How tall was Muhammad Ali

Muhammad Ali's Height

6ft 2 ½ (189.2 cm)

American Heavyweight Boxing Champion, considered one of the greatest athletes in Boxing History. On his own passport his height was listed as 6ft 2.5.

Muhammad Ali NYWTS

You May Be Interested

Height of Mike Tyson
Mike Tyson
5ft 10 (178 cm)
Height of George Foreman
George Foreman
6ft 3 (191 cm)
Height of Larry Holmes
Larry Holmes
6ft 3 (191 cm)
Height of Evander Holyfield
Evander Holyfield
6ft 1 ¼ (186 cm)

Add a Comment563 comments

Average Guess (94 Votes)
6ft 2.49in (189.2cm)
Slim 6'1" said on 3/Aug/20
Alir?za said on 24/Jul/20
I think he was full solid 190 cm in night.
Tall In The Saddle said on 8/Jul/20
Yes, agree Ali was about 6'2.5". He was also actually listed as such for the first Liston fight on the orig. tale of the tape. His reach was also recorded as 79". At some point after, the orig. tale of the tape was modified and Ali was rounded or inflated to a full 6'3" with an extra 1" added to his reach for good measure (viz changed to 80"). Previously unquestioned in the 70s, the 6'3" claim for Ali was treated as the gold standard against which other fighters were compared so estimates for other fighters were naturally over guessed. Liston for example was listed 6'1" and Ali appeared to have about 2" on Liston which seem to gel with Ali's listed 6'3" but in reality I believe Liston was probably 6'.5" max.
Canson said on 5/Jul/20
Evan Barr said on 2/Jul/20

Ali’s passport had 6’2.5” on it so that was more likely closer to reality if not a small hair under but that may just mean 189cm (6’2 3/8) which is essentially the same. Only because he looked shorter than Norton. Foreman may have been A bit over 6’3 after seeing more so 6’4 out of bed is believable after seeing more. That may be why some believes he was 6’3.5 or 6’3.75 since he had the potential of being a 6’4 out of bed. I’d probably say 6’3.25 more so as an afternoon height
Tall In The Saddle said on 4/Jul/20
Here's a nice clip of Ali on the Steve Allen Show 1963. Allen stands up to greet Ali at 1:10. Click Here

Allen has the edge on Ali and Ali comments on Allen being tall. Not a lot on Allen's height out there but of the listings available, always described as 6'3". Great interview by Allen, when Ali was fresh, original and just having fun.

Just as a gage on Allen's height, here is clip see 25 sec mark of his appearance on Letterman, 1980, 17 years after the Ali interview and Allen almost 60 years old. Not the best angle but IMO sufficient enough to see Allen's clear height advantage over Letterman. Click Here
Evan Barr said on 2/Jul/20
Ali was exactly 6-3 and had a 80 in reach .George Forman 6-3 -3/4 .Joe lois was 6-2 .check out the fight stats they are the most reliable .Ali’s own dr Ferdie pachecko swore that Ali was slightly over 6-3 ,and the nonsense about his reach is just that nonsense Ali had a 80 in reach Foreman 78-1/2 .You cant go by pics of him standing next to people that is as unreliable as it gets .Back then heavyweights did not want to be to big or heavy ,the thinking at the time was big and heavy would be slow and clumsy so they downplayed their size ,if you saw Ali when he was healthy ,he started slouching badly in the 80’s when he started to get sick ,he was a huge dude and was built like a brick house ,his walk around weight between fights when he was in his 20’s was 230 lbs ,He would come way down in weight for his fights he never had to bulk up always super lean.
Jam Cherry said on 14/Jun/20
Seemed like a solid 189 cm guy
Alan mctavish said on 10/Jun/20
I thought ali looked 6ft2" in hes prime! Not smaller and not taller, plus when i saw him standing next to big george foreman whos 6ft4" ali did appear at least 2 inches smaller! But what a fighter ali was, he was the greatest i have ever seen. As a got older growing up watching ali a wasnt exactly sure IF HE WAS the greatest, then a noticed how much he could take it back against guys like foreman and frazier and still be standing against foreman who had the hardest punsh in boxing in 1974 and ali still beat him, a thought ali must be one hard guy to take it as well as give it out just as hard. Thats when i knew HE WAS the greatest boxer ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!! R.I.P MUHAMMED ALI. You were a true showman!!!!!
Alan mctavish said on 10/Jun/20
I thought ali looked 6ft2" in hes prime! Not smaller and not taller, plus when i saw him standing next to big george foreman whos 6ft4" ali did appear at least 2 inches smaller! But what a fighter ali was, he was the greatest i have ever seen. As a got older growing up watching ali a wasnt exactly sure IF HE WAS the greatest, then a noticed how much he could take it back against guys like foreman and frazier and still be standing against foreman who had the hardest punsh in boxing in 1974 and ali still beat him, a thought ali must be one hard guy to take it as well as give it out just as hard. Thats when i knew HE WAS the greatest boxer ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!! R.I.P MUHAMMED ALI. You were a true showman!!!!!
Tall In The Saddle said on 26/May/20
As Joe Louis moved through this career his height listing incremented from 6’1” to 6’1 1/2“ to 6’1 3/4” firming on 6’2” later. The 3/4” is quite specific so I could guess JL was somewhere between the 1/2” and full inch and was eventually rounded to 6’2”. Older Joe stood well next to Ali but a number of pics had Ali in boxing shoes vs Joe’s dress shoes. Notably Joe could still look quite taller than HWs some 30 years beyond his own prime - like Frazier, Quarry, Patterson, Bonavena etc.

I think a page for Joe would be good or perhaps at least a combined page for classic HW Champs.
movieguy12 said on 24/May/20
Joe Louis was a great fighter and I guess 6'1'' to 6'1.5'' or so. Tall in those days for a heavyweight although there were taller guys about even then. Buddy Baer an opponent of Joe's was 6'6''. I used to follow boxing and so know about old time boxers. I don't think though that Joe really needs a page as I think his fame was too far back for him to be of interest too most people who visit here.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 19/May/20
Rob, this article from 1981 (the year he died) describes Joe as 6ft1½, 197lbs

Click Here

Definitely think he's worth a page. Usually he was reported 6ft2 in the same way Ali was given 6ft3
George Johnson said on 19/May/20
Hey Rob, in Ali's face off before his fight with george foreman in the ring, how much taller does big george look? If george is 6 foot 3 shouldn't they be pretty similar in height?
Editor Rob
Ali at 6ft 2.5 and George at 6ft 3 and change might make figures that look believable.
Rob Smith said on 16/May/20
Hey Rob, you said Joe Louis is about 6 foot 1 because of a rough promotional video measuring him at that, but the measurement was very rough and the tape was not applied accurately to the ground or to the top of his head.

Click Here

Here beside Ali an old and sick Joe Louis looks almost his height. What do you think Joe Louis height could be?
Editor Rob
6ft 1 to 1.5 is a range he may well have measured on a stadiometer.
Tall In The Saddle said on 22/Apr/20
@Logan Dixon

No argument that there is greater of number of larger HWs participating in boxing than in previous years. That's a well considered list you have put together. There are some heights here and there that aren't correct (viz eg. Chuck Wepner - who was actually a solid 6'5").

Not exhaustive but there is also the omissions of 6'3" Nino Valdes from the 1950s and both Joe Bugner and Al Blue Lewis from the 70s list, the latter two men both at least 6'4" a piece. Also, not sure why you've listed Terrell as 6'5" rather than his mainly listed 6'6". Is there contention and/or evidence otherwise to suggest Terrell was 6'5"? I haven't read same elsewhere but would be interested if there is something out there.

Lastly, the pool of HWs listed for the 70s is somewhat less than those for 2010. Also, the upper echelon listed for the 70s is misleading in so far as it doesn't include other larger contenders of the day such as Jack O'Halloran 6'5" to 6'6", Roy Williams 6'5', Jeff Merritt 6'5" etc. - Larger contenders who did actually exist back then but were simply culled out by their not quite as large but better skilled counterparts, as represented by the short listed 70s upper echelon. Something which in fact lends to the argument that greater size isn't necessarily better -
Canson said on 18/Apr/20
@Logan Dixon: that’s a good listing. I would prob say 6’5.25 and 6’6.75 for the Klitscko brothers. 4 cm apart. Riddick Bowe is more than a flat 6’4” imo having met him. I’d say 6’4.5 minimum
Canson said on 18/Apr/20
@Logan Dixon: that’s a good listing. I would prob say 6’5.25 and 6’6.75 for the Klitscko brothers. 4 cm apart
Logan Dixon said on 13/Apr/20
1950’s contenders

Joe Louis - 6’1.5 - 200 lbs
Rocky Marciano - 5’9.5 - 185 lbs
Ezzard Charles - 6’0 - 188 lbs
Jersey Joe Walcott - 5’11 - 196 lbs

1960’s contenders

Floyd Patterson - 5’11.5 - 188 lbs
Ingemar Johansson - 5’11.75 - 200 lbs
Sonny Liston - 6’0.5 - 218 lbs
Cleveland Williams - 6’2 - 215 lbs
Muhammad Ali - 6’2.5 - 214 lbs
Jimmy Ellis - 6’0.5 - 200 lbs
George Chuvalo - 5’11.5 - 218 lbs
Ernie Terrell - 6’5 - 222 lbs

1970’s Contenders

Joe Frazier - 5’11 - 213 lbs
Muhammad Ali - 6’2.5 - 220 lbs
George Foreman - 6’3 - 224 lbs
Ernie Shavers - 5’11.5 - 209 lbs
Jerry Qaurry - 5’10.5 - 200 lbs
Ron Lyle - 6’2.5 - 220 lbs
Ken Norton - 6’2.75 - 218 lbs
Leon Spinks - 6’0.5 - 206 lbs
Chuck Wepner - 6’4 - 232 lbs

1980’s Contenders

Larry Holmes - 6’3 - 215 lbs
Michael Spinks - 6’1 - 208 lbs
Trevor Berbick - 6’1.5 - 218 lbs
Tony Tucker - 6’4 - 225 lbs
James Smith - 6’3.5 - 233 lbs
Tim Witherspoon - 6’3 - 229 lbs
Mike Weaver - 6’0.5 - 209 lbs
Michael Dokes - 6’2.5 - 220 lbs
Tyrell Biggs - 6’4 - 230 lbs
John Tate - 6’3.5 - 235 lbs
James Douglas - 6’3 - 232 lbs
Gerry Cotzee - 6’1.5 - 215 lbs
Mike Tyson - 5’10 - 218 lbs

1990’s contenders

Evander Holyfield - 6’1 - 215 lbs
Lennox Lewis - 6’4.5 - 245 lbs
Riddick Bowe - 6’4 - 245 lbs
Mike Tyson - 5’10 - 218 lbs
Bert Cooper - 5’10.5 - 224 lbs
Oliver McCall - 6’1.5 - 225 lbs
Michael Grant - 6’6.5 - 257 lbs
Andrew Golota - 6’3.5 - 239 lbs
Francesco Damiani - 6’2.5 - 228 lbs
Tommy Morrison - 6’1 - 226 lbs
Ray Mercer - 6’0.5 - 228 lbs
Jose Adilson Rodrigues - 6’0.5 - 221 lbs
Lionel Butler - 5’11 - 245 lbs
David Tua - 5’9.5 - 245 lbs
Ike Ibeabuchi - 6’2 - 225 lbs
Donovan Ruddock - 6’2.5 - 230 lbs
Frank Bruno - 6’2.5 - 230 lbs
Michael Moorer - 6’1 - 222 lbs

2000’s Contenders

Vitali Klitschko - 6’6.5 - 243 lbs
Wladimir Klitschko - 6’5.5 - 241 lbs
Corrie Sanders - 6’3 - 230 lbs
Henry Akinwande - 6’6.5 - 237 lbs
Herbie Hide - 6’1.5 - 214 lbs
Lamon Brewster - 6’0.5 - 219 lbs
Samuel Peter - 6’1 - 260 lbs
Hasim Rahman - 6’1.5 - 239 lbs
John Ruiz - 6’1.5 - 220 lbs
Nikola Valuev - 6’10 - 330 lbs
Chris Byrd - 6’0 - 214 lbs

2010’s contenders

Tyson Fury - 6’7.5 - 273 lbs
Anthony Joshua - 6’5.5 - 237 lbs
Deontay Wilder - 6’6.5 - 231 lbs
Dillian Whyte - 6’2.5 - 250 lbs
Andy Ruiz Jr. - 6’0 - 283 lbs
Luis Ortiz - 6’2.5 - 240 lbs
Alexander Povetkin - 6’1.5 - 228 lbs
Joseph Parker - 6’3 - 245 lbs
Robert Helenius - 6’6.5 - 238 lbs
Filip Hrgovic - 6’6 - 240 lbs
Jarrell Miller - 6’3 - 300 lbs
Tony Yoka - 6’6.5 - 231 lbs
Oscar Rivas - 5’11 - 249 lbs
Adam Kownacki - 6’2 - 265 lbs
Joe Joyce - 6’5.5 - 256 lbs
Kubrat Pulev - 6’3 - 255 lbs
Dominic Breazeale - 6’6.5 - 256 lbs
Michael Hunter - 6’1 - 226 lbs
Efe Ajagba - 6’5 - 241 lbs
Dereck Chisora - 6’1 - 257 lbs
Daniel Dubois - 6’4 - 240 lbs
Charles Martin - 6’4 - 254 lbs
Carlos Takam - 6’0.75 - 241 lbs
David Price - 6’8 - 257 lbs
Chris Arreola - 6’2 - 244 lbs
Dave Allen - 6’2 - 249 lbs
Arthur Szpilka - 6’3.5 - 238 lbs
Gerald Washington - 6’5.5 - 237 lbs

1950: 5’11.5 - 192 lbs
1960: 6’1 - 209 lbs
1970: 6’0.5 - 216 lbs
1980: 6’2 - 222 lbs
1990: 6’2 - 231 lbs
2000: 6’3 - 240 lbs (Valuev the weight a lot)
2010: 6’3.75 - 240 lbs

So over 60-70 years ago, Heavyweights were barely 6 ft and 190-200 lbs
Now 6’1 - 6’2 is considered a short heavyweight and they regularly weight 240 lbs, so heavyweights have undoubtedly gotten bigger.

45 years ago George Foreman was considered a large heavyweight at
6’3 - 224 lbs. now that wouldn’t be considered big at all, rather on the lighter side of the heavyweights.
Mickie said on 12/Apr/20
PED usage is rampant in professional sports. Not all of them do, but I think the majority yes .
Tall In The Saddle said on 2/Apr/20

Interestingly, I find even when PED usage is reasonably assumed of certain athletes, even supported by randomly failed drug tests, when it comes to the elite, marquee names, they often get an acknowledged pass. As if the sublime level of their performance and already accrued legendary status is sufficient justification of the drugs that are, in part, contributory to their performance. People still wax lyrical about guys like peak Arnie or Roy Jones Jr. and their achievements remain in place without much of an asterisk, let alone their achievements be null and voided altogether. People will argue what PEDs can and can't do for an athlete - no hard and fast conclusions - but the fact is they're taking something that allows performances beyond their natural capabilities, even though their natural capabilities may already be well beyond the norm in the first place. If that wasn't the case, then they wouldn't take PEDs. The benefits vary, and it seems, they vary from one athlete to another. Suffice to say, I could take PEDs but I wouldn't then magically possess the peak hand speed of Roy Jones Jr. I'll pass that as a natural attribute for Roy.
movieyguy12 said on 29/Mar/20
Although athletes are getting bigger all these stories about drug use being rampant among those at the top raises the question of how much better the modern day athletes are in reality. If athletes these days look better it might have as much today with the widespread use of performance enhancing drugs as it has to do with being a few inches taller. Although of course there have been more legitimate advances in nutrition and physical fitness I guess that could help to explain improvements in performance.
Tall In The Saddle said on 6/Feb/20

My bad. I should've distinguished between the two "Joes". I was asking how you felt Tyson would fare as compared to Frazier against today's HWs given Tyson and Frazier shared similar size disadvantages.

