to represent a fair reflection of his true height as I have seen him - similar to the way 6'4.5" represents a fair claim for your own height over a day. We differ in that I don't see GF as only slightly taller - I see 1" advantage to GF just as I see 1" adv to Holmes - this isn't just from photos - but also from watching quite a lot of video involving these guys together. There's quite a few photos of GF with Ali and a few LH that were contained in boxing mags I used to own but I can't find those same pics online. I remember one of GF and LH clasping hands and I think it was LH very early in his reign with GF a few years into his first retirement - they looked about equal in height but the angle wasn't perfect.

Interestingly, You and I agree on Conan's height but we are in the minority - we say about 6'3.25" but most comments disagree and he's listed at 6'4" on this site and the average guess over 137 votes is 6'3.84". As an example, where we see Conan dropping a full 1" to a guest others say they see only .5" or even no diff. at all. Do I think we're right? Of course but to each his own.

Canson said on 16/Jul/18
@Tall in the Saddle: re: midday height. I’m not sure if midday height is the right word or way to describe it. Midday for me means about lunch time or right before but I think the right way to describe it is the afternoon height meaning at your low. Midday can vary from person to person Say if someone wakes up at 7 am and it’s 12 pm when they measure. That’s about 5 hours and you may be 1/8” above. I’d put the true “afternoon height” at about 7 or 8 hours out of bed and that’s your low. For example i wake up at 5 am and if I measure 12-1 pm or 1 at the latest I’m down from 195.7 cm out of bed to my low usually by then, maybe 193.8-.9 best case 193.7 usually is my low (6’4.25). I always hit 193.8 and if I go to the gym 193.7 if I’ve been a bit more active (193.1 is my extreme low if I’m on my feet late night for hours). But 193.7 is what I consider the normal low for me.

As far as Ali, he also stated above that he’s 6’2 1/2 and that Foreman is the same height. I can agree that Foreman is taller, albeit slightly, but Ali may be slightly less than 6’2.5 at a low. We don’t know what time of day he was measured but I suspect that the 6’2.5 is maybe 1/4” off his low max, at least in my opinion

Canson said on 15/Jul/18
This is about how Foreman and Holyfield look which is about the difference of 6’3 and 6’1-6’1.25

Click Here

Canson said on 15/Jul/18
@Tall in the Saddle: only thing about Foreman being 6’3.5 at a low is that Bowe would be a full 6’5” most likely. Bowe has about 1.5” on him like Harry Sachs also said. It’s hard to judge people that close in height with me but Bowe didn’t look any taller than me to be honest and if anything it could be just the difference between what we are if he had a footwear advantage something like 1cm or half inch. If Bowe were measured 6’4.75, he would likely be slightly less at a low maybe 6’4 5/8 or 1/2 since athletes are typically not measured at their normal low. Maybe Bowe is 6’4 5/8 but even at that Foreman doesn’t look more than 190-191 cm next to him (6’3ish) maybe 6’3 1/8 is possible but he looks like Larry Holmes to be honest, a legit 6’3” guy. I’d give both a range of anywhere 6’2 7/8-6’3 1/8 as solid 6’3 guys both and maybe Ken Norton Sr would be something more like 6’2 5/8 (6’2.5-.75 zone), whereas Ali would be 6’2.25-.5 at a low. That’s my opinion at least

McMurphy said on 15/Jul/18
Actually , Foreman looks a bit taller than Derrick Lewis there.
You can see the photo is not straight but tilted down on the right side.
Plus, Derrick is in stance pose with shoulders high.

Canson said on 15/Jul/18
@Harry Sachs: with Derrick Lewis he still looks 6’3

HarrySachs said on 15/Jul/18
If Derrick Lewis is 6'3 like he claims then do you think Foreman lost any height at the point the picture was taken? Click Here

HarrySachs said on 15/Jul/18
Anyway Canson here is a picture of Foreman and Ali. Click Here If Ali is 6'2 1/2 then as you have stated and tons of people have stated then Foreman would be peak 6'3.

But here is a picture of Foreman and Shannon Briggs who claims to be 6'4 which clearly he isn't. But since Foreman is 6'3 how tall would you peg Briggs. Click Here

Here is a picture of Ron Lyle, Joe Louis and George Foreman Click Here

Here are some other videos of Foreman in his comeback being listed at 6'3 before he started lying about being 6'4 Click Here 4:04

Click Here 0:43

Click Here The begging of the video.

