How tall is George Foreman

George Foreman's Height

6ft 3 (190.5 cm)

Former American heavyweight boxer. In The Washington Post (14/4/91) he said "I was 6-3 when I was champ.". He bumped his claim up a bit in 1999, saying "I'm 6 foot 4"

How tall is George Foreman
Photos by PR Photos
People talk about [George] like he's a giant. Foreman is 6-2½ I'm 6-2½. Foreman is 217 [pounds] when he's in shape. I'm 214 when I'm in shape.
-- Ali in July 1974

Add a Comment306 comments

Average Guess (58 Votes)
6ft 3.16in (190.9cm)
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.
Editor Rob
Small little insults progress and as we can see with this thread, I think it's stepped over the line too often.

If folk can leave the digs at the door, life would be a whole lot easier.
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.
Canson said on 29/Feb/20
make a fool of myself? Tall in the Saddle? you’re the one here who cares about your appearance so much and are full of yourself and need attention. Hence comments like this:

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

Again, you are a TROLL. I don't feed'em, I eat them for breakfast.

Knocked out of the park again

Or telling someone that you “owned them” in an argument. That goes hand in hand with your last post to me. Or that I am making a fool of myself or sinking etc.

You don’t see others having to “pat themselves on the back” like you are after posts.

“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.”

Be straight (Like you tell me) for once. None of what you said was not an issue until my 30 Jan 2020 post where I agreed with Sachs’s estimate after he told me “ignore you” several times. You clearly took exception to that per your response back to him and have even accused us of being the same person more than once. And Your 2 Feb 2020 post speaks for itself. That is your real “issue”. Nothing to do with the BS you mentioned in your last sentence. And tedious? You mean How you “break the Governor” on Rob’s website probably exceeding the character limit each time? posting an entire diatribe here to me where you make false accusations and use insults such as “dolt” stupid etc and pat yourself on the back. You didnt see me using them back to you until you did to me.

And you can use the “accumulation over time” all you want but Nothing was mentioned prior to the dates mentioned. Only that you thought he and I may be the same person which you insinuated twice to me (which you contradicted on another post) prior to that and have also insinuated since then. Even calling him “my alter ego” which is beyond Insulting. Those comments are what I have taken offense to you and why I have responded to you the way I have after your 2 Feb 2020 post.

Lol, who are you to “lecture” anyone about posting conduct? You’re not the owner of this site. So I do not see your intent. You pissing and moaning because you’re upset with me over something I’m doing on Rob’s site is beyond childish and hilariously sad. But As I’ve said, If “my posting conduct” is such an issue then take it up with Rob. His action is the greatest “equalizer” to any “poor behavior” or conduct issues; as he has the power to ban me or make Some or all of my posts disappear. I don’t get you complaining for no reason like you are unless you are just looking and waiting for someone else to jump in to agree with you. And i am not sure if you have read the T’s and C’s on the home page, but me posting an estimate in writing repeatedly is not against site rules nor is me “having my name at the top of a page”. And I surely am not the only one who has posted an estimate more than once without “evidence” or reasoning so that is a cop out; And on Tyson’s page you criticized me (first) yet you were also the one who said that responses/ comments are slow to be posted. So if my post on Tyson’s page was made 10 Feb 2020 and yours 9 Feb 2020, then you must actually believe that posts “always” appear immediately and simultaneously which contradicts what you later said about posts not appearing right away and giving it time to appear. You can’t have it both ways. And I’ve said before that I wasn’t replying to your post and you also referred to me in the 3rd person there so it proves what I’ve been saying all along that you care about “how you look”. You clearly were posting to the rest of the forum where I am addressing you only as you are the one who made the allegations against me. And I “continuously” respond to you because of your false allegations and aspersions such as “wanting to have my name at the top of a page” or that “I responded to your post” or that “I am Harry Sachs”. That’s how it is If someone insults me first (unprovoked)

And Where did I say that Sachs and Bazza have anything to do with each other? So You clearly show your true issue which is with Sachs and because I’m not taking your side and despising him like you are and you “think we are the same person”, now you’re going at me. I’ll stay away from insults but you called me stupid? Correct? We obviously aren’t the same but why don’t you ask Rob when you go to complain about me to him. Obviously, what you said to him was provoked and what he said to you wasn’t called for. And You even say it when you are “trying to” turn me against him in your 02 Feb 2020 post and beyond. You give me every reason in the book why I shouldn’t mention or associate etc with Sachs or why I shouldn’t agree with etc and even brought up Reece Jordan87 Bazza and others who have nothing to do with this. Yet you got on me about bringing up Sachs to you? Yes I brought him up because that’s your actual beef. You brought up the other posters just to try to paint him in a negative light to try to “weaken my argument”, justify what you’re doing. Like I said I don’t agree with what he said but I’m not in it so didn’t jump in. I don’t have an opinion on him like you do so please don’t do what you got on him about in your post prior to my 30 Jan 20 one where you got on him about telling me to do something (ignore you).
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.
Tall In The Saddle said on 28/Jan/20
@SadSach

Man, your responses are always awfully slow in coming. Clearly you're not the sharpest tool in the shed, are you?

You fit the TROLL criteria to a tee. Infrequent, drop in posts. Non sensical, attempted inflammatory replies. Attempts to push people's buttons but instead have your own buttons pushed all too easily. You can't deal.

SadSach QUOTE "@Canson could you just please stop typing to @Tall in the Saddle?"

Really, again? How embarrassing for you.