Anyway, thanks, you answered that question stating, in your opinion, that Tyson was better suited against taller opposition than Frazier as Tyson fought and KO'd taller opposition than Frazier.

At least IMO, while Tyson did well against taller opposition, the size difference could present difficulties, particularly with opponents who knew how to maximise their advantage. However, not all tall fighters fight like taller fighters, one example IMO Riddick Bowe whose style often negated his height and reach advantages otherwise. Of course, Tyson's own size and style could sometimes present as an advantage against taller opponents who had to punch down at a smaller, ever moving target and also difficult for the taller opponent to see shots coming from down under. Classic example, the Tyson left hook that dropped Carl Williams which was a beauty.

Also, in fairness, several Tyson taller opponents didn't so much engage Tyson as they did run and clutch in order to survive which is difficult for any fighter to contend with. Lewis would've been tough for Tyson at any time but I will agree that Tyson was well past it when they fought. Tyson's thing was bob weave, getting under and in super fast, then fire lightning quick power combos. For that type of style, peak speed is crucial and anything less could mean the difference between resounding success and emphatic failure.

In terms of actually using height and reach advantage to the max., Lennox Lewis put on a master class against Tua who was even shorter than Tyson. The interesting thing that the HW division allows for is that, even though one could suggest that Tua and Lewis were technically separated by 3-4 divisions in terms of the difference in their respective heights and reach, Tua still had the punch to end it all IF he could connect solidly on Lewis which of course he didn't.

As to the other Joe, Joe Louis, it's just my opinion that Louis would do very well against the bigger HWs of today, as he did in his own time. Therein lies the pros and cons of size, LH Billy Conn gave Joe fits (though Joe wasn't prime) while on the other hand, guys like Carnera, Buddy Baer and Abe Simon were easy meat for the Bomber and disposed of in emphatic fashion.
Jordan87 said on 5/Feb/20
Tyson Advantages over Frazier :
1.Bigger (Heavier)
2.Stronger/ Hit harder
4.More Technical ( Better Combinations)

Frazier Advantages Over Tyson:
More Stamina
More Heart
Better Chin

Joe Louis Advantages over Tyson and Frazier:
Better One Punch Knockout Power than Either of them.

Joe Louis Disadvantages to both Tyson and Frazier :
Slower and Flat Footed
Easier to Hit than Either of them
Was Dropped many Times in his Career to Punchers who hit a lot less than Tyson and Frazier
Had Not Seen a Fighter with Either Tyson or Frazier’s Style and couldn’t handle their Combo’s
Jordan87 said on 5/Feb/20
@ Tall in the Saddle,

Very true about Joe, he was always considered " Small", but I loved how he fought. It made for a highly entertaining Athlete. I also liked his demeanor.

regarding Louis, Styles do make fights. Are you asking if I think Joe Luies would be more effective against larger Opponents than Joe Frazier?

As Far as Tyson , I think He was a more improved version of Frazier. So While Tyson also struggled against some Taller Opponents ( Lewis) he generally knocked out significantly taller Guys than Frazier did.

People may argue that Frazier fought better opposition than Tyson but if you are asking if Tyson or Frazier was better adapted to fighting TALLER Opponents , Tyson was b/c his opponents were on average taller than Frazier's opponents.

I feel Tyson was better Trained than Frazier and Much More Powerful. Frazier had better Stamina and Heart however.
Jkiller said on 5/Feb/20
A perfect 6'2.5.
Tall In The Saddle said on 4/Feb/20

Joe was already on the smaller side in his own era. I love Joe too but given his size and specific style, Joe had to work every sec of every round and shipped a fair measure of punishment along the way. Joe could take it but we know what happened when he engaged an appreciably larger foe who possessed several notches of extra power.
Basically, the bigger HWs in Joe's own time represented the limit Joe could viably handle aside from GF. I also think Joe's management steered him from other big punchers of the day like Lyle and Shavers. No, Joe vs even bigger and taller opposition doesn't bode well for Frazier.
But that's Smoking Joe, his size and own style. Each fighter on their own merits.
Now go back 20 years prior to Frazier and 80 years prior to now and you have Joe Louis. Now you might disagree which is fine but IMO, Louis combination of size, skill, speed and power would stand Joe in very good stead to get inside the larger, more cumbersome opposition of today and get home the crucial connections.
How about Iron Mike? Hit harder and generally faster than Joe (Joe's left hook was blur) but essentially, doesn't Mike have the same issue making connection against even taller, better reached opposition?
Canson said on 30/Jan/20
6’2 3/8” could be the afternoon height but doubt much less. 6’2.25-.375 is arguable. He did look only 1/2-3/4” shorter than legit 6’3 George Foreman
Jordan87 said on 27/Jan/20
@ CHristian
"Athletes in a particular sport being taller, has no correlation with the overall general population's height."

Not directly, but people are certainly taller and fatter ( Especially in the US) then they were in 1960's. Not necessarily heather.

@ " Tall in the Saddle"

I agree that the Heavyweights have attracted taller People over time that's for sure. There are a few guys from the 70's that can hold up as far as Size. Imagine though if you put Large, Athletic heavyweights Like Lennox Lewis, Wilder, Fury, Joshua, and Wlad/Vitali back into the 70's era of Boxing? I love me some Joe Frazier but he would be totally out-sized . 250 and 205 ( Frazier's Weight) is like 2 weight classes. Don't even think Smokin Joe could reach those fighters I mentioned with head shots. He would have to go to the body. His famous left hook would have a harm time Landing. True, he caught Ali who was more agile than the modern guys, but also like 3" shorter as well.

Would be interesting to See Joe Frazier ( A Smaller, Less Powerful Mike Tyson- but will more cardio and heart) take on the Big guys of today.
Christian 6'5 3/8" said on 24/Jan/20
What your favorite sport? I'm assuming it's boxing? Mine is basketball, football, and pro wrestling (if you can even call that a sport), but I watch wrestling more often than I do basketball or football.
edwards said on 24/Dec/19
i as a kid grew up watching boxing and idolizing the legendary cassius clay better known as mohammad of the greatest ever in history of sports of boxing.i was a and i'm still a great fan of boxing.infact i've been to more boxing matches than any sports.been to more than 7 of iron mike tyson matches.
a flat 6'2 from me to the greatest of all times in boxing.
Christian 6'5 3/8" said on 21/Dec/19
Athletes in a particular sport being taller, has no correlation with the overall general population's height. The average pro basketball player has gotten taller over the decades, but the average pro horse jockey has gotten shorter. It's all about the particular sport attracting athletes whose heights can adapt to that sport better.
Tall In The Saddle said on 19/Dec/19

It's an interesting discussion and your opinions are understood and respected.

I understand the trouble with Harry and I am not wild about him either (puns intended). I was also threatened/promised with being ignored by him a while back. It's an honour we now both share and can enjoy.

To the points at hand.

No, I never stated that humans have gotten taller. To the contrary, I stated that studies indicate there has been little or no height increase since the 1940s. So no, whatever the current average height in the HW division, it is not indicative that the average height of the general population has increased.

The discussion re conditioning has become cross purposed. Whether you brought it up or not and I understand you say you didn't, the point re conditioning is a relevant answer in part as to why some HWs are heavier now. Meaning, it's not necessarily because they are naturally bigger, rather, they are simply carrying fat and not as well conditioned/cut as their predecessors. There is also PED usage and accented weight training, the latter previously rejected by the older guard.

Finally, the point has been made that there was a contingent of HWs in the 70s whose height was comparable to the taller HWs of today and by way of any or all of the above means 1) carry excess fat 2) accented weight training and 3) PED usage they would present as being not just of comparable height but weight also.

I would guess that the pool of such HWs in the 70s is smaller in number than those competing today. However, in terms of their height and potential utilisation of the same means to put on weight (extra fat, PEDs, weight training) they would be just as big in all respects.

I simply think that the HW division has just attracted a greater number of taller fighters in the mod. era as if it is a prerequisite to be that height/weight in order to succeed. I don't necessarily think that their numbers have risen by way of proven dominance over lesser size HWs - it certainly didn't help the contingent of 70s HWs who were just as tall but not quite as heavy.
Jordan87 said on 18/Dec/19
@ Tall in Saddle,

I posted a list showing heights and weights from boxing Rec. I think Harry's problem is he keeps going to the conditioning of the fighters. I never pointed out anything to do with conditioning. Its true that some of the better heavyweights in the past seemed to have more endurance, that is true.

My Issue with Harry is he seems to think that heavyweights are not taller nowadays which is completely bogus. Like you said, Humans as a Whole have gotten taller.

Fighters are heavier today, some are fatter that is true. My Main Point here is the heavyweights are taller ( And Yes Heavier) then they were in the past and heavier. Better conditioned? I never said that.
Tall In The Saddle said on 18/Dec/19
If it is simply a difference of opinion exactly relating to the subject of height I can't see any reason why anyone would dislike or even hate what anyone else writes.

We all have our own opinion and aside from sideline discussions it is only about height, after all. The mind boggles over the intensity of some discussions in which disagreement over a mere .25" is involved.

I think it is just that some people straight out of the gates simply cannot tolerate alternative opinions. I mean it literally get's them into a frothy twist. So much so, they resort to ad hominem attack trying to criticise and discredit the person rather than the point.


I think you have been talking about HWs being "bigger", in respect of both height and weight combined, not just height and the data contained in your prior list and associated comments indicate that.

I think it might be reasonably assumed that you're suggesting that mod. HWs are of greater natural size (height and weight) than their predecessors. If you're not suggesting that then it is still appropriate to address the two components of the statement so as to be clear what they're supposed to mean.

Abstract data is of no use unless you interpret and cohere it. I could, for example, simply say that people are bigger than they were in the 1940s. Without due qualification the assumption might be that it is an apples to apples comparison and that people have naturally become bigger over the years. A missing qualifier might be that people are simply less fit than there more physically demanded ancestors and have slung shot the other way into the world of obesity. Studies otherwise appear to indicate that there has been little or no average height increase since that time.

Height. This has been addressed. There were HWs going around whose height was comparable or near enough to that of the mod. HWs. Were there as many as today? I can't say for sure but I suppose perhaps not. I can say they were generally culled out before they could reach the upper echelons of the division so a good number of them are only known to the more die hard fans.

Weight. Yes, of course conditioning comes into it. If we're going to say "bigger" which comprises weight, then it's perfectly appropriate to compare the conditioning of today's fighters to those of the past otherwise "bigger" in respect of weight is simply an abstract figure which is of no use. Now "bigger" could come by way of more dedicated weight training which fighters of the past were warned off from though some did indulge. At least IMO, that type of "bigger" still falls into the realm of natural but better potentialized muscle without being out of shape.

The other catalysts for "bigger" can also be PEDs or simply being out of shape as referenced above. Also, re PEDs, fighters who were clearly using or at least suspected of using should have an asterisk against their achievements but it seems this fact is ignored when it comes to Marquee names who were obviously using.

Also, Boxrec is very good but it isn't the bee all and end for accurate stats for both heights and weights. Not to cherry pick but as one example - they list Al "Blue" Lewis as 6'3". The guy was always listed as 6'5" back in the day. One might then suggest the old listing was an exaggeration - but actually watch the fight and Lewis appears to have at least 2" on Ali, he is clearly the taller man.

Personally I don't buy the general projected uplift for fighters of the past given better nutrition and weight training. It's an each case on it's own merits. Example Marciano coming in at an extra 28 lbs of muscle doesn't work for me but then, if one felt he needed it in the mod. era, I could see Joe Louis' frame accommodating a fair amount of extra muscle without compromise. I believe Joe's highest actual fighting weight was about 218 lbs and while he wasn't as cut as he was at 200 lb - 205 lb he still didn't appear fat.

Subject to the integrity of its data, it would be good if filters could be applied to Boxrec to obtain the heights and weights of all competing HWs competing within specific date ranges in order to obtain true averages.
Jordan87 said on 16/Dec/19
@ Harry Sachs ,

"Hey is there anyway you can put somebody on ignore so you can't see their comments"

Again you have posted no Evidence to argue against any of my Points. This is B/c you have no Evidence. Everybody else here can use Google and BoxRec, you either don't know how or are afraid to. Either way its no good for you.

Again, Factually Boxers in the heavyweight Division are on average taller then they were in the 70's ( And Before then).

Better Conditioned? Nope....I never said that. We are talking about height. Yes I will remind you again. And Again. And Again!
Christian 6'5 3/8" said on 16/Dec/19
@Harry Sachs
If you're that offended by someone's comments, then it's best to not visit this site at all, or at the very least, just ignore those comments. I can't count the number of times where I disagreed or even hated what someone wrote here, but not once I've ever complained to Rob about making those comments invisible.
Mickie said on 14/Dec/19
This Harry Sachs guy has a real issue with people pointing out modern heavyweights are bigger than the ones of old.
Harry Sachs said on 12/Dec/19
Hey is there anyway you can put somebody on ignore so you can't see their comments? Jordan87 bores me and I don't care to read anything else he types.
Editor Rob
Unfortunate not, just have to skim by any names you may not like reading.
Jordan87 said on 12/Dec/19
Nice List you Gave of the current heights of the Wilder Opponents. The reason you didn't give them? Bc its a fact they average taller then Ali's Opponents.

You Keep Bringing up Foreman at 6'3 and 230. He is is actually smaller then most of the current top 20 Heavyweights and by that I mean SHORTER.

You Keep saying I am talking about what shape the fighters are in. I'm Not. You need to be evaluated. I am talking about height. You can't read apparently.

Your Afraid to do any research.

Any other normal thinking human being reading this can use Google and Boxing rec and will find boxers in the heavyweight division are taller nowadays then in the past. Its a fact, and for you Harry Sachs its a very painful one ( For some reason lol )
Harry Sachs said on 10/Dec/19
Jordan87 I will type this and then I am done with you. I could list fighters that Deontay Wilder faced. Most of them are shorter than 6'3. I could also pick weights that benefit my point. Wladimir Klitschko weighed as low as 220 pounds. Deontay Wilder weighed as low as 207. Luis Ortiz weighed as low as 217. I could go on.

Foreman was listed at 6'3 230 pounds as a 19 year older who decided to lose weight before putting his weight back on.

Ali didn't fight the taller guys like Leroy Jones, Al Jones, Roy Williams ect. So because Ali chose to fight smaller guys that means every heavyweight during the 70's were shorter?

Alexander Povetkin is 6'1 220. I never heard anybody refer to him as small. Any Ruiz is 6'0 or shorter i never heard anybody refer to him as being short. So because the casual fan thought Evander Holyfield was small it means something?

Finally if you can't grasp that most heavyweights today are extremely out of shape compared to fighters from the 70's, 80's 90's then that is your problem. You frequently would see boxers from the 70's weigh a certain amount when they turn pro and lose tons of weight to be in better shape. Like Buster Mathis Sr who weighed 300 pounds when he turned pro. Or guys like Roy "Tiger" Williams.

Fighters from the 70's took great care of themselves. Which is why guys like Ron Lyle, Ken Norton and even Foreman came in lighter than needed to be. Now we have guys like Andy Ruiz being 6'0 or shorter and weighing 280 pounds.

It is also funny how you try to lie to prove your point. Bob Foster was never a heavyweight. He was a light heavyweight who moved up. When he moved up to heavyweight he didn't gain a lot of weight because he was still the light heavyweight champion. Kind of like when the 180 to 190 pound Steve Cunnigham moved up to heavyweight and knocked Tyson Fury down with one punch. Steve was a naturally small guy but decided to move up to heavyweight and actually that there. Bob Foster didn't.

