Could Any Fighter in History Brawl With (Prime, Pre-Ali) Foreman And Come Out On Top?

[Barn]

I'm an alt? Someone must be very dedicated to make an alt with a ton of fight videos on youtube as well.
http://www.youtube.com/user/BoxKickboxMMA

Next time don't accuse someone without proof.

shameless advertising!

[Jim Jeffries]

Liston would have the best chance, though he'd be better served trying to keep Foreman on the end of his jab. But I wouldn't mind seeing young George brawl with Ibeabuchi, Tyson, Tua, Quarry, Holyfield, Bowe or Dempsey.

[kendom]

In your dreams. Lyle is his worst nightmare and we saw that when he was dropped twice and hurt many times.

These are the same excuses as Douglass beating Tyson. For some reason Foreman gets a free pass for this.

Douglas actually beat Tyson, you cant be someones worst nightmare when you cant even beat a psychologically weaker version of them in a brawl, you can argue all you like but Ron Lyle does not fit the conditions of this thread as:
1) He did not fight a pre- Ali Foreman
2) He did not come out on top

[BKM-2010]

1) He did not fight a pre- Ali Foreman

There is no diffirence between The Foreman that fought Ali or the Foreman that fought Lyle. Therefor that requirement is completely irrelevant. Frankly anybody claiming otherwise is trying to make excuses for Big George's horrible showing against Lyle.

2) He did not come out on top

Just like I told my good friend Joseph, the topic is hypothetical and the question is "could" not "would". Like I said, I can see Lyle winning too if they fought a couple more times. Their fight sure shows it. Foreman dropped twice, hurt many times, has to go life and death to finally win. Lyle owns this thread imo.

[kendom]

There is no diffirence between The Foreman that fought Ali or the Foreman that fought Lyle. Therefor that requirement is completely irrelevant. Frankly anybody claiming otherwise is trying to make excuses for Big George's horrible showing against Lyle.

There most definetly was a difference, he lost his aura of invincibility and kept trying to fight at a more relaxed pace, instead of the seek and destroy version that pummelled Frazier in 2 rounds, this reduced his effectiveness as a knockout puncher, consider the fact that it took him 5 rounds to polish off a washed up Frazier post manilla, when he had destroyed him in 2 rounds 3 years earlier when Frazier had been much closer to his prime.

Just like I told my good friend Joseph, the topic is hypothetical and the question is "could" not "would". Like I said, I can see Lyle winning too if they fought a couple more times. Their fight sure shows it. Foreman dropped twice, hurt many times, has to go life and death to finally win. Lyle owns this thread imo.

Yes its hypothethical when if the fighter of topic was say Marciano or Liston. But in the case of Ron Lyle the two actually fought and he lost, saying he could have won the reatch s just speculation. just because you give a guy trouble in one fight doesnt mean you'll trouble him in the rematch. Think Louis-Schmeling

[BKM-2010]

I'm not buying those excuses man. Just like anybody telling me about how prime Tyson has no losses. Same exact excuses there, and I will never fall for them when it comes to George Foreman either.

So what are you saying, that if Foreman went right at Lyle from the bell he would have won easily? I saw that fight many times and there is no way at any point ever that Foreman doesn't struggle with Lyle. Just like Ali with Norton. Bad style matchup.

Yes its hypothethical when if the fighter of topic was say Marciano or Liston. But in the case of Ron Lyle the two actually fought and he lost, saying he could have won the reatch s just speculation. just because you give a guy trouble in one fight doesnt mean you'll trouble him in the rematch. Think Louis-Schmeling

So when I say that Lyle could beat Foreman in a trilogy in a brawl it is speculation, even though there is ACTUAL evidence to back this up, yet when you are saying Liston for example could have beat Foreman it ISN'T speculation even though that one has zero evidence? How does that work?

You have excuses for Foreman's so called prime and you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Lyle almost succeeded to do exactly what the TS asked for.

[kendom]

I'm not buying those excuses man. Just like anybody telling me about how prime Tyson has no losses. Same exact excuses there, and I will never fall for them when it comes to George Foreman either.

They're not excuses, I've provided evidence to back up my claim and it can be observed from watching footage of him after his fight with Ali. All boxing historians acknowledge this.

So what are you saying, that if Foreman went right at Lyle from the bell he would have won easily? I saw that fight many times and there is no way at any point ever that Foreman doesn't struggle with Lyle. Just like Ali with Norton. Bad style matchup.

I've watched the fight too, It would have been a little competitive but the pre- Ali Foreman would have torn into Lyle and have been far more aggressive. Norton gave Ali stylistic problems, what stylistic problems did Lyle give Foreman?