Wow. I could literally hear the above desperate plea expressed in a shrill "mean girl" voice. Panties in a knot again, eh? No sway in the school yard, need to form alliances in lieu of standing on your own two feet? Haha, too funny.

You proclaim to ignore me. Please do. BUT then you can't do it. Then you pathetically presume to instruct someone else to ignore me when you can't. Do you realise how stupid. childish and contrary that reads? LOL, I couldn't care less if anyone ignores or responds to YOU but let's face it, the FACT is EVERYONE does ignore you. You lack credibility. Obviously, that's a problem for you.

You are a non entity. Obviously no one is ignoring me and many agree with me including, among others, Bazza and Allen Bowers who saw a clear 1" between Ali and GF. Had they not agreed with me, no drama to me, because you're the only one who gets their knickers in a knot SadSach if anyone disagrees with you. Puerile stuff. All other contributors here are ADULTS.

You ignore every point that contradicts you and highlights your ignorance. Like a self deluding mantra you repeat over and over GF was always listed as 6'3" in his prime and the REPLY has been that Ali was also always listed at 6'3" in his prime. So does that make Ali also a "lock" at 6'3" because Ali was ALWAYS listed at that height? Hello McFly, are you getting this?

Ali was no less than 6'2.5". GF was clearly 1" taller than Ali. That makes GF 6'3.5". In the pic of GF and Briggs posted by SadSach GF was at least equal in height. Sadsach tells us Briggs wasn't 6'4" but Sadsach doesn't tell us what height he "thinks" Briggs was.

Beam me up Scotty, there appears to be no intelligent life behind the Sachs moniker.

Now Sachs pointlessly posts the worst waist up pic of GF and Ali together and suggests GF looks "a little bit taller". What's a little bit taller SadSach, care to stick your neck out? Of course not.

Finally,

Straight from the horses mouth:-

"HarrySachs said on 24/Jan/17
Movieguy people will believe what they want to believe. George Foreman was measured at 6'3 and weighed 230 as a 19 amateur. Like you said he was clearly 1 inch taller than Ali when they fought.

Yes, as you CLEARLY stated above GF was clearly 1" taller than Ali who was 6'2.5" as you also clearly stated in your previous post.

WOW, SadSach YOU are now LYING as to your previously stated opinion regarding the obvious 1" height difference between GF and Ali because it doesn't "suit" your pitiful argument. Can you hold a uniform opinion from one post to the next? Obviously not.

Again, you are a TROLL. I don't feed'em, I eat them for breakfast. Again, try not to lose so much sleep over discussions re height, particularly when a mere .5" is involved. That's really weird. Thanks for coming.
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.
Tall In The Saddle said on 22/Jan/20
Okay. Jack Dempsey doesn't have his own page so I figured this was the next best place to post this.

ROB Maybe we could get pages for some of the better known OLDTIME fighters like Dempsey, Louis etc?

JACK DEMPSEY THIS IS YOUR LIFE which I believe was telecast in 1957. I will talk some about height but really the essence of this link is it's intrinsic value to boxing fans.

Significantly featured are Fred Fulton (amazing to see Fred turn up for this), Georges Carpentier and Luis Angel Firpo.

Now IMO, Dempsey wasn't quite 6'1" but definitely between 6' and 6'1" and 6'1/2" listed Tunney always seemed to have a slight edge on Dempsey. You will see an old photograph of Dempsey shaking hands with 6'4.5" listed Fred Fulton. Both the old photo and Fulton's live appearance on the show seemed to uphold Fulton's listed height though it's arguable that the older Fulton, whose walk is clearly compromised, might've lost some of the advantage he previously held over Jack.

In 1918 Dempsey starched Fulton in 18 seconds as described. The best of Dempsey's career came mainly BEFORE he won the title but mainly lacks negro opposition including an older Sam Langford who Dempsey admitted he did not want to fight.

Fulton jokes that the fight might've been a bit different if Dempsey had given him time to get off his stool. Now remember, THIS IS Jack Dempsey, killer instinct personified, so Fulton's comment might not necessarily have been a joke BUT aside from the knockout photo I THINK I have seen a photo of both men moving toward each other at the start of the round. I say I THINK because I saw the photo a long time ago and on a quick search I couldn't locate it and let's remember the photographer ONLY had less than 18 seconds to take the shot. When and if I do I will link the photo. I am sure my memory serves me correctly.

The other fighter to compare Jack with is Luis Angel Firpo who was listed as 6'3". Not sure Firpo was quite that tall but IMO he was at least 6'2.5" peak and IMO this height is supported by the old photos and old footage. However, again, Firpo doesn't appear to hold quite the advantage that he did back in the old days. At age 62 Dempsey looks pretty good and might've held on to his height better.

Here it is, get in quick lest it be taken off Click Here
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
Tall In The Saddle said on 4/Jan/20
@SadSach

Ignore us? Couldn't care less? Ha Ha. SURE SadSach. You can't help yourself. Everyone knows you can't put other posters on ignore. You're the ONLY poster to ask if you could. Don't flip your obvious ignorance on to me.

Obviously, if you wish to ignore someone, as you PROCLAIM you wish to do, it simply involves self sourced discipline which YOU clearly lack. Newsflash, here's how you do it, you simply IGNORE those you claim to want to ignore, meaning NO reference to or about them at all.

However, not only can't you ignore us but like an offended school child you also try to tell others to ignore us. Pure projection.