Floyd Patterson turned pro turned pro in 1952. During that era the heavyweights were smaller. Patterson just lingered on until Ali's time and Ali chose to fight a small guy. Rudi Lubers was a light heavyweight who again to chose to move up in weight class. There was no cruiser weight class then so he fought at "heavyweight". Jimmy Ellis was a middle weight who decided to try his hand at heavyweight. That is no different from Damon McCreary a guy Deontay Wilder fought who weighed as low as in the 160s but balloon up to 270.

This is my final comment to you. People like you will ignore any point somebody brings up to try to make your point stand. You will ignore the 100's of boxers from the 1970's who were 6'5 plus even the countless ones I named just to name some shorter guys Ali fought. You will ignore the fact the shorter guys Ali faced were left overs from the 50's or 60's. You will find a low weight that a fighter weighed to try to prove your point. Ignore the fact that the fighter mentioned could of be much heavier before or afterward. Or you will just ignore the fact that most heavyweights today are in extremely poor condition.

You will also ignore the fat in the past 5 years they were a 6'0 tall over weight heavyweight champion in Andy Ruiz, A 6'1 champion in Alexander Povetkin, a 6'2 champion in Luis Ortiz, a 6'2 to 6'3 champion in Joseph Parker. The only people who think being 6'5 is some kind of mandatory to be heavyweight champion. The taller guys failed back in the day because it didn't help. The only reason Ruiz lost the second fight against Joshua was because he was even more over weight than before. It has nothing to do with his height.

Now I am done. I will not respond to anything else you type
Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Dec/19

Good discussion. Normal not to exactly agree given multiple nuances and contexts to be factored.

On the night I just think Douglas brought all the necessary tools that one would've projected for to prevail over prime Tyson, size, reach, speed, power, skill and not the least being his immunity to intimidation. Mike's favoured pinnacle was against his most scared opponent a blown up LH in the form of Michael Spinks. Tyson, like Liston gained a lot of advantage from intimidation and IMO the Spinks fight exemplified that. Don't get me wrong, it was justifiable to deal with acute fear at the prospect of facing either one of those destroyers but many opponents let the fear override them and compromise their performance before opening bell.

You're right it appeared Douglas did get a long count which then leads to speculation as to whether Buster could've risen without the extra seconds as Douglas was clearly paying heed to the ref's meter which is all he could do. Tunney had the option to argue same against Dempsey who reverted to type and didn't move to a neutral corner.

I think it's okay to compare fighters from different eras exactly as they were head to head for the sake of that exercise. One just has to understood whatever outcome you conclude it doesn't necessarily equate to either fighter being better or worse. You only get to see the fighter's realised potential within the confines of his era and in another era the realised potentials may be rationalised to be even greater. Example, while he could catch single punches mid travel IMO Jack Johnson's exact style isn't going to cope with garden variety fast combinations. In Johnson's day just having a decent jab already put you well ahead of the majority of the field. However, we should give Johnson credit for potential adjustments and innovations to deal with more sophisticated offense but I can't envisage Lil Arthur dealing with it as easily as he did back in his day.

Re Mike's heart. IMO as per boxing definitions, a fighter's heart is interpreted a number of ways. At least vs Douglas, while he had a great chin, Mike took an enormous amount of punishment round after round, capped by a highlight reel combo that finally put him down and Mike was still grappling for his mouthpiece while trying to arise. He went out like a Champ. Re his heart I would only say that if he didn't get his man out ASAP and wasn't the front runner Mike's conviction and belief in himself appeared to wane BUT that is separate to courage which Tyson definitely showed in Tokyo. I like Liston also but Sonny showed his limits when he quit on his stool v Cassius Clay.

Louis is probably my favourite also given his power, speed and aesthetically pleasing copy book punching but I am objective re certain flaws in Joe's game and no fighter is without flaws. Joe was somewhat limited in his ability to adapt mid fight and in that regard Ali was the antithesis of Joe. Proven adaptability is not fixed in it's specifics but bodes well for a fighter when he is projected against different opponents/eras in which one suspects they will successfully adjust themselves.

I think Joe has the scope to sit down with his team and adjust himself between fights but not so much mid fight. Joe always did so much better in rematches. Notably Joe also lost big time in his prime to Schmeling due to an overt flaw of bringing his left back low after jabbing. Joe adjusted and the left was kept high for the rematch which didn't last long but of course and Schmeling himself was that much more past prime than the first fight so that has to be factored.

I wouldn't argue against 6'1.5" for Joe but won't rule out a touch taller than that.
Jordan87 said on 6/Dec/19
@ Tall in the Saddle,

True technically Tyson should have still been " in his prime" when fighting Douglas. He also did knock Douglas down who got a very very generous count. Tyson cut Tyson's Prime short.

Holyfield was older than Tyson when he beat him, but Tyson's Prison Break and non Training for 3 years put him far from his peak. ( Even though age wise he should have still been at his peak).

Tyson did not fight very good opponents that is true, your right on that.

What I am saying is that a 1986 Tyson at 20 years old needed a Good Handling team around him. Any 20 year old does. He was champ very early, and Once Cuss Passed the combination of Idiots he had around him at a venerable age really hurt him , then his skills eroded. I'm not using that as an Excuse, bc for Example guys like Lennox got better after age 29-30. Tyson screwed himself, no excuse.

Back to Tyson vs. Louis, ehhh...Lewis is my Favorite fighter but I think Joe's Problem would be the Type of fighter Tyson was. Your right to Compare Era's at times doesn't make sense b/c If Joe Luis had come up in the 1980's, he would have been bigger, stronger, and Faster.

So I think if you had a Time Machine and Threw 1986 Mike Tyson into a Fight with 1936 Joe, Joe would not know how to deal with Someone with the head movement, Combo of Speed, Power, and aggression.

Joe was taller ( I give 6'1.5", not the 6'1.75") with more heart, Tyson was Heavier, Stronger, Faster, More Powerful, Harder to hit, and more aggressive. I'd still give Mike 8/10 Wins over Joe.

Who do I like better as a Fighter? Joe !
Tall In The Saddle said on 4/Dec/19
@Jordan87. If one actually looks at Louis very early in his career he wasn't as stationary as many pundits would have it and had more defensive moves than given credit for. The Max Baer fight is a very good example. However, Joe did later settle into a very economical business like 9 to 5 approach with his opposition. Not too much, not too little, just enough. Not to say Tyson wouldn't prevail nor deny that Joe would have to bring his absolute A game to the table. No they didn't all throw combos back in the day as they later did and Tyson's combos could be sublime just as Joe's own pin point power combos could be.
If Louis was troubled by an opponent first time around, when he rematched them he did so much better. A learning process if you will but IMO Louis' improved performances in rematches were more about a more inspired Louis loosening the tight budget and splurging a bit with his vast armoury.
Though GREAT in their own right, GREAT fighters are in part shaped, moulded and demanded upon by the quality of their opposition. If these fantasy match ups were real, let's say a round robin involving series of matches against the same opponent one could speculate even greater realised potential for the older guard who did enough to prevail over their contemporaries but perhaps could do even more given elevated quality of opposition. Basically that's why they say it isn't fair to compare GREAT fighters of difference eras.
I read Jack Johnson describe Dempsey as being a sabre toothed tiger in the first 4 rounds of a fight and then just a very good fighter after that. I agree. IMO that description could fit Tyson who would be dangerous for any GREAT in the very early going but past GREATS with sufficient skills, mettle and chin who could survive the early going will see their chances of victory exponentially rise with each and every round thereafter. Pretty much how the Douglas fight unfolded.
Tall In The Saddle said on 4/Dec/19

Re Tyson I actually referenced Tyson's 1990 loss to Douglas. I also went further back to 86 vs Tillis to illustrate the issues Tyson had with a similar boxer type who actually came to fight and didn't fold like a cheap suit or shell up to simply survive. Tyson's so called abbreviated prime is apologetic BS and far more apologetic than is afforded to a number of opponents who themselves weren't at peak and impaired even before opening bell. The failsafe formula for Tyson fanatics is to believe that Tyson was in his prime UNTIL his first loss. The facts are Tyson lost BADLY in his prime.
You isolated Holyfield v Tyson which I didn't even mention but I will now. Holyfield wasn't prime himself with a number of wars behind him, not the least being the Bowe trilogy. See, just more apologies for Tyson, but no apologies or due qualifications for the vanquished opposition or even the opposition that beat Mike. No, there are only ever apologies for Mike.
No one was calling Tyson off peak at all when he fought Douglas who was a prohibitive 40-1 underdog! IMO Tyson was not off peak vs Douglas and even when prime GREAT fighters have slightly off nights they ultimately prevail. Even if Tyson was only 80-90% of himself in Tokyo the pre fight view suggested that he still should've wiped the floor with Douglas but it was Douglas who did exactly that with Tyson.
Comparing Louis to 6'2.5" Ali and Ali's contemporaries such as 6' Quarry and 6'Chuvalo to name two, I think it reasonable to estimate Joe to be between 6'1.5"-6'1.75".
Jordan87 said on 3/Dec/19
@ Tall in the Saddle,

Anybody can clearly see there was a big difference in Tyson's Skills when he fought Evander then earlier in his career. So While I agree with you on the Tyson Hype being a little to much, I still think and 1986 Tyson's Combinations would be unlike anything Joe Luis ( A Stationary Fighter) would have seen. They threw WAAAAY Less Combo's back in Joe's Day.

So While I Admit Tyson was really bad when it came to Longevity ( He went downhill fast- these are facts) I still think a Prime Tyson would beat Joe Louis ( my Favorite Fighter) 8/10 times.

As Far as Ali ( Cassius Clay version- Yes he was better as Clay) , He would Frustrate Joe to a decision. Joe May Floor him, but Ali by Decision.

As Far as Joe's Height , to me if he was Listed as 6'1, he is not much taller.
Jordan87 said on 3/Dec/19
This is for Harry Sachs, since of Course he ignored this list but I will re-post it ;)

Just For Reference, Ali's Opponents in the 1970's in Order are as Follows. ( Check Boxing Rec if you need to)

1970: Jerry Quarry 6'0/ 198
1970: Oscar Bonevena 5'10"/ 204
1971: Joe Frazier 5'11"/ 205
1971: Jimmy Ellies 6'3 / 189
1971: Buster Mathis 6'3/250
1971: Jurgen Blin 6'1"/???
1972: Mac Foster 6'2"/ 211
1972: Goerghe Chuvalo 6'0/ 205
1972: Gerry Quarry 2 : 6'0 / 197
1972: Alvin Blue Lewis" 6'3"/224
1972: FLoyd Patterson 6'0/ 188
1972: Bob FOster 6'3"/ 180 ( Yes you read that Right, 180 pounds)
1973: Joe Bugner 6'4" / 219
1973: Ken Norton ( 1 : 6'3" / 210
1973 : Ken Norton ( 2): 6'3" / 205
1973: Rudi Lubbers 6'0"/ 196
1974: Joe Frazier 5'11/205
1974: George Foreman" 6'3" / 220 ( Yes big Bad Forman was only 220 for this fight)
1975: Chuck Wepner: 6'5"/ 225
1975: Ron Lyle : 6'3"/ 219
1975: Joe Bugner ( 2) : 6'4" / 230
1975: Joe Frazier ( 3): 5'11" / 215
1976: Jean Pierre Coopman 5'11/ 206
1976: Jimmy Young 6'2" / 209
1976: Richard Dunn : 6'3" / 206
1976: Ken Norton ( 3) : 6'3" / 217
1977: Alfredo Evangelista : 6'1" / 210
1977: Ernie Shavers: 6'0 / 211
1978: Leon Spinks : 6'0 / 197
1978: Leon Spinks ( 2) : 6'0 / 201

Take this List and Average it: ALi's Opponents in the 1970's averaged a Listed height of about 6'1.5" and a recorded weight of 208 pounds.

Holyfield was 6'2 and 215 pounds in the 90's as was called a small heavyweight and he is still bigger than Ali's Average opponent from the 1970's, both in height and weight.

6'1-1/2" and 208 pounds is small nowadays and that's who Muhammed ali fought in the 1970's when Averaged out. His opponents in the 1960's were even smaller.

Again I will say, Modern Heavyweights are taller and Heavier than in the past.
Tall In The Saddle said on 30/Oct/19
Reece CLEARLY qualified well conditioned HWs who are not too fat - AJ fits into that category and then some - 250 lb AJ is shredded, no fat. That's Reece's logic which is sound in the case of AJ - introducing Butterbean as a comparison is illogical - that's the irrationality of the respondent who should own the ill conceived comparison - no one else brought it up.

Andy Ruiz Jr an overweight tomato can? That's exactly the shallow assessment of a casual fan. Prior to the first fight Mike Tyson correctly identified the qualities of Ruiz and the risk AJ was facing. Extraordinarily fast and heavy hands, committed to power in combination, an excellent chin and heart to go. Even after the fact of a consummate victory over AJ to still call Ruiz a tomato can is completely ignorant.

Having said this - there were comparably sized (naturally sized) HWs competing back in the 70s and 80s - there are simply more flooding the division now as if it's a preconceived requirement - and if the current crop weigh that bit more it's by way of PEDs, greater accent on weight training and yes, sometimes they are simply fatter.

The bigger men of the past didn't rise to the top because they were culled out by less oversized fighters of superior skill - and as per P4P axiom absolute skills do diminish with greater size. No matter how skilled Ali was - the smaller ATG MW SRR will always get the nod as P4P king.

The biggest of today's crop appear slow, cumbersome, over-muscled and stamina challenged. Awful to watch. Look back to the 40s and see how Louis could be given fits by a smaller highly skilled Billy Conn but eat big guys like Carnera, Buddy Baer and Abe Simon for breakfast. The prevailing "dawn" of the oversized HWs might've begun in the 80s BUT for the skills, speed and power of 5'10" (or so) 71" reached Mike Tyson.

I am simply not even seeing any well skilled, well powered 6'3" or so 220 lb guys competing in the HW division now - no, not culled out but perhaps looking to sporting achievements else where. Then along comes Ruiz - who admittedly is carrying the modern poundage but otherwise is a throw back in terms of dimensional size - and despite getting clocked good by AJ who can punch - he simply gets back and doesn't just eke out a win but in fact destroys AJ. Finally a decent HW fight which so happened NOT to involve 2 behemoths plodding around one another.
Tall In The Saddle said on 29/Oct/19
The vid showing Louis' height and wingspan being informally measured is simply for the cameras. Besides the tape not being properly straight or fixed at either end Louis is in boxing shoes and he is not standing straight.

Throughout his career Louis was variously listed at 6'1", 6'1.5", 6'1.75" before settling at 6'2" for the latter half of his career. IMO 6'1.75" is closest to the truth - Joe never appeared to drop anymore than 1" to 6'2.5" Ali and there was arguably less than 1" between them. Also see Joe refereeing 5'11.5" listed Frazier and 6' listed Quarry in their 2nd fight 1974- 60 yo Joe is taller than both men by a good margin.

It is problematic that the tape would curve over the chest in traditional reach measurement. Perhaps measuring from behind or in front of the neck would be more accurate. Some suggest isolated arm length gives a better idea of reach - divorcing shoulder width from the equation - the problem there is that depending on stance, fighting posture and type of punch/defensive measure taken - shoulder width can figure greatly in "effective" reach.

Also - any which way I think fighters reach should be measured at least whilst making a fist - in respect of "strike" reach. Liston for example was listed as having an 84" reach - HUGE - particularly relative to his height of just over 6 feet - and that reach comprised extremely large yet well proportioned palms and long fingers UNFURLED. However much longer Sonny's hands were than the rest of the field - when making a fist Sonny would lose roughly half the advantage on each hand - you would then of course halve the resulting reach to calculate per arm + half shoulder width reach advantage.

Here's some cool photos of Liston comparing fists with then Prez LBJ - who stood about 6'3" himself so we might assume his hands were in proportion to his height and overall size - unlike YOU KNOW WHO - Lol.

