Which HWs past and present would have had a good chance of beating a 70s Foreman?

[Capaedia]

You again. I do not feel like making big posts trying to convince someone who has made up his mind already and is that biased. I actually don't think Foreman's first loss was irrelevant in terms of its effects, but to claim that it was the SOLE reason for his displays against Young & Lyle? That is absolutely laughable and screams bias. You seem to undermine ANY negative displays of 'prime Foreman' as it being something HE did wrong himself instead of crediting his opponent, or making excuses for his bad performances or losses. The whole goal is to make young George seem as invincible as possible.

In his first comeback fight George Foreman took the most dangerous opponent he could find. After 15 months of ring inactivity he took on Ron Lyle who just 10 months previous had knocked out highly regarded heavyweight hitter Earnie Shavers. Lyle had come off the deck to defeat Shavers in a match between two of the divisions all time biggest hitters. Lyle was himself a super-heavyweight who stood 6’3 ½” had an 80 inch reach and weighed 220 pounds of solid muscle. He could jab, hook off the jab and had a very powerful right hand. Foreman was now trying to pace himself and began to fight at a more relaxed tempo. The result was that George was not quite as aggressive as he had been in his earlier fights. The first two rounds were tentative as George attempted to hold back and there was frequent jabbing by both men. Foreman proved his heart and chin in this fight when it exploded into a wild brawl reminiscent of Jack Dempsey and Luis Firpo some 50 years previous with both men hitting the deck. Foreman demonstrated that he could win a war of attrition and come out on top by knocking Lyle out in a see saw battle that ended in a knockout victory for Foreman in the fifth round. Even a rusty and hesitant Foreman was nearly impossible to beat in a brawl.

I get a good laugh when boxing people think that all you have to do to beat George Foreman is "box" him. Is that it? Is that all you have to do? Go ask Ali about that one. Those who do hold on to this error and believe that any “clever boxer” type could beat George often give the Jimmy Young fight as an example. Foreman showed up for this fight in San Juan the day before the fight and didn’t give himself time to get acclimated to the heat. He paced himself, fighting in his newfound measured style and did not throw a significant punch for the first 5 rounds. This was all wrong for him. The Foreman of Zaire would have tracked down Young, forced him to the ropes, went to the body with power and belted him out inside of a few short rounds. The 1973-74 Foreman, the one who cut the ring and really went after his man was the best Foreman. The George who lost to Young never really went after him. The Foreman who fought at a measured pace just was not the real George Foreman.

This is a quote from the article
'George Foreman: King of the Super-Heavyweights' by Monte Cox

Now you keep repeating I'm saying that's the sole reason, but can you point out where I said that?

If I recall correctly (and I do) I'm pointing out what Foreman changed in his game-plan and how that benefited Young and Lyle.

You're dealing in constant personal references, strawmen and not a whole lot else. I'm open to discussion, but you're just avoiding it by trying to discredit me. Maybe you just don't have any good points? My mind can be changed.

But then you come back to mock me and to top it off are surprised when I address you?

And So was Foreman beaten to a pulp like Taylor now? What are you gonna mention next, Jess Willard was never the same again after the Dempsey fight just like George?

I used it as a precedent. Losses can change fighters. The Ali fight humbled a guy who really spent a lot of time trying to be as intimidating as possible, in front of a huge audience.

This was followed by a year long lay-off...

[BKM-]

This is a quote from the article
'George Foreman: King of the Super-Heavyweights' by Monte Cox

Now you keep repeating I'm saying that's the sole reason, but can you point out where I said that?

If I recall correctly (and I do) I'm pointing out what Foreman changed in his game-plan and how that benefited Young and Lyle.

You're dealing in constant personal references, strawmen and not a whole lot else. I'm open to discussion, but you're just avoiding it by trying to discredit me. Maybe you just don't have any good points? My mind can be changed.

But then you come back to mock me and to top it off are surprised when I address you?



I used it as a precedent. Losses can change fighters. The Ali fight humbled a guy who really spent a lot of time trying to be as intimidating as possible, in front of a huge audience.

This was followed by a year long lay-off...

Monte Cox? No wonder you said some of the things in this thread. You've been listening way too much to this man, who btw is even more biased than you are. Just look at these gems:

-Foreman shown to be "near impossible to beat in a brawl" in the LYLE fight?? Out of all his brawls, that's the one that shows him to be the most unbeatable in a brawl? despite almost being finished several times.
-Here come more excuses: George showed up at San Juan the day before the fight and didn’t give himself time to get acclimated to the heat. LOL this sounds so familiar. Ali fight: Foreman was injured, troubled by the heat(again) or even poisoned! Please. As if I haven't heard enough excuses for him already you give an article that provides even more of them, even though this is supposed to be your best source.
-He just claims Foreman paced himself too much. Watch the Norton fight for example. he was inactive and relaxed for the first few minutes of the fight as well untill he found his range and couldn't miss. Young never gave him that range and also had good footwork, and what's also overlooked is his strength. Young was a strong man in the clinch, and was able to clinch at will where many of Foreman's opponents didn't do so. Foreman was not this extremely fast starter as Cox is trying to make us believe. A very good boxer with good footwork and the ability to clinch him at will could bring him into later rounds where he fades and loses. Not everybody is going to come straight at him like Frazier.