No one takes you seriously, you are IGNORED by everyone by default. You then try to make "noise" for attention.

It is ONLY a site about height but you are the ONLY poster who gets their panties in a such huge knot over discussion re same. BTW, do you post under any other name on this site? Mmmmm.

Ali was always listed 6'3" in his prime. Briggs was always listed 6'4" in his prime. So, like GF, they must've been measured at those heights, right? Obvious flaws in your methodology. So much goes over your head, doesn't it?

@Canson. I suppose one could assume a shoe height as with anyone else but it's never been literally stated in Foreman's case. GF wasn't barely taller than Ali, he was clearly taller and in my estimation (and others) it was by about 1". I've seen GF and Bowe standing together on live television, there wasn't that much difference between them but GF was dress shoes and Riddick in boxing boots having just come out of the ring for a post fight interview. As to GF and Holmes, it's not true that GF has never looked taller. Both have looked taller than the other at different times in a variety of photos.
GF 6'3.5"
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
Tall In The Saddle said on 8/May/18
IMO GF was about 6'3.5" at absolute peak - during prefight instructions GF was clearly about 1" taller than Ali and Lyle.

Here is the perfect view point to judge Foreman relative to Ali - go to 20:14 of the footage in Zaire:-

Click Here

I see the GF v Lyle fight linked earlier in thread to suggest GF and Lyle of equal height. Look again Grasshopper, Foreman is clearly taller.

Click Here

Look further into clip at 16:52 when GF and Lyle face off at the end of the round - up close and personal and again, Foreman is clearly taller than Lyle despite Ronnie standing as straight as possible to get all up in Foreman's grill (pun intended).
AAAA said on 5/Mar/18
If Foreman is 6'3 so if Harry Carson and Lawrence Taylor. Carson is RIGHT next to Foreman and they look dead even, despite George tilting his head up a bit. Shortest guy there is Thomas Hearns (listed 6'1, many claim closer to 6'2, but many also lie). Tallest guy is Spencer Haywood (6'7-6'9 listings, call it 6'8)

Click Here

What do you all peg the heights at. I have pics of Carson on the Lawrence Taylor Page, as well as one with him next to Jeter. Check em all out.
even said on 27/Feb/18
prime = 6 foot 3 , age 69 = 6 foot 2
Jordan87 said on 12/Feb/18
@ Even,

He was 220-226 lbs during his younger years, as in when he fought Ali, Lyle and Frazier. He was only 250+ when he came back in the late 80's. He also weighed once up t 265 pounds.
even said on 25/Jan/18
as a champ George Foreman was 6 foot 3 inches tall , he also weighed 250 pounds . today he cant be under 6 foot 2 .
Canson said on 17/Jan/18
Peak 6’3 flat as listed
Dwain said on 28/Dec/17
Foreman is defo taller than Ali. Ali looked about 6-2 1/2. Foreman is at least 6-3 if not 6-3 1/2 he was defo taller than Ali.
Canson said on 10/Dec/17
@Harry Sachs: I wouldn’t doubt him having lost height at that age honestly. I know I saw Robert Broome post on Larry Holmes page that he met him recently and he’s still 6’3 surprisingly tho
Harrysachs said on 9/Dec/17
Well I can't find many pictures with Foreman and other boxers anymore Canson. That is the most recent picture/video of him with somebody with a confirmed height. That guy in the video claims to be 6'2. Foreman looks shorter than that guy. So based on that I doubt Foreman is even 6'2 anymore.
Canson said on 5/Dec/17
@Harry Sachs: you think he’s dipped 2”? May be right but I figured he’d still be similar height although I haven’t seen him lately
HarrySachs. said on 4/Dec/17
Click Here The guy in the video is 6'2. Foreman looks shorter than him. Foreman appears to have lost a lot of height. I doubt Foreman is even 6'2 now.
Canson said on 12/Nov/17
Agree with Danimal.