Click Here

Click Here
BoxingHeight23 said on 26/Oct/19
Hey Rob, I had 2 questions regarding this video:

1. At 0:34 of this video Click Here, is this traditional way of measuring wingspans in boxing reliable? Would it result in possibly an extra inch or so of wingspan due to the tape being curved/not straight, the people taking the measurements holding the tape slightly past the fingertips, or also the arms being held slightly behind the torso, so the tape curves against the chest and adds extra length?

2. Also, at 0:40, does this measurement look reliable? Or would having to press the tape against the ground result in less height.

Editor Rob
They are rough measurements, I'd say could have some room for plus or minus half to 1 inch error.
Harry Sachs said on 26/Oct/19
@reece you don't know what you are talking about. If you want to use your logic Eric "Butterbean" Esch is bigger than Anthony Joshua. Since Butterbean weighed 350 to 400 pounds right? No Butterbean is fat. Just like most current heavyweights are fat. Also the average height a American or European male in the 90's was 5'10. The average height now is 5'10. There were tons of taller heavyweights in the 70's up till today. Nobody cared because real boxing fans knew being really tall wouldn't help you.

That is why nobody considered the 6'5 Wladimir Klitschko or the 6'7 Vitali K tall back in the 90's. Younger casual fans like you love to talk about this super heavyweight stuff because you have no clue to what you are talking about.
Harry Sachs said on 26/Oct/19
Lol @YashVaman dude just because mention names what does that prove? I could type Butterbean so that means he is a great fighter? You younger casual fans crack me up Andy Ruiz is a overweight tomato can. Anthony Joshua is a glass chin slow unskilled fighter. Tyson Fury? A slow unskilled guy who runs like a scared school girl. Usky isn't even heavyweight. He is a cruiser weight.

The 90's had Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, Evander Holyfield, David Tua, Ike Ibeabuchi, George Foreman. Tommy Morrison, Ray Mercer, Michael Moorer, Tim Witherspoon, ect. But yeah the current heavyweight division is better because you just rattle off some names.
James Arthur said on 20/Oct/19
Hey Rob, are you familiar with Joe Louis? What's your guess for his height?
Editor Rob
I am not so familiar with him
YashVaman said on 18/Oct/19
Harry Sachs@ current heavyweight division is in the toilet ? What ar you talking about. The division was never as good as 2019. You got joshua, ruiz, wilder, fury, and now usyk. And a lot of b class fun to watch fighters like baby miller joseph parker and molina
Reece said on 7/Oct/19
@Harry Sachs
You have lots of well conditioned heavyweights that are not too fat in todays era. Todays HVTs are bigger and taller on average. Fat can contribute to being bigger.
Harry Sachs said on 3/Oct/19
Lol Boxing fan 07 you are actually bringing up "heavyweights" from the 40's? Clearly that shows how much of a casual boxing fan you are. The modern era for heavyweights started in the late 60's early 70's. Rocky Marciano, Joe Walcott, ect weren't even heavyweights by modern standards.

But as I typed earlier pretty much every heavyweight contender or champion from the 70's. with the exception of Joe Frazier, Ernie Shavers and Jerry Quarry were 6'2 plus guys.

Also it is funny how you choose the lightest weight for the few heavyweights you mentioned to try to prove your point.

George Foreman was listed at 6'3 230 as a teenager,
Larry Holmes 6'3 210-215
Ali 6'2 1/2 220
Ken Norton 6'2 3/4 220
Gerry Cooney 6'5 230
Roy "Tiger" Williams 6'5 230-240
Leroy Jones 6'5 230-270
Al Jones 6'5 230
Jack O'Halloran 6'6 240
Lou Esa 6'6 250
John Tate 6'4 230
Joe Bugner 6'4 220
Randall "Tex" Cobb 6'3 230-240
Duane Bobick 6'3 215
Rodney Bobick 6'3 230
Gerrie Coetzee 6'3 1/2 220
Bernado Mercardo 6'4 220
Ron Lyle 6'3 220

Should I go on casual fan? Most heavyweights today are fat. But they aren't bigger. Also the current heavyweight division is in the toilet. Which is why nobody watches it anymore.

You want more casual fan? Tim Witherspoon turned pro in the 70's. So did Pinklon Thomas, Michael Dokes, and Mike Weaver. Also Mike Weaver weighed as low as 189. Tim Witherspoon was a low as 188. Michael Dokes was as low as 198. It is funny how you just picked random weights to try to prove your flawed point.
Steve Smiths said on 4/Aug/19
@boxing fan 07:

213 is kind of heavy for Holyfield, he was at his best at 205, give or take 3 pounds. His current height listing is also a bit generous. And he was arguably the best heavyweight of the modern era.
Boxing fan 07 said on 29/Jul/19
As a boxing fan I just can’t help to realise how much bigger Heavyweights have gotten, for an example

Heavyweights 40’s - 70’s

Joe Louis - 6’ 1.5” - 203 lbs
Ezzard Charles - 6’ 0” - 182 lbs
Jersey Joe Walcott - 5’ 11.5” - 196 lbs
Rocky Marciano - 5’ 10.25” - 185 lbs
Floyd Patterson - 5’ 11. 5” - 188 lbs
Sonny Liston - 6’ 0.5” - 219 lbs
Muhammad Ali - 6’ 2.5” - 215 lbs
Joe Frazier - 5’ 11.5” - 213 lbs
George Foreman - 6’ 3” - 224 lbs
Earnie Shavers - 6’ 0” - 209 lbs
Ken Norton - 6’ 2.75” - 218 lbs
Larry Holmes - 6’ 2.75” - 215 lbs

As you can see the average is around 6’ 0.5” and 205 lbs

Heavyweights 80’s - 90’s

Trevor Berbick - 6’ 0.75” - 223 lbs
Michael Dokes - 6’ 2.5” - 220 lbs
Pinklon Thomas - 6’ 2” - 216 lbs
James Smith - 6’ 3.5” - 234 lbs
Tim Witherspoon - 6’ 3” - 221 lbs
Mike Weaver - 6’ 0. 5” - 229 lbs
Mike Tyson - 5’ 10.5” - 219 lbs
Evander Holyfield - 6’ 1. 25” - 213 lbs
Lennox Lewis - 6’ 4.75” - 240 lbs
Riddick Bowe - 6’ 4.5” - 236 lbs
Michael Moorer - 6’ 1” - 218 lbs
Ray Mercer - 6’ 0.5” - 225 lbs

And now the average is now 6’ 1. 75” and 220 lbs

Can someone please explain how this appepnend ?
Back in the day John L Sullivan the first “Heavyweight” Champion was 5’ 10” and weighed around 209 lbs . Now the Current (In my Opinion) Best Heavyweight right now Tyson Fury, is 6’ 7.5” and 253 lbs.

I was reading an article on Jack Johnson, and they called him the “Gavelston Giant” and I’m like this guy is small. He is 6’ 0.5” and 205 lbs.
Then I looked at the opponent who he was facing Tommy Burns. He was only 170 lbs and 5’ 7”.

Back to the Topic -

Muhammad Ali is clearly 6’ 2.5” barefoot and 6’ 3” - 6’ 4” in shoes.
But, old Ali is around 6’ 1” barefoot and 6’ 2” - 6’ 2.5” in shoes.
Importer said on 24/Jun/19
191.0cm-191.5cm range in the morning peak. Dips down to a solid 189cm before bed in his youth.
Importer said on 24/Jun/19
191.0cm-191.5cm range in the morning peak. Dips down to a solid 189cm before bed in his youth.
Boxing fan 07 said on 18/Jun/19
I’m a little mixed on how tall Ali is. He is billed as 6’3” which is believable. When he got older he definitely shrunk, on his interview in the late 80’s he only looked 1.75 - 2” taller than Frazier.

When he was young he had a solid 2” on Liston. And 3 inches on Patterson at least.
Tall In The Saddle said on 17/Jun/19
C-mo - as per my post I separate the hype from the fact - Ali was a great fighter just not quite as superior as many pundits would suggest and allow credit for in fantasy matches IMO.

Re Tyson. Really, it's would shoulda coulda. People talk more about and project for a career that Tyson didn't actually have, wrought with apologies as to why it didn't manifest.
Why isolate and highlight adversities in Tyson's career and no one else's? For example there were other fighters doing coke in the 80s - including a number of Tyson's opponents yet Tyson received full credit for victories over those guys without any backstory as to why his opposition might've been underperformed. There was also opposition who were simply immobilised by their own fear...opposition that was out of shape....hardly sturdy tests. But then when Tyson himself wasn't quite so formidable or even lost ..…it was always one excuse or another.

Ali lost to Frazier with just 2 fights under his belt after a 3 year layoff - that could be Ali's "excuse" for the loss and even perhaps for a career that might've gone south thereafter. Fact is, Ali posted a great performance and lost to a great fighter on the night. It's on his resume - a loss but still a big credit. Ali came back - regained the title - even after the shock loss to Norton and broken jaw to go. That's just to mention a few pit falls - there were many others - no need for excuses - the resume still speaks for itself

Even before excuses were being made for Tyson there were hints earlier in his career as to the type of fighter who might prevail over him - boxer James Quick Tillis gave a preview of the prototype of the fighter and the blue print for execution. No co-incidence that Buster Douglas a similar type fighter to Tillis brought everything to the table that could be previously calculated to overcome a fighter of Tyson's ilk.

As to Louis' height I will add that at least IMO Joe was dropping no more than 1" to Max Baer and James Braddock - both 6'2.5" a piece. I wouldn't go lower than 6'1.5" for Joe - which was in fact his listing for the Baer fight.
tree said on 16/Jun/19
With Stone Cold Steve Austin Click Here
c-mo said on 15/Jun/19
@Tall In TheSaddle

Ali is hyped so much also because of his political influence on the black movement . and because he was an interesting character with lots of talk . it is not only his boxing

as I said he was a great boxer but no way as great as people make him out to be . a lot of people just call him great for the sake of it is even often people who dont even know much about boxing .

Joe Frazier beat him for example . and is he seens as one of the greatest of all time ? ask people and many will not even know him but they will know ali . as I said it is mostly marketing ....I am not a stupid person and dont buy into that hype (I am not saying you are stupid . but people are sheep)

and regarding Mike Tyson :

if Mike didnt do cocaine and other stuff , if he didnt lose Cus D’Amato , if he didnt leave Rooney , if he would have taken the fights more serious etc. then he would most likely be almost unbeaten until the early 2000s

a prime mike tyson is a better boxer than ali imo . his style is also better to me . I dont like the tango dancing with jabbing around etc


I think Marciano was probably 177cm at night . @Jordan87 what do you think ?
Tall In TheSaddle said on 14/Jun/19

Louis was listed variously at 6'1", 6'1.5", 6'1.75" eventually firming at 6'2".

The measurement on video is hardly accurate - anyone can see that - it's for show - nothing to rest one's case on.

In general comparisons Louis held up well to be between 6'1.5"-6'2" - including barely dropping height to Ali himself

As great as he was, even on the move, Ali was not at all as untouchable as legend has it - nor was the actual peak Louis the immobile shuffler that Ali would have you believe. Who did Ali fight that was remotely like Joe? If one had to choose maybe Zora Folley as a forced choice - a very poor man's version. Sure, Ali eventually put veteran Folley out in a peculiar KO - and Folley was known for a less than even temperate - but on the way there, Zora simply plodding forward still caught the circling Ali cold with a number of stiff single straight shots - and Ali did acknowledge the difficulties that Folley presented saying his own speed ultimately made the difference. Louis moved better than that punched a lot harder and faster than that and in perfect combination.

Tyson? Wasn't that the guy who was supposed to viciously KO Douglas and Holyfield also among others...but instead was emphatically beaten down himself? Boy did the pundits get that wrong. Throw in some skill, a decent punch, express offense and an opponent that didn't soil himself before opening bell or fold like a cheap tent under first duress - and Tyson was not nearly the destructive force he was forecast to be. Even when the evidence is in some myths are hard to let go of I suppose....
Jordan87 said on 13/Jun/19
@ Tall in the Saddle,

Joe Louis was Measured on Video at 6'1. Not sure why you think he was nearly 6'2. He wasn't.

Luis would have never kept up with ALi. Ali may not have knocked him out, but a 1966 Version of Ali would have beaten Joe on points.

Joe never faced a fighter like Ali. Joe also liked to stay in one spot, was not a mover. Ali would have circled him easy.

I love Joe, great american hero, but Ali would have beaten him on points and a Guy like Tyson would have obliterated Joe with a viscous KO.
Tall In The Saddle said on 1/Jun/19
C-mo - just a quick sideline into boxing talk - I used to be a boxing fan - back when it was worth following - Certainly there were/are technically better fighters but I think Ali is considered the greatest chiefly due to superior speed, all round natural ability, durability and adaptability. He could be beaten here and there but the thinking is that in a round robin of all time greats Ali would beat more fighters than anyone else.

Ali used to talk Joe Louis down - too small, too slow, too immobile - unfortunately a lot of pundits didn't think for themselves and took Ali's lead in their thinking - concluding that Ali beats Joe Louis every time out. IMO Ali's express efforts to talk Louis down spoke volumes about how he really felt about the difficulties Joe would present. Personally I think Louis would've given Ali a lot more trouble than he is credited for - and that's not precluding Joe in fact winning. Joe wasn't so much smaller than Ali - Joe was not slow - at peak his hands were lightning - Joe's foot work was pretty good - he was simply economical to a fault - not extravagant like Ali. Joe stood close to 6'2" - probably 6'1.75" in reality - technically better than Ali - masterful combination power punching executions - including a killer left hook - a bogey punch for Ali. Anyway...for me it is one hell of a fantasy match...Ali would taste some serious leather at least at some point...and if Joe hurt him sufficiently Joe knew exactly how to follow up....

As to Rocky....interesting, I never really questioned 5'10.5" - possibly he was shorter I suppose. His reach was ONLY 68" (= height 5'8") but then his arms still looked pretty short relative to his own height. Archie Moore was listed as 5'11" and Rocky only looked a smidge shorter - of course that's subject to Moore's height being correct. In a spoof charity boxing match Rocky appeared at least equal to 5'10.5" listed Jerry Lewis - again, subject to Lewis actually being that height himself.