So when I say that Lyle could beat Foreman in a trilogy in a brawl it is speculation, even though there is ACTUAL evidence to back this up, yet when you are saying Liston for example could have beat Foreman it ISN'T speculation even though that one has zero evidence? How does that work?

You have excuses for Foreman's so called prime and you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Lyle almost succeeded to do exactly what the TS asked for.

Read what I said carefully, I never said Liston could beat Foreman in a brawl I said he would defeat him in a match but have to use his boxing skills. Foreman had been inactive for 15 months before his fight with Lyle so inevitably would have been suffering from ring rust, an advantage Lyle wouldn't have in a rematch, and again giving someone trouble in one fight doesn't mean you would come out strong in a trilogy. And Lyle didnt almost fulfill the conditions of the TS because he did not fight a pre Ali Foreman, even the TS acknowledges that the post Ali Foreman was not the same or he or she wouldn't have put the condition of him being pre Ali, and Lyle didn't succeed in winning.

[BKM-2010]

They're not excuses, I've provided evidence to back up my claim and it can be observed from watching footage of him after his fight with Ali. All boxing historians acknowledge this.

I've watched the fight too, It would have been a little competitive but the pre- Ali Foreman would have torn into Lyle and have been far more aggressive. Norton gave Ali stylistic problems, what stylistic problems did Lyle give Foreman?

There is no such thing as evidence on this matter, only speculation. I see them as excuses because I don't see a diffirent Foreman.

And I think you're under the wrong impression about young Foreman. He was indeed a fast starter but not THAT fast. I mean he didn't destroy Norton untill the second round. Against Lyle he also had a slow start, but at the end of the first round he got cracked and was hurt badly by lyle. You don't seem to understand that Lyle was very capable of knocking Foreman out. If he went right at Lyle with even less caution he would have faced a serious risk of getting ko'd. This is the real world where Foreman can't just keep swinging those arms untill his opponent wins. It's not that simple.

Read what I said carefully, I never said Liston could beat Foreman in a brawl I said he would defeat him in a match but have to use his boxing skills. Foreman had been inactive for 15 months before his fight with Lyle so inevitably would have been suffering from ring rust, an advantage Lyle wouldn't have in a rematch, and again giving someone trouble in one fight doesn't mean you would come out strong in a trilogy. And Lyle didnt almost fulfill the conditions of the TS because he did not fight a pre Ali Foreman, even the TS acknowledges that the post Ali Foreman was not the same or he or she wouldn't have put the condition of him being pre Ali, and Lyle didn't succeed in winning.

More excuses there bro. You don't see me mentioning Lyle having lost 2 of his last 3 fights before Foreman, and in his last one he was in a brutal war against one of the hardest hitters ever. Stop making excuses for him. It's hard to take you seriously that way.

And also keep in mind that I never said Lyle beating Foreman in a brawl would be a fact. I said it's a strong possibility because there's a lot of evidence to support that.

[Wild Blue Yonda]

The only man I would favour to do it (and it wouldnt be by much) is Liston.

[kendom]

There is no such thing as evidence on this matter, only speculation. I see them as excuses because I don't see a diffirent Foreman.

Then tell me how the Foreman that fought Ron Lyleand lost to Jimmy Young was the same Foreman that fought Frazier and Ken Norton, you can see them as excuses, but it doesnt change the fact that Foreman did change his fighting style. Its not speculation when it can be witnessed as hard fact.

And I think you're under the wrong impression about young Foreman. He was indeed a fast starter but not THAT fast. I mean he didn't destroy Norton untill the second round. Against Lyle he also had a slow start, but at the end of the first round he got cracked and was hurt badly by lyle. You don't seem to understand that Lyle was very capable of knocking Foreman out. If he went right at Lyle with even less caution he would have faced a serious risk of getting ko'd. This is the real world where Foreman can't just keep swinging those arms untill his opponent wins. It's not that simple.

I'm not saying its that simple and so what if Ron Lyle was capabe of knocking Foreman out? so could Liston, Marciano, my point is we can speculate about them, but the fact remains that he failed to knock Foreman out- he had his chance when he had Foreman hurt many times and he was unable to finish him off. If it was Louis or Dempsey in there who had him hurt that many times Foreman would be gone.

More excuses there bro. You don't see me mentioning Lyle having lost 2 of his last 3 fights before Foreman, and in his last one he was in a brutal war against one of the hardest hitters ever. Stop making excuses for him. It's hard to take you seriously that way.

And also keep in mind that I never said Lyle beating Foreman in a brawl would be a fact. I said it's a strong possibility because there's a lot of evidence to support that.

Who's making excuses for Foreman? Im just stating fact, that he was ring rusty, and the evidence that you say supports Lyle to beat Foreman is out of context with the TS