A peak foreman was for sure 6’3”. I know someone who met him at 6’3” and they were the exact same height. Holmes was also 6’3” peak while Ali was 6’2-6’2.5 peak
Danimal said on 10/Nov/17
I read 6'3.5" claims back in the 90's. I could believe the flat 6'3" for him though. Ali was clearly shorter (6'2"-6'2.5") during his prime.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 20/Oct/17
No less than 6ft3
Canson said on 19/Oct/17
@Harry Sachs: as for Foreman he obviously isn’t 6’4”. He was likely at most 6’3” prime. Ali actually said he’s 6’2.5 or the same height as him but that’s also an assumption that Ali and he were the exact same and that Ali measured at his lowest at the 6’2.5. Both could be off and likely foreman is taller as the person I know who who met the guy is 6’3” today even in his 50s (190.3cm at night) and said that he and foreman are eye level. My guess is if foreman and Ali are eye level that foreman is still slightly taller. Even if the difference is 6’3 to 6’2.5 or 6’2 3/4 or 7/8 to 6’2.5
HarrySachs said on 13/Oct/17
Is something wrong with you Reece? Well that is the rhetorical question because clearly something is very wrong with you. You disagree with the people who measured Foreman as a 19 year old amateur at 6'3 230 and you disagree with the people who measured Foreman as a 28 year older against Jimmy Young at 6'3 and around 230? Great for you.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 28/Sep/17
I actually thought 191-192cm range for Foreman
Canson said on 28/Sep/17
@Reece: he wasn't an inch taller I aveee with Harry Sachs. Maybe 1/2" Ali at 6'2.5 is no guarantee that's his lowest. I claimed 6'4.5 for the longest but come down to 6'4.33 and some days 6'4.25 if I go to the gym. Ali could be the same meaning foreman wasn't over 6'3.
Canson said on 28/Sep/17
@Harry Sachs I saw Rob's quote above but I went more off how he looked with Wade. Now the pic with wade may not be accurate enough. But I highly doubt Dwayne wade is over 6'3" flat I think foreman prime may have really been 6'3 tho because someone who met him said they were the same height. Maybe worst case he was 6'2.75 at his lowest. But he was taller than Ali was imho. Ali was prob 6'2.25-.5 foreman could been 6'3 flat max
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 28/Sep/17
Rob, how likely is 189cm?
Editor Rob: I don't think Ali and foreman were that far apart, but 1.5 inches apart seems too much, I think Foreman was giving a shoe height when he claimed 6ft 4.
Reece said on 27/Sep/17
@HarrySachs. I disagree. You don't have to message me if you don't want to.
HarrySachs said on 26/Sep/17
Canson have you seen him with any current heavyweights recently? I tried to find pictures with him with any current fighters. That would show how tall he is today.
HarrySachs said on 26/Sep/17
Reece wave discussed this 1 billion times. Foreman was measured barefooted at 19 and he was 6'3. His last fight against Jimmy Young when he was 28 he was still measured at 6'3. Ali was 6'2.
Reece said on 22/Sep/17
Foreman must be 6-3.5 then because Ali was 6-2.5 at least.
Canson said on 22/Sep/17
He's nothing more prime than 6'3" but likely didn't dip below it. Today at his age likely 6'2 range based on how he looks
Editor Rob: I added a quote above by Ali, he was saying in 74 that both he and Foreman were 6ft 2.5.
Aswin MK said on 9/Sep/17
Rob - I don't remember clearly, but I read somewhere in a boxing site that he was measured as 6 foot 3.5 inches when he won the gold medal. 6 foot 3 is just about right, but having seen his matches again Ali, 6 foot 2ish Ron Lyle and around 6 foot 3 Ken Norton, I would easily say he was around the 6 foot 3.5 mark, might need an upgrade to 6 foot 3.25 atleast as he is at least 0.75 to 1 inch taller than the 6 foot 2.5ish Muhammed Ali.
Editor Rob: it would be interesting to find this 6ft 3.5.
Canson said on 18/Aug/17
Peak height 6'3" like Harry Sachs said. That is evident with Ali Holmes and Norton

Maybe only 6'2" range today since he is in near 70
Logan said on 16/Aug/17
About 6,3-6,4 probaly 6,3 now
harrysachs said on 10/Aug/17
Agreed KH. Ken Norton was measured by the Marines at 6'2 3/4 and was clearly taller than Ali. So I don't see why people like Reece still insisting Ali was 6'3. Ali was 6'2, Ken Norton was 6'2 3/4 and Foreman was 6'3 in his prime. Most likely today Foreman is shorter than 6'3
KH said on 7/Aug/17
Ali was more like a strong 6'2 then 6'2.5 or 6'3. Foreman was about an inch taller. 6'3.5 peak for Big George in his prime.
Canson said on 31/Jul/17
@Harry Sachs: agreed solid 6'3" at his peak may be shorter today by a fraction
Reece said on 24/Jul/17
Looked a full inch taller than Ali but no more. 6-3 and 6/4 seems fair.
McMurphy said on 20/Jul/17
Weak 6ft4 - 193 cm range.
He looked less than an inch taller than Ali, a couple centimeters no more.
Reece said on 6/Jul/17
190 is hard to believe. He looked a inch bigger than a 6-2.5/6-3 Ali. 192-193cm range
even said on 5/Jul/17
190 cm is the real height of the real champ
harrysachs said on 19/Jun/17
Canson I was typing to the other guy who claims Ali is 6'3 so Foreman was 6'4 plus. I already stated that Foreman was measured at 6'3 and then I put up tons of pictures of him to prove my point.
Canson said on 5/Jun/17
@Harry Sachs: you posted that to James and me like we are upgrading foreman. I had him af 6'3" all along and just said there is a possibility he's 6'3.25 not that he for sure is. That for sure would be the max however
Leon said on 28/May/17
Foreman was a inch taller than Ali who was not fully 6-3 but 6-2 1/2. Ali was billed 6-3 1/2 on a show with Howard Cossel but i think he had a 1 inch heel advantage. Foreman was 6-3 1/2 tops.
HarrySachs said on 28/May/17
Reece. 95 percent of the contenders in the 70s were beween 6'2 to 6'6 just like today. Being a certain height in the 70s is the same height is it today. Ron Lyle was listed at 6'3. Could he have been 6'2 1/2? Possibly but I never seen him listed at that height.