Anyway, judge for yourselves - Dean Martin is in the clip also but Old Dino wore lifts, didn't he? comparing him to gage Rocky's height might be pointless

Click Here
c-mo said on 27/May/19
I am not a fan of Ali . I mean dont get me wrong he was a very good boxer but not "the greatest of all time" ...definitely not . he was great nonetheless and may he rest in peace but I neither like his boxing style nor his height/body aesthetics at all . the way he talked was annoying too but I dont want to talk bad about a dead man so lets stop it right here ...either way RIP Ali

I am rather interested in Rocky Marciano . Rob could you add Rocky ? what do you think his height was ? his stats were said to be 5'10 1/4 and 185 lbs

my guess would be that he was a weak 5'10 barefeet

the guys below say he might have been 5'9 and I read some people also say that and read that Rockys brother apperently said that he was indeed 5'9

Rob what do you think ?
movieguy12 said on 11/May/19
Marciano was only about 186lbs in his prime I believe. Given his stocky physique he couldn't have been that tall as would have weighed more than he did. I'd say 5'9" is a decent guess as suggested. A very tough man though who could wreak you with one punch.
movieguy12 said on 10/May/19
Jo Bugner was 6'4'' although given as 6'3.5'' in the fight against 6'5'' Chuck Wepner who did look taller than Bugner. When Bugner fought Ali, Joe was clearly the taller man by at least an inch possibly more. They had two fights the first of which was pretty exciting, the second perhaps a bit disappointing.
c-mo said on 7/May/19
Jordan87 said on 30/May/17

Marciano is not over 5'9. Look at him in pics with 6'0.5" Measured Joe Luis. If you see a 5'10-1/2 guy then you have a problem. I love Marciano but I'm not going to lie to prop up his height.


was joe louis really measured as 6'1 ? can you show me ?
Canson said on 1/May/19
@Viper: maybe later in the morning but he could be 6’2 and a hair at a low in his peak
viper said on 30/Apr/19
I think the 6-2.5 is a morning measurement
Nyjuan said on 30/Apr/19
Easily 6'3 peak.
movieguy12 said on 28/Apr/19
Yeah. I'm familiar with Dundee saying Ali was 6'4'' on some occasions and other times saying Ali was 6'2''. It's a bit strange. I think we should discount the older Ali affected by ill health when guessing his height. I'd lean towards 6'2'' plus rather than 6'4'' and Ali himself gave the former height on the David Frost show. Jim Brown who was 6'2'' and knew Ali well said this was Ali's height. I recall an interview with Dundee in which Angelo corrects the interviewer who commented on how tall Ali was, Dundee says something along the lines of Ali wasn't actually that tall at about 6'2'' but he carried himself in a way that gave the impression of being a bigger man than he was in reality.
Tall In The Saddle said on 13/Apr/19
@Canson - yeah, I have the DVD boxset on Ali - I haven't watched it for a long time but in reply to Terrell's height advantage I recall Dundee went as far as to say "my guy is still growing, he's already 6'4"".
Canson said on 11/Apr/19
@Tallinthesaddle: Lol he said Ali was 6’4? I love when people embellish the heights of athletes
Tall In The Saddle said on 9/Apr/19
@Chief - Context - Dundee said Ali was 6'4" specifically in 1967 because Ali was about to face 6'6" Ernie Terrell - Dundee was trying to talk down the height difference. Dundee also said Ali was 6'2". Dundee said a lot of things that weren't exactly true - as a savvy trainer he simply bent the facts in favour of either himself or his fighter - so it's kinda hard to quote Dundee's words as evidence.

I recalled reading years back that 18 yo Ali was listed at 6'1.5" as at the time of the 1960 Rome - Olympics - I found a site which appears to corroborate my memory - Click Here - you can find other listed heights for boxers such as Foreman, Lewis, Bowe etc. - I can't vouch for the overall accuracy of the site's listings at least as the time of each fighter's Olympic appearance but Ali's height seems right as at the Olympics.

Interesting to note as per that site 19 yo Foreman is listed at 6'3.5" as at the 1968 Mexico Olympics -and I have read that previously elsewhere also.

IMO 6'2.5" seem about right for Ali - obviously accepting that Ali grew about 1 inch post 18 yo. At 22 yo Ali was listed at 6'2.5" for the first Liston fight. It seems 6'3" was a round up that took hold shortly after that.

One common comparison point was to Joe Louis - who was listed variously at 6'1", 6'1.5", 6'1.75" and finally 6'2" later in his career. IMO Louis was about 6'1.5"-6'1.75" - and Ali often didn't seem to hold the advantage a 6'3" should've held over over Joe - though they were often photographed with Ali in thin heeled boxing shoes and Joe in street shoes - some photos they look quite close while in others Ali appears clearly taller - usually when both were in street shoes.

Suffice to say Louis wasn't quite as small a HW as Ali tried to paint him in order to suggest that Joe couldn't compete with him - Joe appeared alongside a number of 60s/70s fighters like Liston, Frazier, Quarry, Chuvalo, Foreman, Lyle, Holmes etc and in even in older age Joe's size/height held up pretty well - when Joe refereed Frazier v Quarry Louis was easily the tallest man in the ring IMO by several inches.
adam wood said on 7/Apr/19
I think in the 1960's he was at least 6' 4".
Canson said on 5/Apr/19
Why would he list 6’2.5 on his passport if he’s really 6’3 or 6’3.5?
CHIEF said on 3/Apr/19
Definitely at least 6' 3". If not then 6' 3" 1/2. Angelo Dundee once said he was 6' 4 in 1967.
Canson said on 1/Apr/19
Ali could be 6’2.5 max but I don’t rule out a fraction less at a low. Foreman at his peak was 6’3” however not 6’2.5
Sonny Black said on 1/Apr/19
I have Ali at 6’2 flat and Foreman at 6’2.5inch.
billionaireslayer said on 23/Mar/19
Strong 6'1 n half peak
Mrvain777 said on 14/Feb/19
Rob, did he have a 10 inch plus head size?
Editor Rob
Could have been 9.5-10, possibly more chance towards 10 than 9.5.
mohammad said on 23/Dec/18
Ali was never ever under 6 foot 2 , great listing .
Jordan87 said on 13/Nov/18
Just For Reference, Ali's Opponents in the 1970's in Order are as Follows. ( Check Boxing Rec if you need to)

1970: Jerry Quarry 6'0/ 198
1970: Oscar Bonevena 5'10"/ 204
1971: Joe Frazier 5'11"/ 205
1971: Jimmy Ellies 6'3 / 189
1971: Buster Mathis 6'3/250
1971: Jurgen Blin 6'1"/???
1972: Mac Foster 6'2"/ 211
1972: Goerghe Chuvalo 6'0/ 205
1972: Gerry Quarry 2 : 6'0 / 197
1972: Alvin Blue Lewis" 6'3"/224
1972: FLoyd Patterson 6'0/ 188
1972: Bob FOster 6'3"/ 180 ( Yes you read that Right, 180 pounds)
1973: Joe Bugner 6'4" / 219
1973: Ken Norton ( 1 : 6'3" / 210
1973 : Ken Norton ( 2): 6'3" / 205
1973: Rudi Lubbers 6'0"/ 196
1974: Joe Frazier 5'11/205
1974: George Foreman" 6'3" / 220 ( Yes big Bad Forman was only 220 for this fight)
1975: Chuck Wepner: 6'5"/ 225
1975: Ron Lyle : 6'3"/ 219
1975: Joe Bugner ( 2) : 6'4" / 230
1975: Joe Frazier ( 3): 5'11" / 215
1976: Jean Pierre Coopman 5'11/ 206
1976: Jimmy Young 6'2" / 209
1976: Richard Dunn : 6'3" / 206
1976: Ken Norton ( 3) : 6'3" / 217
1977: Alfredo Evangelista : 6'1" / 210
1977: Ernie Shavers: 6'0 / 211
1978: Leon Spinks : 6'0 / 197
1978: Leon Spinks ( 2) : 6'0 / 201

Take this List and Average it: ALi's Opponents in the 1970's averaged a Listed height of about 6'1.5" and a recorded weight of 208 pounds.

Holyfield was 6'2 and 215 pounds in the 90's as was called a small heavyweight and he is still bigger than Ali's Average opponent from the 1970's, both in height and weight.

6'1-1/2" and 208 pounds is small nowadays and that's who Muhammed ali fought in the 1970's when Averaged out. His opponents in the 1960's were even smaller.

Again I will say, Modern Heavyweights are taller and Heavier than in the past.
Jordan87 said on 9/Aug/18
@ Harry Sachs,

IDK man I got a whole chronicle from you so you are not doing a great job of ignoring me. And Actually Ali's Opponents in the 70's would be really small nowadays. You can throw all the insults you want, but the internet exists and people who use it can easily render you whatever insult comes to their mind.

Those people you listed that Ali fought in the 70's....Again would be small nowadays.

Your direct quote below

" I also can name 50 heavyweight contenders in just the 70's alone who were between 6'3 and 6'6."

I'm still waiting for this list.
Canson said on 1/Aug/18
@Brad: was he really that or was he more strong 6’2”? I know you’ve said before you claim at a high as opposed to a low
Canson said on 31/Jul/18
@Tall In the Saddle: Christian also has him like we do. Conan’s hair is tricky which makes him look taller. Mickie is 6’3 3/8 and met Conan and has him about the same as well. He said about his height. Conan really can just look 6’3” at times next to Kobe or Barkley or even stern or the legit 6’4”s on his show
Bradley said on 31/Jul/18
Weak 6-3 peak. The look on his face when I had him sign his 1964 Columbia Records LP was priceless 30 years ago. He signed it Cassius Clay,kinda a no-no for Muslims. If you ever meet the famous, always bring a super-cool item to get signed not some common 8x10.
Tall In The Saddle said on 31/Jul/18
@Canson: the quote clearly indicates that Sachs was literally open to and inviting the possibility that GF is 6'3.5" - not just saying he looked it in that video - yes he has otherwise had GF at a flat 6'3" - he claims to be dead set against any higher -responding inappropriately to anyone who disagrees. YET he still asked the question. Therein lies the contradiction and hypocrisy. If one concretely feels GF is 6'3" flat whilst perceiving GF as taller than O'Brien then they would conclude O'Brien to be less than 6'3" or put GF's perceived advantage down to angles or footwear - they certainly don't ask if GF could be rounded up to 6'3.5" - a .5" more than the absolute max. (6'3") they otherwise claim GF to be. I'll also repeat that the custom angle O'Brien is usually filmed greeting his guests does disadvantage O'Brien a bit and accounting for same I actually see them as even - and you know I have O'Brien pretty much as you do - at about 6'3.25" which I won't change to try and pump up GF - and you and I are in fact in the minority on that opinion - the majority believing O'Brien to be about a good .5" taller than we do.
Tall In The Saddle said on 30/Jul/18
Correction on Conan O'Brien - my estimate is 6'3.25" NOT 6'4.25"
Canson said on 29/Jul/18
@Tall in the Saddle: I don’t think Harry Sachs was asking for an upgrade to 6’3.5 for Foreman. He has always had him at 6’3”. He was simply saying that he thought in that particular video that he may have looked that.
Tall In The Saddle said on 28/Jul/18
@Serengetiman - When Clint stands to greet Ali - the best view point to compare them - I think they look even. The angles in later shots aren't so good nor is Ali's posture vs Eastwood's. Problem is later in the interview Ali himself said that Clint was taller - which we presume Ali perceived upon meeting Clint unless Ali was deferring to Clint's popularly listed and inflated height of 6'4".

Sachs - You're problem is that I've addressed all points including those in which you falsely stated that GF was never listed at 6'4" or over 6'3" in first career - you also falsely stated that LH was never listed at 6'4". You lie. You lack any credibility. You mindlessly link one height listing after another without due qualification and ignore any other listings. I could rigidly maintain that Ali was no less than 6'3" - you know there are numerous links to support this - virtually a uniform listing - so therefore it must be true - seriously, get a clue. The absolute screamer is you asked a credible poster Canson if he might entertain an upgrade for GF to 6'3.5":- you know, so DEAD SET you are against anything over 6'3" for GF

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?

Too funny. You also stated that everyone here knows that GF is 6'3" - the average guess here over 39 votes (not incl. my own) is 6'3.19" - there you go again flying in the face of facts to suit yourself. I actually post to other height threads and can actually make my OWN calls on other heights including that of Conan O'Brien - who I credit at a well reasoned 6'4.25" - my estimate well documented on that thread - in the clip GF did not appear taller he appeared even with Conan. Believe me other contributors KNOW who to ignore if they so choose and need no instruction on same.

I don't need to ignore you - you're easy to disprove - but you do need to ignore me because you obviously can't handle that.
Serengetiman said on 25/Jul/18
In the clip with Clint Eastwood, Ali looks taller than Clint. Clint is not the one on the right, but the one in front of him, the last person Ali cumpliment before sit down. Ali must have been between 6ft 3 and 6ft 2,5 tall
Serengetiman said on 25/Jul/18
In the clip with Clint Eastwood, Ali looks taller than Clint. Clint is not the one on the right, but the one in front of him, the last person Ali cumpliment before sit down. Ali must have been between 6ft 3 and 6ft 2,5 tall
HarrySachs said on 14/Jul/18
Canson you see my point with Tall in The Saddle? How he will only use points that benefit him? I put up numerous links that stated Foreman and Larry Holmes were 6'3 in their primes. You put up pictures and links to prove Foreman and Holmes are 6'3. Yet he wants to believe Foreman and Holmes were 6'3 1/2.

Why bother even typing to him? What will it solve? Some people enjoy trying to prove their point but there is no proving your point with people like him. Just ignore the kid.
Canson said on 13/Jul/18
@Tall in the Saddle: at Holmes’s age with Rob he may or may not have lost height. Also a chance he was slightly under 6’3” as well like 6’2.75 or 6’2 7/8 with rob if he gave him 6’3” flat. I’ll say he looks 6’3”. However, I have the window open for 6’3 1/8 for him as well
Canson said on 12/Jul/18
@Harry Sachs: that’s true. I meant to say as of when Rob had the pic with him he still looked a legit 6’3” with him. I’d like to see recent pics with both together
Tall In The Saddle said on 12/Jul/18
@Canson - Rob's pic is with an older Holmes (height loss?) and Larry isn't standing straight. Holmes and Foreman do appear more or less equal in some shots but Foreman appears to have dropped more height than Larry over time.
If someone is an actual 6'3" but claims 6'4" then that is a blatant exaggeration. Being 6'3.5" but claiming 6'4" not so blatant but still a self serving round up all the same. Holmes and Foreman were listed at times at both 6'4" and 6'3.5". I think the former height was a round up and the latter height more accurate for both.
6'3" simply became the rubber stamp height settled on for many fighters during the 1970s - even if they were in fact a bit under 6'3" or conversely a bit over 6'3". It was unlikely that so many fighters of the 70s were bang on 6'3" as listed.
As to people judging someone to be their own height - is not possible to err in judgement when only .25"-.5" diff. is involved and the other party isn't necessarily involving/straightening themselves for comparison? I've seen plenty of people look face to face and one claim they are the same height when from my perspective the claimant is actually dropping as much as .5".

@McMurphy - that pic you linked I have seen. It's as close as I've seen Ali to Holmes height. Generally Ali looked a bit shorter than that as compared to Holmes. Don King is about 49 in that shot - a mug shot in the early to mid 1950s listed King's height as 6'2" (easy to find pic). Without height loss for King I think you could argue a solid 6'3" for Ali based on that pic - However,IMO, that pic is somehow skewed, having Ali appear a bit taller than his actual 6'2.5" at that stage.
HarrySachs said on 11/Jul/18
Canson I can't find any recent pictures with Holmes and Foreman standing straight next to each other. I found a few pictures where Larry is hugging a slouching Foreman.

The picture that Rob had with Larry Holmes is from some years back so Larry could of lost height since then as well.
McMurphy said on 11/Jul/18
Ali and Holmes on what looks to be the same clothing on:

Click Here

Holmes looks 2 cm taller. Smaller head too.
I got Ali at 189 cm and Holmes at 191, just like this site says.
Tall In The Saddle said on 11/Jul/18
The incisive wit and wisdom of Sachs - "You are a idiot" - "I completely own that idiot" - "Dumb dumb" - "You aren't bright"

If that can pass then replies in kind should be okay. Sachs, I'll throw you a bone - 70s HW Jeff Candy Slim Merritt listed 6'5"(and actually looked it) - now if you behave Harry another one might come your way.

But for now:-

Richard Dunn was NOT 6'4". He was 6'3" if that. Use the eyes - Ali is in no way dropping 1-1.5" to Dunn and actually appears taller at ring instructions 13.20 or move to post fight iv 33.25 also if you like .

