Footwork, George Foreman

[Elroy1]

Muhammad Ali said Foreman cut the ring off better than any fighter he ever fought. That tells you all you need to know about Foreman's footwork.

Muhammad Ali claims Foreman to have good footwork because this increases his own stock.

You can NEVER trust the word of a boxer on the qualities of a defeated opponent. It's all gas.

[Elroy1]

It was very basic, unmentionworthy footwork.

There was very unmentionworthy skills in terms of professional boxing altogether with Foreman.

He was basically the strongest/most powerful and heftiest+tallest boxer who was athletic of the era and to that date altogether who was matched against total weaklings by contrast.

That was the sole reason for his success. His SKILL in cutting off the ring had little to do with it! Those guys only had so far to run and posed him hardly any punch threat.

[McGoorty]

It was very basic, unmentionworthy footwork.

There was very unmentionworthy skills in terms of professional boxing altogether with Foreman.

He was basically the strongest/most powerful and heftiest+tallest boxer who was athletic of the era and to that date altogether who was matched against total weaklings by contrast.

That was the sole reason for his success. His SKILL in cutting off the ring had little to do with it! Those guys only had so far to run and posed him hardly any punch threat.

Your trolling had my Wlad thread closed, is this your intention on this thread too ?.. you need a good bushwacking, as an Australian you should know the origin of that word

[billeau2]

Your trolling had my Wlad thread closed, is this your intention on this thread too ?.. you need a good bushwacking, as an Australian you should know the origin of that word

Elroys from down under? Australia can have the convict....

[billeau2]

Foreman success was more out of fear of his punching,he did not work to hard the above fight is an average Foreman fight wiith his opponent just moves straight back .no real threat of circling or anything else in movement. He had footwork yes...how good ?Well he was one of the better movers but not cause he was graceful, because his opponents were limited to his power.

Here is a tape of someone who took the time to analyze some of what foreman does...I love tapes like this because, it takes a lot of time to do them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LMhK-Hb-gw

The tape speaks for itself...I.e. my comments would be redundent and its a short tape. But it puts on display some of how George plied his trade.

Ok I lied...I will make ONE comment: notice how george does not use strength but rather timing, position, distance and subtle redirection to avoid Frazier.

[juggernaut666]

Here is a tape of someone who took the time to analyze some of what foreman does...I love tapes like this because, it takes a lot of time to do them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LMhK-Hb-gw

The tape speaks for itself...I.e. my comments would be redundent and its a short tape. But it puts on display some of how George plied his trade.

Ok I lied...I will make ONE comment: notice how george does not use strength but rather timing, position, distance and subtle redirection to avoid Frazier.

Well all honesty that's what I was implying about Foreman ..he didn't really use footwork as much as ppl going backwards fearing him....Frazier comes right at him basically and Foreman stayed in the center ring occasionaly playing boxer ,he rarley moves against Frazier ,he did more shoving to push Frazier backward to punching range...and imop I think if Foreman doesnt pick points to move and counter Frazier the fight is even shorter as foreman didn't need to move at all with Frazier,as a matter of fact the one time he played boxer he went right in the way of a left hook.Frazier did not have fire power to k.o foreman so outmaneuvering is not soley important here.

[billeau2]

Well all honesty that's what I was implying about Foreman ..he didn't really use footwork as much as ppl going backwards fearing him....Frazier comes right at him basically and Foreman stayed in the center ring occasionaly playing boxer ,he rarley moves against Frazier ,he did more shoving to push Frazier backward to punching range...and imop I think if Foreman doesnt pick points to move and counter Frazier the fight is even shorter as foreman didn't need to move at all with Frazier,as a matter of fact the one time he played boxer he went right in the way of a left hook.Frazier did not have fire power to k.o foreman so outmaneuvering is not soley important here.

The point in these breakdowns is to show when a particular fighter is using methods. Foreman is using redirection and distance in a very crafty way..he is not relying in his strength in a random fashion. I have to disagree with you regarding avoiding Frazier's hook. We have a difference of opinion regarding Frazier's ability, strength, or lack there-of...thats cool, if it is me? I will try to redirect Frazier, but who knows?

[Elroy1]

The point in these breakdowns is to show when a particular fighter is using methods. Foreman is using redirection and distance in a very crafty way..he is not relying in his strength in a random fashion. I have to disagree with you regarding avoiding Frazier's hook. We have a difference of opinion regarding Frazier's ability, strength, or lack there-of...thats cool, if it is me? I will try to redirect Frazier, but who knows?

Now come on Bill.

I'm not supposing for a second that any HW champion, even Foreman, didn't have ANY methodology to his boxing, obviously he COULD box.

However these skills were almost totally abandoned prior to his 1st defeat to Ali, and yes, against Frazier, Roman and Norton as well.

These 3 fights basically resemble a guy standing there like a bloody gargoyle swinging wide telegraphed sweeping shots left and right like a wild man without any recourse to "methods" until his totally overpowered opponents fell over.

"Methods" had very little to do with any of these wins and was certainly a lack of methods that contributed the Foreman responsible side of the Ali loss.

[billeau2]

Now come on Bill.

I'm not supposing for a second that any HW champion, even Foreman, didn't have ANY methodology to his boxing, obviously he COULD box.

However these skills were almost totally abandoned prior to his 1st defeat to Ali, and yes, against Frazier, Roman and Norton as well.

These 3 fights basically resemble a guy standing there like a bloody gargoyle swinging wide telegraphed sweeping shots left and right like a wild man without any recourse to "methods" until his totally overpowered opponents fell over.

"Methods" had very little to do with any of these wins and was certainly a lack of methods that contributed the Foreman responsible side of the Ali loss.

Why would you assume that? what would motivate a man to swing for the fences suddenly? Did he get Kimboitus? Did you look carefully and see if Foreman was neutralized? I can look at some of those fights again, I bet you are exxagerating.

You just cannot except that Ali was that good. Let me remind you of a fact smart contrarians seem to understand, a fact which alludes you constantly: "extraordinary claims require extrordinary proof." No you can't prove a negative conclusively as in "Prove Ali was no good." But you can show something that would lead someone to believe such preposturous claims, you don't, instead you assume by saying it enough, it will become true.

[DinoCop]

He seemed to be puncing with his feet almost on the ground when the opponent is not moving.