Shannon Briggs is taller than Foreman. You are just using one picture to try prove your point. You can't see George feet so you don't know if he is standing on something or not. I saw that picture and thought to myself Foreman is 6'3 and Briggs is basically the same height as him. But in the ring Briggs looked taller than Foreman.
Reece said on 27/May/17
Click Here Even Ignoring the Afro is easily looking tall. Lyle used to tower over oppenents in the 1970s he must be 6-2.5 at least. and Briggs was not a inch taller than Foreman his hair is fooling.Click Here. if u ignore the hair they look about the same. Briggs has likely lost some height. look well shorter than Wlad Kiltschko in the Gym. Briggs is probably more a Broad 6-3 guy.
HarrySachs said on 27/May/17
Ryan Shannon Briggs claims 6'4 and is taller than George Foreman by at least a inch.
Ryan said on 12/May/17
Looks very tall here. he claimed to be 6-4 in his older years and looks it legit.
Click Here
Click Here
HarrySachs said on 1/May/17
177 cm (m|GER/NRW/CGN)You should learn how to type better. I am sure most people here can't understand what you are trying to get across
ArjunaKorale said on 28/Apr/17
@david. You make some valid points...but I still believe that Ali was easily the best World Heavyweight Champ ever. Come on, David, as skilled & as marvellous as Joe Louis & Jack Johnson were for their time, neither would have had the style to beat Ali. You say that Ali had a lot of close fights...and, yes, the two opponents that come to mind are Frazier & Ken Norton. The Ali, however, who lost to Joe Frazier was not a peak fighter...a peak Ali was the Ali of the 1960s, who was TRULY A DANCE MASTER...1960s ALI WAS CLOSE TO BEING THE PERFECT HEAVYWEIGHT in my book. I'd pick a 1960s Ali over Holmes too...just too much speed (of hands & feet) & too much mental strength/confidence. And then we have KEN NORTON...I have watched all three Ali vs Norton fights & I have Ali ONLY winning their second fight...Ken beat Ali 2 out of 3 in my opinion (I strongly believe that)...but STYLES MAKE FIGHTS and Ali's boxing style was tailor made for unorthodox Norton...yet Ali was easily able to handle a bruising, clubbing, super-puncher like George Foreman...the same Foreman who totally annihilated Norton in less than 2 short rounds - go figure!!! AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I LOVE THE SWEET SCIENCE!
david said on 25/Apr/17
@ArjunaKorale. Their all great Champions. however we all define Greatness in loads of ways. i say their is no best ever. it is way too tough. Ali beat some of the Greatest Boxers but he had a lot of close Fights he struggled in he wasnt the Dance Master he was portrayed as. the Foreman and Young was actually quite close. Jack Johnson was great but i felt he was a bit overlooked he lost 13 times but deserves a lot of credit for being the first black champion. Larry Holmes and Foreman were close the Fighting in 1999 but i agree Holmes would have outboxed Foreman.
Canson said on 24/Apr/17
Luke he's either 4 or 5. He's 6'3
ArjunaKorale said on 24/Apr/17
I see a peak, 1970s Foreman at around 191 cm (6 ft 3.25) tall & nothing more. Foreman was without question one of the best heavyweight champions ever, but THE best ever? I don't think so! In the May 2017 issue of The Ring magazine, a large panel of experts ranked Foreman the number 7th greatest heavyweight of all time. Ali was ranked by all experts as the number 1, Joe Louis as number 2, Jack Johnson at number 3 and Larry Holmes as number 5. I agree with them wholeheartedly. Ali walloped Foreman out in 8 rounds & even Jimmy Young, a talented yet unlucky, heavyweight boxer hammered Foreman over 12 rounds, knocking him down to the canvas. The 190 cm tall Holmes was every bit as big physically as Ali & had great stamina just like Ali. Holmes was tough enough, clever enough, mobile enough & quick enough to expose Big George. Foreman always had trouble with clever boxers like Ali & Young and I'm 100 percent certain that Larry would have beaten George too.
luke said on 23/Apr/17
Hello their Rob! which of these do you think is more likely for George Foreman Peak Height
1.194.5/192.5
2. 194/192
3.193.5/191.5
4.193/191
5.192.5/190.5
Rory said on 13/Apr/17
I reckon 6'3.25 peak.
Canson said on 10/Apr/17
@Harry Sachs: i agree. I'm positive he was not 6'5" looking at him next to Ali. Ali was 6'2" and change 189cm peak. That's the problem here on this site is when someone has an idea for someone else's height they always inflate the people around them to make that person the height they want them to be. I see that every day in general a self proclaimed 6'4 guy who is 6'3 barefoot sometimes even 6'2.5 (claiming shoes) stands next to me at a weak 194cm and is nowhere near in height. But afros They all wore afros in the 70s. Foreman at a strong 6'3 (6'3-6'3.25) makes the most sense as the person I know who met him would've immediately spotted that he was taller than him. He said Forman and him were eye to eye when he met him. Maybe foreman was 1/4" taller because that won't be as noticeable but a full inch I agree is noticeable enough especially when foreman himself said he's 6'3"
George said on 8/Apr/17
HarrySachs.i dont think he is 6-4 like Reece i would say he was 6-3.5 tops and i would go with that. but It is his view just leave him to it. no need to get so emotional about it.
HarrySachs said on 6/Apr/17
Canson/James Click Here Go to the 7:00 mark. Foreman is listed at 6'3 224. Norton At 6'3 212. I put up pictures of Norton standing side by side with Ali and Norton is taller. Ali had a higher hair style which made him look closer to Norton's height. I put up links Foreman being measured as a 20-21 year old barefooted at 6'3 230. I put up pictures of Norton and Foreman standing side by side. No pictures of Foreman or Norton closed to the camera. But pictures that show them side by side and Foreman is only slightly taller than Norton.

We are talking about Foreman's barefooted height. Not his height in shoes. Just because Reece has some sexual thing for his hero Ali and keeps trying to put him at 6'3 1/2 even though he is shorter than the 6'2 3/4 inch Norton proves nothing.