Click Here
Canson said on 10/Jul/18
@Tall in the Saddle, Jordan87, Harry Sachs: Foreman’s 6’4 was a shoe height most likely. He was the same height as Holmes in his prime. I know someone who has met Foreman and is 6’3” flat and they were the exact same height. Holmes with Rob is 6’3” even today
Canson said on 10/Jul/18
keep in mind that Rob has also met Holmes and has a pic with him and Holmes looks 6’3” next to him. Holmes also is taller than Foreman in pics today, perhaps due to Foreman’s poor posture or the possibility of height loss today
HarrySachs said on 10/Jul/18
Lol Jordan87 I ignored you because you are a idiot. I said fighter in the 70s were taller and you keep bringing up fighters Ali fought in the 60's. I know you aren't bright but the 60s and 70's were 2 different decades. Jimmy Ellis was 6'1, Buster Mathis Sr 6'3, Mack Foster 6'2, George Foreman 6'3, Ron Lyle 6'3. Al Blue Lewis 6'3, Bob Foster the light heavyweight 6'3, Chuck Wepner 6'5, Ken Norton 6'2 3/4, Joe Bugner 6'4, Jinny Young 6'2, Richard Dunn 6'4, Leon Spinks 6'1, Alfredo Evangelista 6'1 1/2. If you want to add Larry Holmes then he was 6'3. Joe Frazier and Jean Pierre Coopman were the only fighters in the 70's Ali fought who were under 6'0. I guess you didn't know there was a thing called the internet. But watch you keep bringing up fighters Ali fought in the 60's to prove your little point.

Also Also you know Ali is only one fighter? Again I know you are pretty slow but there were other fighters in the 70's. Besides the guys I mentioned it is funny how you ignored Leroy Jones and Al Jones who both 6'5, You ignored Gerry Cooney who was 6'5, Rodney and Duane Bobick were 6'3, Larry Middleton 6'5, Jack O'Halloran 6'6, Tony Doyle 6'4, James J Beattie 6'9 1/2 , Ollie Wilson 6'5, Stanford Harris 6'5, Roy Williams 6'5.

Watch you bring up more fighters that Ali fought in the 60s like a dumb dumb.

Tall in the Saddle somebody tore me down? I completely own that idiot like I am going to own you.

George Foreman vs Scott Ledoux. The commentators stated Foreman is 6'3
Click Here

George Foreman vs John Dino Denis. Both are stated to be 6'3 Click Here

George Foreman and Ken Norton. Foreman listed at 6'3 Click Here

Here is Ron Lyle being listed at 6'3 Click Here

Here is Larry Holmes being listed at 6'3 Click Here

But of course as usual with people like you ,will you will pick and choose which information you believe. Which is why I ignored you and the other guy the first time.
santgr said on 4/Jun/18
Rob how tall do you think Sonny Liston and Jack Dempsey were? Both were listed as 6ft1 and 6ft0.5 in the past. Which mark you believe was closer?
Editor Rob
Don't think Sonny was far off his billed height, though I've not looked much at Liston or Dempsey so don't have as much knowledge.
Tall In The Saddle said on 20/May/18
McMurphy - I agree big heels a 70s vibe - I wouldn't necessarily say Norton was trying to appear taller than he actually was but maybe with Foreman he was looking for a bit of psychological edge - the "advantage" he held over Foreman in the clip I linked was more than he ever appeared to hold over Ali.
Norton and Ali weighed in on the Johnny Carson show before their 2nd fight - unfortunately the video was pulled from YouTube some time back. See Norton with Yaphet Kotto in Mandingo to compare Ken with a solid 6'4" guy. Williams was listed at 6'2" but sometimes credited as 6'3". Ali himself described Williams as tall so I'm thinking without heels Williams was close to if not equal to Ali - prob more in the 6'2.5" zone like Ali.
Here's great vid of young Cassius Clay on the Steve Allen show 1963 after victory over Henry Cooper. Steve Allen was listed as 6'3" and clearly had the edge on 21 yo Ali. Now if Allen was an exact 6'3" I can see an argument for Cassius to be only 6'2". There are only a few sources for Allen's height and I'm not going to inflate Allen for the sake of Ali - it's just that there are comparisons with other people that tell me Ali was at least 6'2.5" peak.
Ali on Steve Allen show - Click Here
McMurphy said on 16/May/18
Ali in dress shoes and Cleveland Williams in Cowboy boots.
Click Here
McMurphy said on 16/May/18
Norton usually wore high heels in the 70s fashion vibe. Ali on the other hand always wore clasic dress shoes when in public.

I can't link the photos from the site, but there are stills from the Ali - Norton weigh in where both wore sandals and they are clearly the exact same height. 6'2.75" looks nailed for both.

Foreman edged Ali and Norton by a bit, like half an inch. Strong 6 foot 3.
Tall In The Saddle said on 12/May/18
Interesting photo in promotion of the third Ali-Norton fight.

Ali and Norton have donned the trunks but kept their street wear shoes on - unless an illusory effect has been created by a shadow, check the heel on Norton's shoes! Ali's heel appears standard. Perhaps this is the secret behind Norton's advantage over Ali we see in some photos outside the ring.

Click Here

Also here is a clip for the signing of the Foreman-Norton fight and toward the end of the clip you'll see Norton appears impossibly taller than Foreman - again, likely some decent heel being worn.

Click Here

Finally, I read Norton was measured at 6'2.75" in the Marines but have not seen the primary source for same. At any rate, Norton joined in '63 and was likely 19 but possibly 20 yo so further growth of at least .25" wasn't impossible.
Tall In The Saddle said on 16/Apr/18
Sachs - Quote - " IT is funny when people like you just lie to prove your point with absolutely no proof to what you are saying".

Stupid is as stupid writes.

Obviously you didn't have the capacity to respond to a previous post specifically addressed to YOU - a post which unequivocally tore you down - it screamed for a reply but I guess it had you Gumped. So what was your next best option? Move on to try and troll the next poster. Bad move. I know my subject while you obviously don't.

These are just a few examples of the heights I referenced being quoted or listed. There are others examples - anyone who truly has knowledge of the sport would know them.

Have a read, let it sink in and then the only suggestion I have for you NOW is: run Harry run.

Louis v Sharkey 1936 Louis height 6'1.75"
Click Here

Louis v Conn 1946 Height height 6'1.5" -
Link - Click Here

Louis v Walcott 1948 Louis height 6’2” – you have to scroll down somewhat to see the tale of the tape put together as at the time of the fight
Link - Click Here

Foreman v Luis Pires 1971 Foreman Height 6’4” - at 59 sec mark Don Dunphy describes Foreman as 6’4”.
Link - Click Here

Ali vs Lyle 1975 Lyle 6’3.5” – at 22:13 the Tale of the Tape is put up and Lyle’s height is listed as 6’3.5”.
Link - Click Here

Holmes vs Shavers 1978 Holmes Height 6’4” - at the 1:21 mark Cosell describes Holmes as 6’4” – which is a height that was also afforded to Holmes in various boxing publications around that time – including Ring Magazine.
Link - Click Here
HarrySachs said on 15/Apr/18
The In the Saddle Foreman was never described as being 6'4 in his prime. That is just a lie Foreman told in his comeback. Give me a link that has a prime Foreman being 6'4. In his "prime" Foreman was always listed at 6'3. Ron Lyle was always listed at 6'3, Holmes was always listed at 6'3. Joe Louis was always listed at 6'1. IT is funny when people like you just lie to prove your point with absolutely no proof to what you are saying.
Tall In The Saddle said on 11/Apr/18
I have Ali 6'2.5" but at times when much younger and standing straighter appearing to be closer to 6'3". Foreman, Holmes and Lyle all at 6'3.5". Foreman was described as 6'4" at various times in his first career NOT just his second coming. Holmes too. Imo 6'4" was simply a round up from mid inch for both men.
The talk of Ali being 6'4" and still growing was simply a Dundee concoction leading into the Terrell fight to negate the height pull. Terrell was 212.5 lb for Ali not 205 lb. Imo Joe Louis was closer to 6'2" if not right on that mark. IMO, there are a number of comparative visual references to support same - not the least being referee Joe's clear height advantage over 6 ft Quarry and 5'11" Frazier II (difference in footwear factored). Also, for another reference see pre fight intros for Ali-Norton III about 2.08 m mark. Joe approaches 6'3.5" Holmes and Lyle who look even, in background you can see 6'1" L Spinks in Marine Uniform and 6'2" Bruce (formerly) Jenner.
Click Here
62 yo Louis looks to be holding his peak height very well but could guess he'd a lot a tad.
Reece said on 3/Apr/18
@Harrysachs. You are picking a few examples.
The average heavyweight with today’s nutrition,PED. Creatine and all these supplements. No way are heavyweights bigger and taller in the 1970s. You gave a few examples of heavyweights. Like I said today’s heavyweights often come in with a bit of fan. But that does not mean they are not inshape or naturally bigger.
Tashian Dong is a heavyweight who is billed 7 foot and 280 pounds. Look at Valev. The past had never had as many giant heavyweights on top.
Smaller guys often held belts.
Did you see when Fury fought Wlad what shape he came in. He lost so much fat.
Muhammad Ali later in his career used to carry flab in fights.
So did Foreman when he was older.
How many heavyweights in the 1970s were as fit,big and muscular as Joshua,Wladimir,Vitali? Remember not one. All the traits combined?
Wlad being smaller as a AM has no relevance to his pro career. Wladimir for the most part has been in the mid 240s range anyway. Your cherry picking.
David Haye is a rare case you got. How many champs at heavyweight for instance were under 6 foot 4 at heavyweight compared to today’s game.
HarrySachs. said on 29/Mar/18
Jordan87 what else is funny how you will pick and choose to prove your point. You will pick the heaviest Deontay Wilder weighed and say that is his prime weight. Most of Wilder's career he weighed under 220. Hell the last fighter against Ortiz he weighed 214. Lennox Lewis weighed 220 when he was in his 20's. He even weighed as low as 224 as a pro before he bulked up. Wlamidir weighed 207 as a amateur and 220 when he turned pro.

There are various heavyweights now who weigh at low as 205. Be it Amir Mansour or David Haye. But you will ignore them. There were heavyweights back then like Humphrey McBride who was 6'4 340 pounds and Buster Mathis Sr who was 6'3 and 300 pounds.

But the prove your point you will ignore that and just list what benefits your point. As I said George Foreman was 6'3 230 pounds as a teenager. You think he couldn't just add weight and come in heavyweight? Ali weighed as much as 230 in his career but he choose to come in light. Larry Holmes choose to come in light because he was a guy who used the ring. Lol you act like all of these guys couldn't just come in to the ring 40 pounds overweight. Being fat and being big are 2 different things. Foreman was a big guy. Tyson Fury is a fat guy. You also will have nothing to say about Leroy Jones being 6'5 and between 230-270. You won't mention Al Jones being 6'6 and 230-240 because it proves how dead wrong you are.
santgr said on 27/Mar/18
Rob can you add Sonny Liston and Joe Frazier please? There have been so many changes to their listed heights by the years. Sonny was always listed 6ft0.5 and then 6ft1 while Joe was mostly listed as 5ft11.5 or 5ft11. What do you believe was the truth about those too great boxers?
Editor Rob
Frazier - the time I seen him - wasn't much taller than myself, but then he could look 5ft 10 range peak.
McMurphy said on 16/Mar/18
Click Here

Two legends, Ali and Presley
We dont see the kind of shoes here but Ali almost always wore typical dress shoes. Dunno about Elvis tho.
Animus said on 15/Mar/18
Perusing some photos of him he seemed to have varied a lot in how tall he looked.
Jordan87 said on 6/Mar/18
Dream ( 5'9.5")

Ali I have at 6'2, and Clint would have close to an inch on him. I am one that doesnt think Eastwood was over 6'3, i'm sure you have seen this on the Eastwood page.
Dream(5'9.5") said on 23/Feb/18
He did claim 6'2" in the interview with Clint Eastwood.

However, Ali also stated that Eastwood is taller than him.
Jordan87 said on 12/Feb/18
@ 6'3"-6'4",

"6'3"-6'4 "

Evidence? Didn't think so lol. Ali at 6'4 is a total Joke, the man was very talented, no reason to give him 2" extra in height. I love crushing cans on this site.
Jordan87 said on 9/Feb/18
@ Christian- 6'5 3/8",

I listed him at his listed height below to prove a point about the size.....As Far As Joshua's actually....IDK he thought he looked about 6'5-1/2" with Rob, but had a .3" more Footwear So I felt he is closer to 6'5 than 6'6". Maybe 6'5.25".

I know WIlder for a Fact is def Taller than Joshua. I really hope they fight in 2018.
Canson said on 9/Feb/18
@Jordan87: I could buy Rob’s listing for AJ of 6’5.75. However worst case maybe 6’5.5 since he and Wlad look closer in height at times than others
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 8/Feb/18

Sorry but Joshua’s taller than just 6’5”. He looks a solid 197cm.
Jordan87 said on 6/Feb/18
Its really easy.

Since the 2000's

Lennox Lewis- 6'5 245
Vitali- 6'7 240
Wlad- 6'6 240
Fury- 6'9 250
Deontay- 6'7 230
Joshua - 6'6 250

And.....George FOreman ( 70's)- 6'3 225, Larry Holmes- 6'3 215, Joe Frazier- 5'11 205, Muhammed Ali- 6'3 210, and Mike Tyson- 5'10 218. See the difference. Again, Not HarrySachs, but everyone else.

Keep in mind this has nothing to do with Boxing skill. This is size relative to the heavyweight division.

Guys like Joe Frazier has 10 times the heart that the Modern boxers....but he would be very tiny in today's game.
Jordan87 said on 6/Feb/18
@ Reece,

See People like HarrySachs do not understand that all he needs to do is take the sizes of the Main Heavyweight champions of the last 100 Years and he will get his answer. Also Looking up their Opponents is not hard either.

These are listed Heights but you get the point:

Jack Johnson - 6'0 / 192 lbs ( Early 1900's)
Jess Willard - 6'6/ 230 ( Early 1900's)
Jack Dempsey - 6'/ 187 ( 20's)
Joe Louis - 6'1" / 198 ( 1930's)
Rocky Marciano- 5'10 / 184 ( 1950's)
Floyd Patterson - 6' / 190 ( 1950's)
Sonny Liston - 6'1/ 220 ( 1960's)
Cassius Clay - 6'3/ 210 ( 1960's)
Joe Frazier - 5'11/ 205 ( 1970's)
George Foreman - 6'3 / 225 ( 1970's)
Larry Holmes - 6'3 / 215 ( 70's)
Mike Tyson - 5'10 / 218 ( 80's)
Evander Holyfield - 6'1/ 212 ( 90's)
Lennox Lewis 6'5 / 240 ( 90's/00's)
VItali - 6'7 / 240 ( 00's)
Wladimir - 6'6/ 240 ( 00's)
Tyson FUry - 6'9 / 250 ( 10's)
Anthony Joshua - 6'6/ 249 ( CUrrent)
Deontay Wilder - 6'7/ 230 ( Current)

See a pattern? Not HarrySachs, I mean the rest of the normal People?
Jordan87 said on 6/Feb/18
@ Harry Sachs,

Foreman was 220 to 226 for most of his prime fights ( Fact). Wladimir at was 240 for most of his prime Career. 207 ? Provide that link and tell me he fought most of his fights at that weight and you deserve a slap.

Boxing Rec has all of the main fights and has weights recorded for it. If you think Wlad was 207 lbs during his peak than I need not say more, you just exposed your own ignorance.

It is an undeniable fact that Heavyweight boxers are bigger now than ever before.

Again I will say it, Ron Lyle and George foreman were considered " Big " Heavyweights in the 70's at 6'3 and 220-225 pounds ( When they fought).

220 is among the lightest heavyweights now, and most of the guys now are taller than they were in the past. Muhammed Ali at 6'2.5" would not be on the taller side of modern heavyweights. Google is a great thing, unless you are HarrySachs.

Ernie Terrell ( The tallest opponent Ali Ever fought) was 6'6 and was 205 pounds.......205 pounds is not even a heavyweight anymore.

Wilder is a thinner Heavyweight at 229, and still would bully Ernie around the ring. C'mon now.