HarrySachs said on 15/Jul/18
Why is this thing Tall In the Saddle still typing to me? If he sexually attracted to the way I typing? Lol everybody else here thinks Foreman is 6'3. Foreman said he is 6'3 and you say he is 6'3 1/2. Because you know more about Foreman than he does. I ignored you already and you keep typing to me. I couldn't care less about you. You are just words on a computer screen. Now be a dear and stop typing to me.

Canson said on 14/Jul/18
@Harry Sachs: here’s one of he and Ali in the good ole days

Click Here

Canson said on 13/Jul/18
@Harry Sachs: I couldn’t tell if someone is that much taller you’re right. My point with Bowe was just to say that he’s somewhere between 6’4-6’5. That’s why I mentioned he really didn’t look any taller than me. Now if it’s a clear half inch you may be able to see it but I didn’t see that with Bowe to be honest but that’s why I mentioned the footwear too. I agree with Bowe and Foreman that’s 1.5” between them.

Canson said on 12/Jul/18
@Tall in the Saddle: thing to remember with these heights is that while Ali likely measures 6’2.5 at some point doesn’t mean it’s a low for him. Celebheights is supposed to be based off afternoon heights. It’s a possibility he measures 6’2.5 at a low but just as good as shot at measuring 6’2.25. The one fact tho is that he isn’t taller than 6’2.5 if that’s what he measured. The only argument is if he’s lower than (alive and in his prime) In the afternoon.

As far as Conan, the pics could vary. He may be shorter in some and taller in others. Same with Foreman and Holmes, it can go both ways. One thing with Foreman is that he doesn’t always have good posture. But I think he’d be the same as Holmes peak 6’3. Maybe we could argue that he is like 6’3 1/8 as both could’ve been peak

Canson said on 12/Jul/18
@McMurphy: I firmly believe they were in their peak both 6’3”. Harry Sachs made a good point too that Foreman appears taller in some pics but I see where Holmes does. Holmes’ proportions do him more justice as he has the length of a 6’3” guy whereas Foreman is chubby and has a longer torso. Holmes may give a taller impression but I would believe that they’re the same like you said. I think both were legit 6’3” guys like Rob lists them

Tall In The Saddle said on 12/Jul/18
@Canson:-

Personally I wouldn't go lower than 6'2.5" for Ali. I see 1" adv. for GF over Ali. I've linked pre fight instructions in Zaire before to uphold same -Click Here - freeze at around 20.14. I've also frozen the action at other points in the fight and I see the same height diff. - a diff. I have also seen in photos. I agree GF has lost some height over time.

I give LLewis 6'4.75" which I think is reasonably accurate (If only we could have a peak John Cleese standing beside him, lol). I've only viewed LLewis and Bowe together on 2 occasions - their 1988 Olympic encounter and their post fight confrontation after the first Bowe-Holyfield fight.
For their Olympic bout Bowe and LLewis are listed 6'4.5" a piece aged 23 and 21 respectively. I see a slight edge to Lewis. So if Bowe was in fact 6'4.5" (which appears to reconcile with your encounter with Bowe) then I think 6'4.75" for LLewis fits nicely into the big picture.
As to the encounter after the Holyfield - Bowe fight, the angles vary but I still see Llewis holding the edge - though Bowe would be wearing flat boxing shoes while you would guess LLewis is wearing dress shoes.

1988 Olympic Bout - Click Here
1992 Post Holyfield-Bowe fight confrontation - Click Here

Re Ken Norton - estimating his height relative to Holmes, Foreman etc. outside the ring was somewhat problematic - Norton was prone to wearing some seriously big heels that the other fighters didn't necessarily wear - Click Here

HarrySachs said on 11/Jul/18
Canson Click Here Click Here Here is a couple of pictures from around 2000. Foreman looks just as tall as Larry Holmes if not taller.

Bowe is listed at 6'5 but is around 6'4 3/4 in his prime just like Lennox Lewis.