Also I didn't mock you in particular, more like Foreman fans as a whole. Plenty of of them posted in this thread with gems like "Nobody could outbox Foreman his jab was too good" or "Only Ali could beat him cuz his other losses don't count"

Foreman really left this false mystique with him when he retired. He probably peaked in 73 and then left in 77. That's about as short a prime as Mike Tyson. We didn't get to see how he'd do against the upcoming boxers especially Larry Holmes who definitely would have beaten him. Superior boxer, similar to Ali who is Foreman's ultimate cryptonite and he took Shavers' best shot and still won. In an early 80s matchup between those two I'm confident Holmes would win.

[res]

Monte Cox? No wonder you said some of the things in this thread. You've been listening way too much to this man, who btw is even more biased than you are. Just look at these gems:

-Foreman shown to be "near impossible to beat in a brawl" in the LYLE fight?? Out of all his brawls, that's the one that shows him to be the most unbeatable in a brawl? despite almost being finished several times.
-Here come more excuses: George showed up at San Juan the day before the fight and didn’t give himself time to get acclimated to the heat. LOL this sounds so familiar. Ali fight: Foreman was injured, troubled by the heat(again) or even poisoned! Please. As if I haven't heard enough excuses for him already you give an article that provides even more of them, even though this is supposed to be your best source.
-He just claims Foreman paced himself too much. Watch the Norton fight for example. he was inactive and relaxed for the first few minutes of the fight as well untill he found his range and couldn't miss. Young never gave him that range and also had good footwork, and what's also overlooked is his strength. Young was a strong man in the clinch, and was able to clinch at will where many of Foreman's opponents didn't do so. Foreman was not this extremely fast starter as Cox is trying to make us believe. A very good boxer with good footwork and the ability to clinch him at will could bring him into later rounds where he fades and loses. Not everybody is going to come straight at him like Frazier.

Also I didn't mock you in particular, more like Foreman fans as a whole. Plenty of of them posted in this thread with gems like "Nobody could outbox Foreman his jab was too good" or "Only Ali could beat him cuz his other losses don't count"

Foreman really left this false mystique with him when he retired. He probably peaked in 73 and then left in 77. That's about as short a prime as Mike Tyson. We didn't get to see how he'd do against the upcoming boxers especially Larry Holmes who definitely would have beaten him. Superior boxer, similar to Ali who is Foreman's ultimate cryptonite and he took Shavers' best shot and still won. In an early 80s matchup between those two I'm confident Holmes would win.

Generalities aside, who are you pining for us to say could possibly beat Foreman that hasn't already received a decent number of votes?

More than one person had already chosen Holmes and Liston at the beginning of the thread.

You mentioned Jerry Quarry. Jimmy Young beat (what I believe was a degraded version of Foreman) by jabbing and clinching for the entire first part of the fight. (sometimes even shooting in and clinching UFC style when he felt he was at risk). But it was his slickness and quickness as a Boxer that enabled him to do that. When I think Slick/quick Boxer, I don't think "Jerry Quarry". Quarry would get run over, plain and simple.

But I don't think this is actually about Jerry Quarry. What fighters do you have in mind that you think have a good chance against Foreman that have been slighted?

I would name Liston, Holmes and even the guy in your avatar...although I'd be far more confident about the guy in your avatar vs Young era Foreman.

[Capaedia]

Monte Cox? No wonder you said some of the things in this thread. You've been listening way too much to this man, who btw is even more biased than you are. Just look at these gems:

-Foreman shown to be "near impossible to beat in a brawl" in the LYLE fight?? Out of all his brawls, that's the one that shows him to be the most unbeatable in a brawl? despite almost being finished several times.

Yeah, that was some mental gymnastics on his part, which he is prone to. But that's not the important part of that paragraph in my opinion, the important part is that he was coming off a knockout loss and year long layoff to fight the most dangerous opponent he could

-Here come more excuses: George showed up at San Juan the day before the fight and didn’t give himself time to get acclimated to the heat. LOL this sounds so familiar. Ali fight: Foreman was injured, troubled by the heat(again) or even poisoned! Please. As if I haven't heard enough excuses for him already you give an article that provides even more of them, even though this is supposed to be your best source.