Joshua- 6'5 250, Wilder 6'6.5 230, FUry 6'7.5 260, Jarrell Miller 6'4 270, and the Klit Brothers would absolutely dwarf the competition in the 1970's.
Reece said on 31/Jan/18
Actually he isn’t. Heavyweights are bigger and taller on average. The average HVT is like 230 pounds today. Just because some boxers were taller that does mean they were not smaller in general. It is known for Heavweights to carry body fat. Heavyweights are mostly taller today by a long way. 50 contenders is nothing compared to most of today’s heavyweights who are all giants. Wladimir listed as 207 pounds? Wow. Wladimir was defo taller in his 20s he was clearly a lot bigger than that. Watch his early pro fights to see how mich bigger than oppenents he was even at 20-23 years old. Secondly a lot of Heavyweights in the old days also ate a lot and didn’t train as much as Heavyweights today. You think Today’s Heavyweights don’t train because they carry a bit more flab. That’s wrong. In the last 20 years we have had Vitali,Wladimir,Lewis,Fury,Wilder,Joshua who are all very big and athletic and take their careers very seriously
HarrySachs said on 24/Jan/18
Jordan87 you are so hilariously wrong. Foreman was listed at 6'3 and 230 as a 19 year older. Wladmir Klistchko for example was listed at 6'5 and 207 in his early 20's. Foreman lost weight earlier in his career because fighters back then took their boxing career seriously. You didn't see many fat heavyweights back then like you do now. I also can name 50 heavyweight contenders in just the 70's alone who were between 6'3 and 6'6.
JJStyles said on 14/Jan/18
well he was 6'3 when he started boxing so yeah i agree
Christian-6'5 3/8 said on 9/Jan/18
I don't find an article or document where Ali was ever officially measured a certain height.
Anonymous said on 7/Jan/18
Martin Luther King was about 5-6, and Ali looked about 17-8 cm over him
Anonymous said on 7/Jan/18
The sport "official medical" heights are unbelievable. That's not serious most of the time
also I think Ali was in the 6'1 range, maybe 186-187 but nothing more
Patrick73 said on 1/Jan/18
Click Here Here is an interesting clip of Ali on a chat show with Clint Eastwood. Clint is noticeably taller than the Greatest who at 6mins 30 onwards actually describes himself as being 6 feet 2 in height. 👍🏻
McMurphy said on 3/Dec/17
Here's a cool Ali and Frazier comparative photo from 1971
Click Here
Jordan87 said on 30/Nov/17

Ali was listed at 6'2.5, and has stated he was 6'2.5" and you seem to think he is a full 6'3? Or taller? ...... WOW
Jordan87 said on 30/Nov/17
Ian C,

Mike Tyson was listed at 5'11.5", and he himself has admitted to being 5'10 and doesn't look over that with Rob. And you think Boxing listed Heights are accurate? .

Dillian Whyte is listed at 6'4, yet is 4" Shorter than 6'5-6'6 Anthony Joshua.

What is wrong with you?
Klapperschlangensindgeil21 said on 23/Nov/17
In that picture of Ali and the Beatles, McCartney is closer to the camera so it appears that he is only three inches shorter than Ali. This is probably why people guess Ali was in the 6 ft. 1 range but he is clearly taller than that in other pictures. 6 ft. 2 1/2 is perfect for Ali.
Ian C. said on 15/Nov/17
It is safe to assume that the official heights of boxers are accurate. Their measurements for reach are included in their official statistics, and they are weighed before witnesses from the media.
Canson said on 11/Nov/17
@Xen-Oh: that’s absolutely asanine, no offense. Ali was an athlete so he was measured at some point. Just look at a pic with he and Foreman or Holmes both legit 6’3” guys themselves and he’s shorter than both
Christian-6'5 3/8" said on 11/Nov/17

It's because some of them are just fanboys who want their idols to be taller. Same thing with Charles Barkley, one guy actually commented that he was 6'6"-6'7" and also a few said he was 6'5.5"-6'6", when Barkley himself has explicitly claimed 6'4.75"
Xen-oh said on 10/Nov/17

Because 6'3.5 could have been his peak height. It's not rocket science. Personally I think he was 6'3 even peak, 6'3.5 maybe fresh out of bed.

People assume that everyone is always shorter than there listed height which is bogus. The taller someone is the less likely they are to fib about there height.

Also people claiming 6'1 for Ali... get real, the dude towered over 5'10 celebs.
Danimal said on 10/Nov/17
Male Alpha said on 6/Nov/17
6ft 3.5in

Why are you adding 1" of height to HIS OWN HEIGHT CLAIM OF HIMSELF?
Danimal said on 10/Nov/17
thedude said on 9/Nov/17
i understand that Muhammad ali is an idol for a lot of you guys but you need to be realistic even with your idols,there are A LOT of pictures of muhammed with evander holyfield and in ALL of these pictures they look similar height.he was probalby 6'1 and a half peak height

Pictures of Ali with 6'1" Holyfield would NOT have been Ali at his peak height, untless those pics were from the 70's and early 80's.
thedude said on 9/Nov/17
i understand that Muhammad ali is an idol for a lot of you guys but you need to be realistic even with your idols,there are A LOT of pictures of muhammed with evander holyfield and in ALL of these pictures they look similar height.he was probalby 6'1 and a half peak height
Reece said on 8/Nov/17
That is more than 3 inches but that's a weird angle. Ali does tower over them in flat boxing shoes though.
McMurphy said on 7/Nov/17
Click Here

Ali with the Beatles, all with similar shoe height.
Hes got a at least good 3 inches on Paul, the tallest beatle at 5'10
Canson said on 1/Nov/17
@Stephen Banks: people inflate athletes all the time because they think it makes them better or something. I agree foreman was max 6’3” peak Ali 6’2.25- 6’2 3/8
Johnson said on 29/Oct/17
@Rob Can you add Laila Ali?
StephenBanks said on 22/Oct/17
Foreman was never taller than 6'3". He may have even been a centimeter or two shorter. There is no way he was 6'4". Not possible.
Peter175 said on 16/Oct/17
Ali was a big dude. Look at him next to the Beatles. All of which were above average for their era, except Ringo.

It's strange how large all of his proportions are too. Big head, wide frame and broad boned. He's nearly 6'3 imo
McMurphy said on 11/Sep/17
Both Bruno and ali had big heads, and that proportions always make people look shorter than they really are.
hardguy said on 10/Sep/17
187 imo
Frazier was 5'9 or 176cm solid
movieguy said on 9/Sep/17
That Ali/Bruno photo is awesome. Surprisingly Ali looks an inch taller than Bruno who was given as 6'3'' in his prime and probably was about this I'd say. Could be angles or footwear so difficult to tell from one photo. I think people underestimate how big Ali was in his prime though. I'd say 6'2'' plus and very robust. The older and very frail figure with Parkinson's is perhaps the image some people have these days. The young Ali was a big guy by any standards.
McMurphy said on 2/Sep/17
Here´s with Frank Bruno which is listed in this site as 189.2 cm too.
Ali was 190 at least.

Click Here
Thai said on 22/Aug/17
He was 187cm tall.
Foreman was 191cm.
Frazier was 177cm. ( Foreman said Frazier was 5'9(175cm) )
Height exaggeration is everywhere in sports.
Height can be measured comparing to others.
But the compared person can be taller than the real height in a list.
And also have to consider both of their shoes and posture.
Logan said on 16/Aug/17
Looks shorter than George but really short compared to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar which is 7,2 son I am going to guess 6,3 but at his death 6,1.5
Jordan87 said on 7/Aug/17

Yes, and honestly Tyson was short for even the 80's era of Boxing. Frazier was around 5'10.5 and was considered short for a 1970's era fighter.

Even Evander holyfield at 6'1" ( Proven with Rob) would be short in today's game. Big Heart though.

I took a rough average of the guys Mike Tyson FOught back in the day, they averaged around 6'3". Thing is heavyweights are on average 20 pounds heavier than the Boxers in the 80's.

Even " Big " George Foreman was only around 220-225 when he fought ali. That would be a medium size at best heavyweight nowadays.
Slim 182 cm said on 31/Jul/17
Measured 188.5 for sure.
Canson said on 31/Jul/17
Strong 6'2 at best
Reece said on 24/Jul/17
@Jordan. Nowadays it's different. U don't see 5-10 heavyweights. The Average Heavyweight is 6-4 I heard these days. I don't think their is a heavyweight belt holder under 6-3 1/2 6-4. It's a giants mans game.
mickey said on 21/Jul/17
during his time, 6ft2 was a tall heavyweight... nowadays they are all 8ft tall
McMurphy said on 20/Jul/17
I say weak 6ft3 at peak - 190cm guy.

He had a big head, which always makes you look shorter, but he was more than 6ft2 for sure.
Jordan87 said on 18/Jul/17

I agree. Fanboyismn is a thing but I never understood some people's logic with that.
I am Shorter than Most of my Friends, mostly throughout my life. My Friends were mostly athletes or just tall Mofo's of German Stock. Point is , Height can be an advantage or Disadvantage but If you don't have Balls, it won't matter how tall or short you are. If People like to add inches to celebs to somehow better themselves, they need help.

It's good to be taller in general, that I get but what about guys like Mike Tyson? 5'10 Boxer against 6'2-6'4 Guys on Average. What If Tyson said " I'm too short to fight" ?
Canson said on 7/Jul/17
@Jordan87: that's the way it works. Everyone has to be taller especially when a fan of a celeb or athlete or its to make another celeb the height they claim if they're off on their claim or to make them taller. I will say tho a fair number are measured in the morning and are rounded up by doctors and maybe never told or round up themselves so they may just think it's rounding on their part and they may inflate others or round up them either on purpose or because they believe making them an inch taller is added value in their lives
Jordan87 said on 6/Jul/17
The man said he was 6'2. Why are people still trying to push 6'3?
Reece said on 4/Jul/17
he has claimed 6-3 too and 6-2.5
even said on 3/Jul/17
ali was a truthful guy in an interveiw with david frost and clint eastwood in 1969 he said that he was 6 foot 2 and 225 pounds .
Canson said on 14/Jun/17
@Harry Sachs: id say Lewis is more 194-195. He's the same size as Charles Barkley looks. I'm not so sure that's a full 2" if foreman were at his peak height 1.5". I agree on foreman tho maybe he's prob at his lowest a full 6'3" possibly and norton could be more like 6'2 5/8-3/4 at a low where the cm or near it becomes visible. honestly more I see Ali doesn't look more than a strong 6'2 where he looks 189cm seeing almost the same with them as I do norton and Ali
Mark(5'9.25 said on 13/Jun/17
Rob, how likely is 6'2.75" in a good day for Muhammad Ali?
Editor Rob: earlier in the day he might have got that, but I believe he got 6ft 2.5 and went with that as his official height, sometimes he might have rounded to 6ft 3.
World Citizen said on 2/Jun/17
Hey Rob how tall do you think her daughter Laila Ali is? She is listed as 5'10.
Editor Rob: couple of years ago she said she was 5ft 11 and 185 pounds, seems she's gave 5ft 11 a few times on twitter.
Jordan87 said on 30/May/17

Marciano is not over 5'9. Look at him in pics with 6'0.5" Measured Joe Luis. If you see a 5'10-1/2 guy then you have a problem. I love Marciano but I'm not going to lie to prop up his height.
HarrySachs said on 27/May/17
Ryan Norton was 6'2 3/4 according to himself. I put up at least 10 pictures of Norton and Foreman on the Foreman's height page. Foreman didn't look 1 inch taller. Foreman looks slightly taller. Maybe 1/4 inch. Which is why Foreman himself stated he was 6'3 when he was champion and not 6'4. Foreman started claiming that when he came back. He was clearly shorter than Briggs who claimed 6'4 and at least 2 inches shorter than guys like Lennox Lewis who are around 6'5
c-mo said on 15/May/17
Jordan said on 2/May/16
Movieguy, Marciano was about 4 inches shorter than Joe Luis who was measured on Film at 6'1. ( He had his boxing shoes on, which back then they were much thinner than modern shoes, Putting lewis at about 6'0.5). Marciano was 5'8.5 but hit like a mule. He put a 6'4 fellow Italian Fighter in a Coma with a Right cross.


Marciano was 178-179cm
Canson said on 14/May/17
@Ryan: maybe it's just me. I can't see it. I know someone who has met him that is 6'3" and said they were the same. Foreman at best is likely strong 6'3". I respect your opinion tho and maybe he can look that because the other guys aren't really as tall as listed. I compare him to Ali and Norton Holmes etc and maybe the most I could argue is 6'3.5 but I have no reason to discredit what Forman said that he's 6'3.
Ryan said on 12/May/17
@Canson. Foreman could look it with other boxers though. Ken Norton was 6-3 and Foreman did look a inch or so taller.6-4 for Foreman is not a bad guess.
Canson (194 cm) 6'4 3/8 said on 18/Apr/17
No offense Reece but you have a double standard. You will take what Ali says that's he's 6'3 218 (who knows if he rounded or not) and make him solid 6'3 and inflate foreman who also claims 6'3". You say foreman downplays his height for "pshychological advantage ". You also take someone like Fury just because he claims 6'9 and say that Wlad Klitschko is downplaying his height from 6'6 to 6'5. So from reading those posts it shows that you take whatever the higher claim from the person is and inflate the person next to them in order to accommodate Ali Fury etc.
Canson (194 cm) 6'4 3/8 said on 18/Apr/17
I agree with you Harry Sachs. Ali on his passport had 6'2.5 and looked shorter than Norton and Foreman and others. Foreman was 6'3 strong at his peak tops. He claimed 6'3 that's what he was somewhere in the 6'3 range between 6'3-6'3.5 nor 6'3.5 to 6'4. Or else he would've said he's 6'4"
Tut Tut said on 14/Mar/17
Ali claimed 6-2 but i think he was rounding down. i think Ali was 6-2.5 and Foreman was 6-3.5
HarrySachs said on 12/Mar/17
David yeah Ali was 6'3 peak even though he was shorter than the 6'2 3/4 inch Norton. Brilliant logic you have there.
David said on 10/Mar/17
Ali was 6,3 for sure at peak. all you need to do is look at pictures with the beatles or listen to other boxers. Henry Cooper said 6,3.5. Bert Sugar said Ali was 6,3.5. Commentators used to say Ali was a touch under 6-4. Ali was 6,3
john said on 9/Mar/17
ali 6,2 foreman 6 3....
Anon said on 6/Mar/17
Click Here. min 0.06. you seem to be right Reece. Ali looks at least as tall as 6,3 Williams if not above. i would say Williams was 6,2.5 rounded up to up to 6,3 and Ali was the full 6,3. Foreman 6,3.5 to 6,4 could be right he looked taller tha Al by 0.5 to a inch
Canson said on 5/Mar/17
@Reece: I doubt he understated it. My cousin has met George Foreman in person and he's 6'3 range and said he is similar in height to him in that he looked 6'3 not 6'4. Maybe he's a strong 6'3" which I believe making Ali 6'2.5 or a solid 189. Ali billed himself 6'3" as well and he could look either height with Larry Holmes or foreman depending on how they were listed
Reece said on 4/Mar/17
Canson. Ali could be underestimating his height for a advantage in the RING or he could have measured at a low. Take a look at these pictures
Click Here it reads Ali 6,3 218 poundsb22?years the Greastest
Click Here Ali looks taller than 6,2 with Martin Luther king.
Henry cooper said Ali was 6,3.5 tail of the Tape said Ali was 6,3.5 when he came on TVs with Wilt Chamberlain. Ali was as tall as 6,3 Cleveland Williams. Ali was a tall man at peak but he list height after. Ali used to tower of Boxers in the RING. I have no doubt 6,3 to 6,3.5 is accurate
Canson said on 4/Mar/17
Uh. If Ali says he's 6'2.5 and his passport says it it likely means it's all he is. He was likely 189cm at his lowest. Not 6'3-6'3.5. Don't know why people always want to make their favorite athletes taller out of respect. It does absolutely nothing
Reece said on 3/Mar/17
Strange Ali would say this! looks taller than 6,2! Ali looked at 6,3 to me. i think Ali is 6,3 to 6,3.5 and Foreman was 6,4. Foreman was slightly taller.
ArjunaKorale said on 2/Mar/17
Yes, agree (with Skn), Ali himself said that he was 6 ft 2 (or 188 cm) tall...but if Ali could have been more accurate, I feel that he would have said that he was EXACTLY 6 ft 2.5 inches (189 cm) tall! Now that measurement I can wholly agree with.
Skn said on 1/Mar/17
Click Here he said it in this interview guys.. 6'2
Guesser said on 28/Feb/17
I looked at the this pic with Ali and the Beatles he towered of them in flat boxing shoes. he looked a strong 6,4 in that picture. i think Ali was 6,3 in the 60s and 70s and still 6,2 in 80s and 90s but could easily be mistaken for a 6,4 6,4.5 guy due to his slender shoulders in his peak.
boxer said on 20/Feb/17
Peter you are a idiot He was likely giant
with Thé Beatles and John lennon was there. And when hè was young men hè was 6f3 now İt's possible He was smaller
Reece said on 17/Feb/17
Ali 5,9 stop trolling. i doubt he was much more 5,10-5,11 in his older years he lost a lot of height.Click Here look at this picture Ali towering over the Beatles,it reads 218 pounds,6,3 the Greatest 22 years old. Ali was a solid 6,3 no less.
Peter said on 16/Feb/17
Wow his height is really overrated here. Here he is with 5'8 John Lennon and he's barely got an inch on him. Ali was 5'9 max 5'10 on a good day. He got a bigger than the world attitude but he really wasn't as tall as people made him out to be. So here you have the truth. Muhammed Ali was 5'9.
Jelly Man Clayman said on 16/Feb/17
6'3" was his peak height at the tallest. So he would've most likely been less at the time of his death.
Reece said on 28/Jan/17
Click Here
Ali looking very tall here. No way less than 6'3. Ali was 6'3.5 in the 60s and 70s before Parkinson's
Reece said on 27/Jan/17
Ali in the 60s was a solid 6'3.5 and no less than 6'3. Look at him towering over the Beatles in flat boxing shoes. And the way he was taller than 6'1 Liston by 2.5 inches. Foreman was 6!4 legit in his Prime my dad was 6'4 at the Time he is older he has lost 1.5 inches and he met Foreman and said they were eye to eye
CreepX said on 27/Jan/17

Ali was billed 6"2' in the 60's.