Canson said on 11/Jul/18
@Harry Sachs: to be fair though, Tall in the Saddle has made some very very good estimates on other pages. I guess it comes down to appearances meaning how we all see them. Foreman did look more whole in his prime. Today he has very poor posture. Having seen Mike Tyson in person, he looks almost the same with my 5’7.75 wife as he does with Rob and to us he was 5’10 When we met him. Tyson doesn’t look to have lost any height as of about 10 years ago. And Bowe really didn’t look taller than me in person and if he were it was maybe like a cm max and I’m 6’4 1/4. I never paid attention to footwear though so he may have been the same height. With Foreman and Holmes at their peaks I was never able to tell who was taller because they were so close in height whereas both were slightly taller than Ali. Even Norton Sr looked close at times but he may have been a cm shorter than them. I would say the most I could see Foreman based on someone else who met him is maybe a very fine hair over 6’3” like 6’3 1/8 and wouldn’t surprise me if he just hit 6’3” at a low and no less or more. I think Holmes may have been very much the same.

McMurphy said on 11/Jul/18
@Canson I've seen a lot of stills of Foreman and Holmes together. They are the exact same height for me.
As you say, Holmes built is different, he has more of a belly and slimmer chest-shoulders. He has a smaller head too. A person with small head always looks taller at the same height.

Thats the trick with proportions and photoshoot models. You can be short but with a small head you can look taller on photos.

Tall In The Saddle said on 11/Jul/18
Sachs - Riddle me this: Every village has one. So too it seems every discussion board. Guess what? YOUR it. 24 Carat.

Canson is a polite civil poster I respect and like to read - you can't pull him into your delusional world that is high on rhetoric and short on facts and common sense. Canson writes perfectly well for himself.

You have been proven wrong at every turn, you haven't proven anyone else wrong. So preoccupied with playing the troll you can't even get it right as to who you're trying to argue with - you argued over fighters Ali fought in the 60s with Jordan87 on the Ali thread just recently, NOT MYSELF. Apparently you're not smart enough to know that myself and Jordan87 are two different posters. Golf clap for that.

YOU also wrote:-
HarrySachs said on 24/Jun/18
"Canson Foreman looks taller than Conan in that video don't you think? We can't see their shoes but if you think Conan at his peak was 6'3 1/2 to 1/2 then would you round Foreman's prime height up to maybe 6'3 1/2?"
As per the above post I see you are steadfast against the possibility of GF being 6'3.5". Seriously.

For me, the vision is the foremost evidence. Physical records can be called in for support but in no way present as absolute evidence in their own right. Foreman was listed as 6'5" at one stage - I wouldn't disingenuously offer that listing and argue for that height. IMO, Foreman appeared between 6'3" and 6'4" and there are listings of 6'3.5" that agree with this. Ali was almost uniformly listed as 6'3" but it seems he was in fact 6'2.5" - the most often listed heights are not necessarily the be all and end all. You do understand that a single statistic can replicated over and over from a single erroneous source don't you? Boxers were not literally measured for each and every fight.

As to visual evidence - if they uniformly listed Foreman's fist at 11" would you buy it? The scary answer is - probably. Check the supplied pic, Ali's fist was almost always listed at 13" - please anyone tell me that they can't see that Foreman's fist is OBVIOUSLY bigger:-

Click Here - there are testimonials from people who have shaken GFs hand and they uniformly comment that his hands are huge - I've not read similar comments re Ali, Frazier, Norton etc.

Here endeth the lesson

Canson said on 10/Jul/18
Foreman and Bowe who in person was between 6’4 and 6’5 when I met him

Click Here

Canson said on 10/Jul/18
@Tall in the Saddle: I would say Foreman is taller than Ali. It’s possible that Ali measuring 6’2.5 gets down to around 6’2.25 at a low and that Foreman at his peak was 6’3” flat. I would say today Foreman has poor posture or he’s shrunken a bit as he does not look 6’3” now. The thing is if you look at him with Larry Holmes, Holmes actually looks taller today. Holmes still looks 6’3” in pics and with Rob whereas Foreman looks smaller than Holmes now. But then again I’m sure in person Holmes would give the false impression just because of how he is built. Foreman has a “fatter” appearance and isn’t as long limbed as Holmes.

McMurphy said on 10/Jul/18
Here's George Foreman listed at 6'3.5" killing a skinny 6'7 Bob Hazelton with a jab.

Click Here

HarrySachs said on 10/Jul/18
Canson is Tall In The Saddle wants to believe Foreman was 6'3 1/2 or 6'4 and Larry Holmes was teh same just let him. No matter what information you give him he will find something to type. I told him that back int the 70's there was numerous heavyweights 6'3 plus fight. You know what he did? He kept bringing up heavyweights Ali fought in the 60's. I don't think he is smart enough to know the 60's and 70's are two different decades.