Then he is one of these people who isn't smart enough to admit he is wrong. So he just lies about it. He claims Lyle is 6'3 and Foreman is 2 inches taller than him. Which of course lie. That would make Foreman 6'5. Which is funny because I put up a picture of a 40 year old Foreman next to the 6'4 1/2 Riddick Bowe and clearly Bowe is more than a inch taller than Foreman.

Reece will look at pictures where one guy is closer to the camera and try to use that to prove his little point. He isn't smart enough to realize guys lie about their height. So because Lyle said was 6'3 didn't mean he was.

Click Here There is the actually stare down between Lyle and Foreman. Foreman and Lyle are clearly the same height. Foreman just had a much higher afro than Lyle. Which again just proves how Reece lies to prove his point
Canson said on 1/Apr/17
@James: I agree 100%. He maybe was a 6'4" out of bed guy in the 70s or 60s and maybe 6'3.25 at his low which still makes him a strong 6'3". A lot of "6'4" guys will get measured early morning and be an entire inch shorter than I am (6'4.33) because they were measured early AM and rounded up and loosely claim it
Canson said on 1/Apr/17
@Reece: the person who met him is in his early 60s and he met him in the 80s in pretty sure. That's fine if you believe Chucky. We're all here to debate but why is that you take the person who claims the most height for someone instead? You do that for every person you comment on including Deontay Wilder
James said on 31/Mar/17
He was 6'4 with shoes on
Reece said on 29/Mar/17
Chucky said on 15 may 2016
Met him 15 years ago,easily 6-4 i am also 6-4 eye to eye. so Chucky and the person you know both meet Foreman and say different things. i still am sticking to 6-4 or close. just because one person says that but then Chucky who claims to met him too says different. oh and did the person you say met him meet him in the 70s or 90s or when he would have started losing some Height? Dundee said Ali was 6-2 but before the Terell Fight he said Ali was 6-4,Ali was not 6-4 but many commentators used to refer to him as a Touch under 6-4 which would mean 6-3 to 6-3.5.Sachs says Norton is taller than Ali,but i looked at them in the RING in flats Norton could have more in footwear in sachs pictures. they were the Same Height or Ali looked a touch taller in some bits. Norton was not taller in the Staredowns.Ali was listed 6-2.5 then moved up to 6-3 and he did look it next to Sonny Liston. my opinion still stands.
Canson said on 27/Mar/17
Man "can" grow until 25 but doesn't mean they do. How are you so sure Ali grew? Or Foreman? Harry Sachs said it well that he's shorter than Norton as well. So for that to be true it would mean that Norton grew. In short, what you are claiming is too many people grew. Foreman in his peak was 6'3 range. Sure maybe he was a strong 6'3" maybe he only came down as low as 6'3.25 but if a 6'3" person has met him and said they were the same height it's more likely that Foreman isn't 6'4".
Reece said on 26/Mar/17
Physlogical advantage. When Foreman had his height measured he often used to slouch a lot. Look at Ring stare downs. Lyle and Norton and Ali were all shorter than George. Lyle looked almost 2 inches shorter and Ali and Norton were shorter by a inch. Ali could have grown another inch because men can grow till 25. Ali put 6'2.5 but without knowing he grew another inch. Physiological ploy to intimate oppenents in the Ring when the look up and see how big he is. Wlad Kiltschko seems to do the same. I wonder why when he fights in Germany he is billed 6,6.5 but he claims to be 6-5.
Canson said on 26/Mar/17
@Harry Sachs: I agree with everything you said about Ali and Norton. Ali had 6'2.5 on his passport which is likely rounded my guess is he could be 6'2.25 and norton 6'2.75.

@Reece: why would foreman claim 6'3" like he did above when he is truly 6'4"? Most guys do not undercut themselves they inflate
Reece said on 24/Mar/17
apa rava said on 26/Oct/13
I think George was about 6.3 and a half. He is about one inch taller then muhammad ali and ken norton, both of them were about 6.3(between 190-191 cm).

I have no doubt that George is strong 6.3 and a half. maybe even 6.4.