Ken Norton were also 6"2' but still a Clear edge om Ali.

Same with 6"3 Larry Holmes. Ali weren't 6"3'

Nu best guess 188 cm. Right between 6"1.25 Holyfield and 6"2.75' Norton.
Hulk said on 26/Jan/17
Ali was 6'2 max, Joe fraizier was 5'11.5 Joe fraizier needs a page of his own
Danny said on 25/Jan/17
Sorry but Muhammad Ali does NOT look more than one inch shorter than George Foreman. Check out this pick:

Click Here

Ali was definitely a full 6'3 or more at peak height and maybe 6'2 at the time of death. The 6'2.5 was probably in his older years.
CreepX said on 18/Jan/17
Again: Here Ali is standing with 190 cm Larry Holmes: Click Here

Rob: in this pic what do you think the difference is? 1 cm or 1 inch?
CreepX said on 18/Jan/17
Here Ali is standing with 186 cm Holyfield: Click Here

Rob: Do you really think that it is a 1.25 inch difference between Ali and Holyfield in this picture?
Reece said on 16/Jan/17
Dundee said Ali was 6,2 but that was before Age 21 and men can still grow up to 21 i think and apprently some even grow until 25. Dundee said before the Terell Fight you can look at the whats my name part 1 and part 2 on YT says Ali was 6,4! i do not think he was 6,4 Probably a little under. the Real Debate should be weather Ali was 6,3 or 6,3.5. he was taller than 6,0.5 Liston b 2.5 inches. he was no more than 2-2.5 inches shorter than 6,6 Terell who was actually 6,5.5.
Reece said on 12/Jan/17
Ali was 6,0 in those pictures with Kiltschko and maybe 5,11 he lost a lot of height in those pictures due to age and sickness. Ali was 6 foot 3 legit in Prime. he even looked 6,4 next to 6,6 Terell but that might have been due to footwear. 6 foot 3 legit
movieguy said on 9/Jan/17
With Ali being towered by the Klitschko's in the pics I think it is clear that by this point he was not a well person and had lost height. In his prime he would have been shorter for sure but not by so much.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 20/Dec/16
Foreman in his prime was no less than 6ft3...
HarrySach said on 19/Dec/16
Click Here A picture with Vitali Klischko and Wlad with Ali.
HarrySachs said on 17/Dec/16
Lol Thomas Foreman was measured at 6'3 and Foreman was clearly taller than Ali. Ali was never measured at 6'3.5 barefooted. You dudes who make up lies to try to prove your point crack me up.
King of the hill 91 said on 8/Nov/16
Rob could you do a paige for joe frazier as ali jorge have a paige
Thomas said on 20/Oct/16
His passport from 1972 said 6'3", his passport from 74 said 6'2.5", the an interview with howard cossel they measured him and said he was 6'3.5 with a wing span of 6'5"
Josh Jeffords said on 9/Oct/16
One of the greatest boxers of all time hands and head movement none can match.
He didn't look 6 3 was dwarfed by foreman height and mass.
I'd guess under 6 2 prime more like 61.
Rip Cassius clay
ZoZo said on 29/Sep/16
Passport height was 6'2.5 most likely with shoes so -2cm is like 6'1.75 and does look it tbh
movieguy said on 19/Sep/16
Joe Frazier was given as 5'11.5'' at the time. He might have been shorter nearer 5'10''.
Rory said on 11/Sep/16
Actually, I reckon 5'11 flat might have been Fraziers height. I think he wore big heels at times to look near 6ft to compensate for being one of the shorter heavyweights.
Rory said on 11/Sep/16
Rob, how tall do you think Joe Frazier was in his day, 5'11.5 ?
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 28/Aug/16
If Henry Cooper was 6ft2 as he claimed then 6ft3 is arguable for Ali…
Shane said on 29/Jun/16
@Canson thanks and same towards you and your beliefs and i also appreciate the clarification.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 25/Jun/16
Out of bed: 191-192cm
Before bed: 189-190cm
movieguy said on 25/Jun/16
Henry Cooper has said that Ali was 6'3'' when he fought him. In later years he met him and said it was sad to see how small and frail he had become. Maybe he wasn't quite a full 6'3'' but he was a big guy for that era.
Ian C. said on 22/Jun/16
Whenever I have been measured I was standing rigidly straight and craning my neck. This was, of course, to increase my measured height, as if it were a score. Since I don't walk around all day like a giraffe reaching for a high leaf on a tree, my real, everyday height is an inch or so less than my height as formally measured.

I prefer describing people as towering, tall, medium, short or dwarfish. The actual numerical measurement is an interesting statistic, but it's less important than the actual height cohort to which the subject belongs. So Muhammad Ali was tall. Six-two, six-three, well, still tall.

Of course, descriptors of height depend upon the populations in which subjects operate. If Ali had been a professional basketball player, he might have been fairly described as short, or at least not tall.
Canson said on 22/Jun/16
By the way Shane what I said wasn't directed toward you. I respect your opinion on it it's a general observation because I see a lot of people not so much doing morning height but lying in general like 2-3" then inflating everyone else around them to "validate" their claims
Canson said on 22/Jun/16
In the grand scheme it's a number a silly insignificant one. It doesn't define you. It's society in general with height having to measure up is too important. The way I view it is if someone claims a height and a tape measure is pulled out that person ought to be able to measure what they claim at least within maybe 1/4-1/2 inch. It should also be what you measure best or most frequently not quantity. That's just my two cents on it. Society in general is too hung up on eekimg every inch out of height imho
Shane said on 22/Jun/16
My simple point is this: if a person can measure a height -- whatever time it is -- it is absolutely real and legit. I mean, they measured it and stood that tall barefoot so it is indeed a true height as well as a max height. If some want to use a different method that is great, but it is silly and inaccurate to assert that an out of bed height is not real. It obviously is if the man or woman is barefoot and the measurement is properly done. No way to realistically make it not so. I mean again, the person is standing that tall flatfooted, barefoot and without footwear. It is as real as can be lol. As for me Ive never had anyone discredit my height claims, whether it is 6'2" barefoot or 6'3" in shoes. Being around athletics and just where i live, it has always been rather common to use shoe heights but i still tend to specify which im referring to.
Dmax said on 21/Jun/16
Ya what Shane is talking about is the matter of how far our height could reach out of bed but it really is dependable at what height we hold because you could be displaying a height of 5'9 for most part of the time when your with your peers or family(with your max height being 5'10) due to a number of factors and your MAX height you woke up with at each day differs due to sleeping time etc but one thing that remains almost unchanged throughout all this is your average height and it is more dependable, solid and more accurate to go with the average height when measuring people.
Canson said on 20/Jun/16
Even though I disagree with you Shane on morning height I do agree with you that Ali was 6'2.5 as is also on his passport. He'd easily and comfy clear 6'3 out of bed more than likely. He always looked 1/2-1" shorter than foreman. I can see 6'3 out of bed/6'2.25 normal low or 6'3.25/6'2.5 and Foreman prob 6'4/6'3.25 or 6'3.75/6'3. Either way 6'3, solid or strong 6'3 foreman and strong 6'2 Ali
Canson said on 20/Jun/16
@Shane: you actually make very very good points in your posts and I agree with most of what you say, but I have to agree with Dmax on out of bed height. if we slept in a doctor's office then yes. If everyone universally did it then yes. But You say it perfectly. It's your "max" height. Doesn't mean your true height. If you don't sleep in a bed or get a full 8 hrs sleep you won't hit it but you will still be around your afternoon height. i see a lot of people claim to be, lets throw a number out and say 6'4. I have maybe 3 6'3 friends but one of which you hear him say "I'm 6'3.75. I just say I'm 6'4 is what I hear a lot." Dmax is right. I look at Him and he's strong 6'3 at most next to other 6'3 guys Maybe 1/4 taller maybe 6'3.25. Not even 1/2. Then he used to tell everyone else they were taller than they are until we measured one day and the rest of us were as claimed (6'4.4ish at my normal lowest usually so I say 6'4.5). he didn't measure but he knew I think. He doesn't challenge anyone anymore. So You either can tell out of bed height or that they measure in shoes because they never look what they claim. I call them "disjointed" because they look a bad "whatever" height they claim and make it look smaller than it is. In the grand scheme if someone "has" to claim a morning height and refuses to claim lower even tho measured lower its a sign of insecurity truthfully
Dmax said on 18/Jun/16
Shane your asking why would anyone claim anything shorter? Imagine you just woke up and your going for a physical from a doctor the journey took 3 hours and the doctor measured you at 5'7 what are you gonna do tell the doctor your 5'8 because you woke up and measured yourself at that height? Listen..... going with out of bed height could never be or sound more ridiculous because a person could be the same height as you on average and wake up taller than you due to their spinal discs being more hydrated than you and your gonna seriously say that person is taller than the other? Even when they are measuring the tallest person in the world for guiness world record they wait for their spine to decompress to their average height that they can hold mostly throughout the day....But anyways since your so on about out of bed height should be the true height then go ahead and tell people your max height and see how many probably will go against what your saying.
Shane said on 17/Jun/16
@Dmax: its the persons max height without shoes why on earth would anyone claim anythibg shorter? Its silly to think its not genuine as if a person is on their tiptoes or in shoes. Quite simply, if a person can legit measure it barefoot at some point in the day they certainly have every right to legitimately claim it. Its simply a persons max height and its every bit real. In fact, ive never heard of this concept of not counting full height as being real. Its comically ridiculous and a bit mind boggling.
5ft10guy said on 17/Jun/16
I think he was a legit 6ft3.I saw a pictures of him overseas and noone ever is taller or as tall as him besides his one or two of his crew members .
Dmax said on 14/Jun/16
@Shane you cannot count out of bed height because it is not the height the person holds during the most part of the day as explained previously why go with a height that you cannot hold? Now that is absurd......
Shane said on 11/Jun/16
One, sorry to see the champ go...
Beyond that:
-Every human stops growing at different ages. Some people here act as if its a set age. Its not. Some quit by 14 or 15 and some in early 20s. It varies from persom to person.
-IF Ali was measured for passport, its likely it was in shoes BUT in that time a normal show was often shorter than those of today so if he had a 1/2 inch heel he would still be 6'2 barefoot and if measured at night, perhaps 6'2 1/2 to 6'2 3/4 barefoot in morning.
-Speaking of morning heights, its absurd to not count out of bed height as a real height. A person is indeed that height and their optimal height at that time. I in fact believe that should be the standard as it gets people at their true full height and not one shortened after compression from sitting, standing. But either way, its certainly not illegitimate when a person in fact can stand that tall. Thats crazy.
ArjunaKorale said on 11/Jun/16
V SAD TO HEAR OF HIS PASSING. Sugar Ray Leonard was a great boxer & great businessman, but Ali was simply A GREAT FIGHTER! The world will never see anything even close to his like again! He may not have been the v fastest ever, or the hardest puncher, or the most modest of men (lol), but perhaps the smartest world heavyweight champion (inside the ring) in this day, I still think that his battering of Big George Foreman was an unbelievable spectacle to behold! I am so happy that the celebheights team have stuck to their guns & kept Ali at 6 ft 2.5, when many other sites & publications have not been accurate & have stated 6 ft 3 (or even 6 ft 3.5!). THEY ARE WRONG AND YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT. Perhaps, with the fullness of time, others will realise their error, come round to your thinking & match your 6 ft 2.5 inch listing for this BOXING GOD.
Nick said on 9/Jun/16
Rest in peace Champion
Mike said on 8/Jun/16
Burt Sugar once said he was the tallest 6'2" guy he ever saw! No matter how tall, the best heavyweight ever! RIP Champ!
Around 5'9 said on 7/Jun/16
6'3. Rest in peace champ you were the greatest.
Mr-KILLER-SHRIMP said on 7/Jun/16
6'1" at peak I can buy, but no more than that.
Dmax said on 6/Jun/16
The world has lost another legend.....Despite his time period where blacks were treated with such disgrace that can break many peoples self esteem he believed in himself that he will become the greatest and even when things got hard for him he stuck through the storm during his defeat and came back like an unstoppable force to be reckoned with....R.I.P Muhammad Ali.
Gonzalo said on 6/Jun/16
RIP to the King. One of the greatest if not the greatest
Crypto139 said on 5/Jun/16
RIP to Ali. As great as a boxer as he was I believe he was even better known for his work outside the ring. Great man!
Aza said on 5/Jun/16
RIP to 'The Greatest'.
182 said on 5/Jun/16
No less Than 191cm in his prime
Tommy said on 4/Jun/16
Rest in Peace Muhammad Ali. You will never be forgotten
Bobby said on 4/Jun/16
People shrink as they get older. My dad and I were the exact same height, 6-3, at one time. Years later he is 72 and about 6-1. I noticed it really progressed as he approached and passed the age of 60. All of Ali's bad health, and poor posture due to same, would have had great effect on his height as well. If you are trying to determine Ali's height based on pictures, I would use those of him before age 50.
Fern194cm-192cm said on 4/Jun/16
"I'm so mean, I made medicine sick" - R.I.P
Sammy Derrick said on 4/Jun/16
R.I.P. Muhammad Ali weather you were 6'2 or 6'3 you were the greatest to ever be.
mrtguy said on 4/Jun/16
RIP to the best
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 4/Jun/16
Rest in peace Champ.
Smash said on 4/Jun/16
I reckon at peak 188.5cm at night and maybe 190cm morning so 189cm seems right. He just had a slim yet chiseled build which made him look a little smaller R.I.P
Peter175 said on 4/Jun/16
RIP the king. One of my idols
Anonymous said on 2/Jun/16
Looked as tall as jim brown who was listed at 6'2

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.