HarrySachs said on 10/Jul/18
McMurphy in the Ken Norton vs George Foreman fight they stated the same thing. Click Here

HarrySachs said on 10/Jul/18
Tall In the Saddle You keep repeating the same dumb wrong information even when proven wrong. I posted so much information with Foreman being 6'3 and even stating in the 1990's he was 6'3 before he started lying and saying he was 6'4. Some times Foreman was listed at 6'3 1/2 in his 70s I assume before of his afro. Also Foreman's fist were 12.5 inches. Click Here Click Here

On that note I will ignore everything you type. There needs to be option here where you can just put somebody on ignore so you can't see their post.

Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Jul/18
I'll just add even without calling in GF and Ali's exact heights I would say as an ABSOLUTE - there is/was 1" height advantage to GF. Back in the day when Ali's 6'3" listing wasn't questioned it appeared then that GF was a solid 6'4" - same for Joe Bugner who appeared to have 2" on Ali thus Joe was afforded 6'5". However, since then we have Ali officially listed on his passport at 6'2.5" so if only based on that I still give GF 6'3.5" and Bugner 6'4.5" - and when Joe fought legit 6'5" Chuck Wepner it can be seen while close in height Wepner has the edge on Bugner.

Tall In The Saddle said on 8/Jul/18
Foreman's fist is clearly larger than 12" - at least 13" if not a bit more. Ali was obviously trying to talk Foreman's size advantage down - GF was clearly the taller and bigger man and Ali knew it. Ali's smack was meant to boost his own confidence just as much as it was meant to dent the confidence of his opponent. The pre fight instructions vision from Zaire shows a clear 1" height advantage to GF. Holmes was also touted to be 6'4" and 6'3.5" at various times during his career. Some pics GF appears equal to Holmes whilst others show GF having the edge or Holmes having the edge.

Canson said on 8/Jul/18
If Ali is calling him 6’2 1/2, he is not 6’4 or even 6’3.5 I doubt. 6’3” is the most frequent listing and he looks the same height as Larry Holmes

McMurphy said on 7/Jul/18
@HarrySachs that's an error for sure.
Foreman hands are huge even for a heavyweight. See Dino and George hands here:

Click Here

HarrySachs said on 5/Jul/18
Click Here Here is George Foreman in the late 70's being listed at 6'3 231 pounds. With a 78.5 inch reach and his fist being 12 inches. 2 inches smaller than the guy he was fighting John Dino Dennis.

Canson said on 28/Jun/18
@Tall in the Saddle: I would put Conan slightly taller peak. Conan may have been 191 range whereas Foreman looks a solid 6’3” guy

HarrySachs said on 28/Jun/18
McMurphy Foreman's reach was around 78.5 inches when he was in his prime. I don't see why his arms or shoulders would have grown in retirement.

Tall In The Saddle said on 28/Jun/18
Re Foreman and Conan. The angle definitely creates an illusory disadvantage for O'Brien. Allowing for same which I don't think is too difficult - I guess them to be about equal in height. I take each comparison as it comes - even if the next individual comparison contradicts a prev. comparisons with other individuals. Fortunately for me, prev. assumptions appear to reasonably fit - I peg O'Brien at about 6'3.25" peak and Foreman about 6'3.5" peak - I believe Foreman is 55 yo in the clip so to have lost .25" isn't a stretch I don't think.

McMurphy said on 27/Jun/18
Renegader im pretty sure his reach is at least 80 inches. He has big forelimbs and constitution in general, very broad shoulders and one the biggest hands in boxing history.
Click Here

But it depends how reach is measured, because there are many ways to do it, and boxers often do the trick with it.

Renegader said on 24/Jun/18
@Canson And everyone else what do you think george foremans reach is ...on various sites it states his reach is 6'6 1/2 (78 1/2 inch)..... and a smaller amount saying that he has a 6ft 8 - 6ft 9 reach... what is your opinion and i also heard that he would downplay his reach and wouldnt let anyone measure it .. so from some evidence could you all come up with some accurate ideas to how long his reach is....