he was 192 or 192.5 cm

Ali was about 190 or 190.5
Chazlinc said on 30/Sep/15
6'4" in 70s prime maybe shorter now. George was a hustler. He also undersold his height and reach. It was part of his schtick. He wouldn't let the commission measure his reach. He'd hunch over to register 6'3" when they measured him.....then in ring Center at the instructions he'd pull back his shoulders and stand up straight..look at the ali and lyle fights...Ron was every bit 6'3"...when George stood up straight he was a full inch...maybe more..taller
these are some that agree with me than George was a strong 6-3 and one guy says 6-4. all you need to do is check staredowns. Foreman was taller than Lyle who looked every bit 6-3.so for you thinking 6-3 do you know it all? its my opinion grow up.
Reece said on 24/Mar/17
Click Here. 3.01 ALI is not shorter than Norton at all your pictures Ali could have a disadvantage in footwear. Norton has a better posture he is not taller than Ali all you need to do is look at is the stare down with 0.5 inch boxing shoes. Ali posture is not always the best and Norton is.so no in the Ring Norton actually looked a tad shorter than Ali. if i am deluded then so is Christopher Lee who is 6-5 and said Ali was a tall man and all the Boxers like Cooper and Bugner saying he was 6-3. Click Here. Ali in Fight 3 with Norton and he is at the very least the same if not slightly taller. Sachs if i am so wrong so me a picture of a good angle in the boxing ring not outside we know the footwear could be keyed norton could have a dresser shoe on. both in Flats Ali was actually slightly taller and Foreman was taller than both. i stand by 6-4.Click Here min 6.43 Foreman a inch taller than Norton. my pictures are with both in flats so this is better proof Foreman could be 6-4.
HarrySachs said on 23/Mar/17
Carson clearly Reece is one of those people who just think he knows is all. Just ignore people like that. He is not worth trying to explain anything too. But since you already understand that Foreman is/was 6'3 at his peak then let me show you this. Reece in his child like mind said Ali is 6'3 right? Norton is 6'2 3/4 and is taller than Ali. Here are various pictures in their primes and old age to prove this Click Here Click Here Click Here
Canson said on 22/Mar/17
@Reece: Ali was 6'2.5 tops and that may not be his lowest. Like I said Foreman was a strong 6'3". Don't know why Foreman would downgrade his own height. And the person that met him was younger at that point and a solid 6'3" then. Of course foreman may have had him by .25" but nothing more as it would've been noticeable
Reece said on 21/Mar/17
@Canson.did that person meet Foreman in the 70s. Foreman was a taller than Norton,Ali and Lyle in the RING with Flats on.Many people think Foreman was 6-4 it is far from a silly estimate.Sachs has just got problems with somebody disagreeing with him. i still stand by my opinion.all you need to do is check the stare down to see he had a inch on ALI who was a proper 6-3. Ali towering of the Beatles by like a head is proof. and why did Ali oppenents say he was 6-3. Henry Cooper said Ali was 6-3.5 and he was Taller than Liston who was 6-0.5 a strong 2.5 inches and tall man Chris lee in his book said He was 6-5 and Ali was a tall man who can look him in the eye.
Canson said on 20/Mar/17
@HarrySachs: yes there are always people who enjoy inflating heights as well. Not saying that is Reece but it seems like guys over 6'0" are primary targets to be inflated. Rob has him listed 6'3" he claimed 6'3. And someone who is reliably 6'3" that met him said he's the same height as he is.
Bizzare Oaks said on 20/Mar/17
@ Harrysachs. Harry just stop. he disagrees with your opinion just stop. Foreman to me is 6,3.5 but no more. he was a bit taller than lyle in their fight. Insults are not needed on this site
Danimal said on 20/Mar/17
Foreman was on Saturday Night Live in 1994 when he was 45 years old. The then 6'4" Kevin Nealon was clearly taller than Foreman by quite a noticeable amount. Foreman looked under 6'3" next to Nealon for sure. He was never over a flat 6'3" in his prime. Today at 68 years old he appears to be in the 6'1"-6'2" range.
HarrySachs said on 19/Mar/17
Canson don't even bother with people like Reece. There will always be people who think they know more than they do. As I said I just put up 2 picture of the 6'2 3/4 Norton and Foreman is barely taller. Maybe even the same height. He will still go on and on about this guy being a certain size and Foreman being taller.
HarrySachs said on 19/Mar/17
Lol Reece you are a fool . You can't argue with a fool . Foreman wasn't taller than Lyle. That was the camera angle. I gave you a picture of Norton and Foreman side by side and they are the same height. But hey in your little fantasy world you want to believe Foreman was 6'4 plus even though he said he was 6'3 and he was measured barefooted at 6'3 in his 20s good for you. I will ignore now because you are too pathetic to even type too.
Reece said on 18/Mar/17
Foreman was a inch taller in the Fight no way were they the same height Foreman is wearing a hat in those pictures so I cannot see the Height Difference. Foreman was taller than Lyle who claims 6-3 check the touch gloves on YouTube. I don't mean to keep going back and Forth with You about this. I know Foreman was rounding down when he said 6-3 he was taller than Lyle,Norton,Ali who were all 6-3 or very close. I am not continuing this dissertation. Have a good day harry xxx
harrysachs said on 16/Mar/17
Beautiful story Reece. Click Here There is a better picture of Foreman and Norton. Unlike the picture you put up where Foreman is way closer to the camera. This picture they are right side by side. Amazing how Foreman barely looks taller right. He might even be the same height as the 6'2 3/4 inch Norton. So as I said you are one of those people who think they know more than they know. You will give them facts and they will give you their opinion. Foreman was measured at 6'3 230 pounds as a 20-21 year old. Oh and here is another picture of Norton and Foreman side by side Click Here
Canson said on 13/Mar/17
@Reece: in the 70s he was a strong 6'3". He was never 6'4". That just shows the slew of 6'3" guys claiming 6'4" is out of control
Reece said on 12/Mar/17
You don't seem to understand.you get upset when people disagree with you. You think 6-3 and I think 6-4. Foreman was a inch taller so by you saying Norton is 6-2.75 that means Foreman in 6-3.75. They were close in Height but both Foreman and Holmes were a inch taller. Just because I disagree does not mean I don't understand logic
HarrySachs said on 12/Mar/17
Reece you are one of those people who can't understand logic. Foreman was measured barefooted when he was 20. He was 6'3. Foreman was only slightly taller than the 6'2 3/4 Norton but whatever. You will believe what you want to believe.
Reece said on 11/Mar/17
Foreman lost height now days. he looked 6-4 in the 1970s 1980s and early 1990s to me.
Reece said on 11/Mar/17
You know somebody who met Foreman nowdays or 70s. Foreman is easily 6-4 in peak to me but looks more 6-2 nowdays.
Canson said on 9/Mar/17
He's 6'3".Maybe 6'3.25 but not 6'4". I know someone who has met him and said they were identical in height looking directly in the eye
Reece said on 7/Mar/17
Click Here both standing still in the Fight,Foreman is a inch taller and Holmes was taller than Norton too.
Reece said on 7/Mar/17
If Norton is 190cm their is more than 0.25 inches difference it was a full inch difference. 6,3.5 is very possible but I still go for 6,4.
HarySachs said on 7/Mar/17
Reece Norton wasn't 6'3. He was 6'2 3/4 according to himself. That picture you put up off is off keyed. Foreman was only slightly taller than Norton. Measured barefooted when he was 20 George was measured at 6'3 and weighed 230 pounds.
HarySachs said on 7/Mar/17
ArjunaKorale what does your opinion on boxing have anything to do with Foreman's height? But since you brought it up Holmes got called out by Foreman in the late 70's and refused to fight Foreman. I think he knew more about his skill set than you. Ali laid against the ropes ( which wasn't his plane according to Ali) and got lucky. Foreman toyed with Jimmy Young According to Gil Clancy and didn't go for the knock out until until he already was suffering from a heat stroke. You don't know anything about boxing so don't bring it up. But anyway Foreman was 6'3 to 6'3 1/2 tops
Reece said on 4/Mar/17
Click Here. Foreman is taller than 6,3 Norton. Norton is likely not standing properly but look how tall Foreman looks. Foreman is 6,4 for sure.
ArjunaKorale said on 2/Mar/17
George was just around 191 cm or 6 ft 3 (perhaps 6 ft 3.5 at the v most) in his peak fighting days...6 ft 4 or anything above is ludicrous in my book. George was great against smaller, shorter men (as well as giant, slower men like Cooney) who stood right in front of him..now, if you gave Big George lateral movement, speed, elusiveness & guile, he was way out of his depth...that's why Ali & Jimmy Young beat him without too much fuss...and that's why Larry Holmes would have beaten him too...I'd bet my house on it.
Reece said on 25/Feb/17
Foreman 6'4 in the 70s his peak but now clearly shorter likely around the 6'2 mark
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 23/Feb/17
Rob, is a fraction over 6ft3 peak possible?