Again, this is not the important part in my opinion. That would be where he points out that Foreman changed his game. I address this next paragraph.

-He just claims Foreman paced himself too much. Watch the Norton fight for example. he was inactive and relaxed for the first few minutes of the fight as well untill he found his range and couldn't miss. Young never gave him that range and also had good footwork, and what's also overlooked is his strength. Young was a strong man in the clinch, and was able to clinch at will where many of Foreman's opponents didn't do so. Foreman was not this extremely fast starter as Cox is trying to make us believe. A very good boxer with good footwork and the ability to clinch him at will could bring him into later rounds where he fades and loses. Not everybody is going to come straight at him like Frazier.

I think Foreman changed his pace. Rather than waiting until he hurt his man then going after him with a vengeance (a la Frazier, Norton or anyone else really) he wasn't as confident in his ability to overpower and outfight his opponent so he hesitated when ordinarily [in my opinion] he would've waded right into them.

Actually I think that's when a fighter like Joe Louis would've had a very good shot of knocking him out (see: Frazier II he got hit with a left hook and froze for a second, but Frazier didn't keep throwing because he thought he had him), as I said in my first post of the thread. Do I think it's a certainty or even likely for someone other than Liston or Louis? No. I think when Foreman is imposing his strength it would be very difficult to fight back even if you're only hurt slightly

My opinions are subject to change. This whole accusing me of bias is unfounded. We have differing opinions and this is one of my favourite subjects. I understand Cox can be iffy sometimes but I don't think that's bias either, maybe romanticism but he doesn't seem to let it rule his verdict.

Also I didn't mock you in particular, more like Foreman fans as a whole. Plenty of of them posted in this thread with gems like "Nobody could outbox Foreman his jab was too good" or "Only Ali could beat him cuz his other losses don't count"

I was having a bad day so I had a bit of a chip on my shoulder. Sorry about that.

Foreman really left this false mystique with him when he retired. He probably peaked in 73 and then left in 77. That's about as short a prime as Mike Tyson. We didn't get to see how he'd do against the upcoming boxers especially Larry Holmes who definitely would have beaten him. Superior boxer, similar to Ali who is Foreman's ultimate cryptonite and he took Shavers' best shot and still won. In an early 80s matchup between those two I'm confident Holmes would win.

I hear this a lot, but I don't think Holmes is going to pursue the same game plan as Ali.

In fact I don't think anyone in the right mind would try it, I guess that's the beauty of it considering it worked.

[rightsideup]

larry homes might have beat him?

[Nails]

You don't beat him by out slugging him. Tunney would lead him a merry chase; look what Ali did, float like a butter fly...

[res]

Doesn't count. Foreman was past teh primes, cuz he was sad.

I just realized that a simple way of settling whether we were dealing with the same Foreman is the common fight between prime Foreman and Young-era Foreman: Smokin Joe.

The fact that Foreman annihilates a PRIME Joe Frazier in two rounds (knocking him down 5 times) and takes 5 rounds to finish an obviously past prime Joe Frazier in one of his last fights, should tell us this that isn't the same guy. And you have to add to that the fact that Foreman would have already been extremely confident going into that particular fight, and he still takes that long.

I'd give a guy like Holyfield (and several other fighters) a good shot against Young-era Foreman, but Liston and Holmes are the only ones off hand I'd feel comfortable with against a Prime Foreman.

[Sugarj]

I just realized that a simple way of settling whether we were dealing with the same Foreman is the common fight between prime Foreman and Young-era Foreman: Smokin Joe.

The fact that Foreman annihilates a PRIME Joe Frazier in two rounds (knocking him down 5 times) and takes 5 rounds to finish an obviously past prime Joe Frazier in one of his last fights, should tell us this that isn't the same guy. And you have to add to that the fact that Foreman would have already been extremely confident going into that particular fight, and he still takes that long.

I'd give a guy like Holyfield (and several other fighters) a good shot against Young-era Foreman, but Liston and Holmes are the only ones off hand I'd feel comfortable with against a Prime Foreman.

No, Foreman's second performance against Frazier was possibly one of his finest, he looked superb that night. The knockout was delayed because of Frazier's tactics.

Frazier did his best to impersonate Ali, he even danced in the first couple of rounds and attempted his own version of the rope a dope at times. Honestly, take a look at the fight. He was much more defensive.

The 1973 fight was over much quicker because Joe seemingly couldn't stop himself marching straight forward into Foreman's heavy blows.

[Cardinal Buck]

I agree. Frazier made sure he didn't get get stomped out as quickly as the first time during the rematch.

[Sugarj]

I agree. Frazier made sure he didn't get get stomped out as quickly as the first time during the rematch.

Nice to agree on something for a change matey