Canson said on 24/Jun/18
@Harry Sachs: maybe footwear or camera angle. I have a hard time bumping Foreman to 6’3.5 but for sure he is a solid 6’3” peak

Canson said on 24/Jun/18
@Renegader: that’s my guess 6’3.75 would be out of bed 6’3” would be his normal low during the day. As far as true height, if there is any such thing, it would be 6’3” for him as that’s what he would maintain longer but I don’t believe in a “true height” per se. he would just be 6’3” since that’s the “range” he falls into for the entire day

HarrySachs said on 24/Jun/18
Click Here

Foreman maybe 10 or so years ago with the listed 6'3 Derrick Lewis.

HarrySachs said on 24/Jun/18
Canson Foreman looks taller than Conan in that video don't you think? We can't see their shoes but if you think Conan at his peak was 6'3 1/2 to 1/2 then would you round Foreman's prime height up to maybe 6'3 1/2?

Renegader said on 23/Jun/18
I have done extensive research into George foreman, him being my favourite boxer of all time and idol.... So I have compared him to many other fighters and celebs and it would take to long to post everything here so you will have to take my word for it...( i was looking into his height years before this made) ... I have concluded that his height in the morning is extremely likely to be 6'3.75 inches and after a good long sleep on his bak he may just touch 6'4 but throughout the day his height would shrink to around 6'3.25-6'3.5 inches... Could i get everyone elses opinion on this statement....(also could we possibly discuss how Foreman got such incredible power)-:) My height vote will be the provided (6'3/4) - as I go by morning height as real/true height...Thanks all

Canson said on 20/Jun/18
@Harry Sachs: not sure if Foreman had lost height by then. I believe he was a legit 6’3-6’3 1/8 peak but Conan I never believed 6’4” for him. I always thought 6’3.25-.5 peak tops perhaps just 6’3.25 and a morning measurement of close to 6’4 which he rounded

HarrySachs said on 19/Jun/18
Click Here Here is Foreman with Conan O'Brien

HarrySachs said on 19/Jun/18
Click Here Here is Foreman and David Letterman

Richie said on 12/Jun/18
I saw George Foreman close up at the Cardiff Arms Park back in 93' when Lewis fought Bruno, he was working for HBO as a commentator. I would say he was a strong 6'3"and not 6'4" as his stats suggest.

Tall In The Saddle said on 5/Jun/18
I prev. linked the McMahon-Foreman clip on the Clint Eastwood page. They are very close in height. I would give Foreman the slight edge but the diff. is nothing to write home about. Aside from and before Celebheights McMahon was uniformly listed as 6'4" - as he described himself - doesn't mean that height was exactly correct but it was the more common listing. Celebheights has Ed at 6'3.25" but the analytical discussion on Ed is just a few posts. Ed is about 50 yo in the clip. If he was 6'4" peak I wouldn't drop him below 6'3.5" at age 50 and the man still stood very straight - possibly retaining most if not all of his peak height. Ed enlisted in the Marines 1941 age 18 so it would be interesting if his recorded physical stats could be obtained - there are a lot of celebs to compare him against - but advancing years and some height loss have to be accounted for.

HarrySachs said on 2/Jun/18
Click Here Here is the 6'3 Foreman with the listed 6'3 Ed McMahon.

Tall In The Saddle said on 20/May/18
McMurphy - I've seen the first pic before and have to admit, Holmes looks clearly taller than Foreman but the perspective appears to favour Holmes and footwear is indeterminate.
As I estimate them, Foreman and Holmes should be equal in height (6'3.5" a piece) and there are a few photos out there to support that but it appears that older George has dropped more height than older Holmes.

McMurphy said on 16/May/18
Foreman and holmes. In the first pic Holmes looks a bit taller, his shoes may have a bit more heel height by the style. A bit of perspective advantage too. Foreman is wearing loafers.
Click Here

In this second pic they look the same height.
Holmes has a slender neck/head, Foreman higher shoulders.
Click Here

Tall In The Saddle said on 11/May/18
Link to a contemporaneous RING article author Nat Loubet on then 19 YO GF fresh off Olympic victory looking ahead to turning pro - height listed as at that time 6'3.5"

Click Here (scroll down about 80% of the page)

Of course such citations aren't be all end all proof on their own but given all other ref. points I think 6'3.5" is a fair call.

Btw, it was stated earlier in the thread that Foreman was measured as a 19 yo amateur at 6'3" - can the author of that claim point to a source/link?

Canson said on 8/May/18
Out of bed 192.4 peak
Before bed 190.5 peak

Solid 6’3” as listed