He may have rounded down slightly
Height Freak said on 19/Feb/17
Harrysachs.Tucker was 6,5 at peak,him and Lennox Lewis were the same Height and Lennox is legit 6,5. to say Ali was under 6,2 is false. the guy is tall by the way he was clearly taller than most oppenents in the Ring i doubt Ali was under 6,3. I dont think he was any more than 6,3 but 6,3 seems good for Ali. Ali was 3 inches taller than 6,0 George chuvalo easily.
Muhammad Ali Fan said on 16/Feb/17
I met Ali in the 1971.i was 6,4.5 at the Time and Ali was not too much shorter but he for sure was not as tall as me. i think he was 6,3 on the Dot i am confident he was no less. it is Strange Foreman said he was 6,3 in his younger years,Norton,Lyle and Ali were 6,3 and Foreman had a inch on all three. Foreman and Holmes both look to be taller than Ali. i think Holmes was 6,4 too in his peak he looked to have a inch on Norton.
Reece said on 11/Feb/17
Click Here Foreman and Ali are very close it could be anywhere from 0.5-1 inches their are pictures of it looking more 0.5inches idm sending more to prove it.
Will Johnson said on 10/Feb/17
Ali was not 6,4 but i struggle to believe under 6,3. Foreman looked to have 2cm on him when they fought. Ali 6,3,Holmes 6,3.5,Foreman 6,4 i think those were the peak heights of the 3, IMO
Reece said on 9/Feb/17
Why would Dundee say Ali was 6'4 in 1967 then. Boxing commentators say Ali was a touch other. Cleveland Williams was 6'3 and Ali was every bit as big as his. Cooper said 6'3.5. Ali was 3 inches taller than Chuvalo in the RING to. Not too much shorter than giant terell. Burner said 6'3. All of his 60s and 70s listing before illness and change of posture know Ali as no less than 6'3. He looks every bit after age 21. Foreman was large he look bigger than 6'3 I think he was 6'4 and Ali was closer to 6'3. Some pictures have Ali and Foreman half a inch in height apart they are close. I respect your opinion but I disagree
Reece said on 9/Feb/17
Terrell was gigantic look at the way he towered over ring oppenents. Pierre Cortez's was 6'4 and Foreman was eye to eye. Foreman was 6'4 in the 70s to me. Ali even got measured and had a tail of the tape of 6'3.5 when on to with wilt chamberlain. You think Ali was under 6'2. Look at him towering of Luther king by 9 inches and the Beatles with flat boxing shoes. Liston was 6'1 and Ali had 2.5 inches on him and no less than 6'0.5. If Ali is your claim then Liston is 5,11 only if Ali is under 6'2. Look at Ali towering over a 5'10 member of the Beatles. It is silly to think Terell is not close to 6'6 he may be shorter but he is certainly no less than 6,5. Ali was listed in his Prime and the 70s at 6'3 and not your under 6,2 claim for good reason
Harrysachs said on 8/Feb/17
Touching story Reece as I said Terrell was never 6'6. That is the height he used. Kind of like Tony Tucker claiming to be 6'5 when he was 6'3. Foreman was measured at 6'3 barefooted. Ali was more than .5 inches shorter. But you are the type of dude who will just believe whatever you want to believe.

Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.

Other vital statistics like weight, shoe or bra size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.

Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.