Originally Posted by Amsterdam
Foreman and Hamed have technical flaws, don't get me wrong CT, but they are also highly skilled in their strengths. Foreman had good footwork and a very good jab, as well timing and compared to these guys here, a very solid defence. Hamed had a lot of natural talent but similiar factors.
Getting back to this point--this is part of what I'm referring to. You're often glossing over modern fighters' flaws because they worked against other modern fighters, and instead highlighting what WAS modern or orthodox about them.
Foreman was worse, from a technical standpoint, than Dempsey or (especially) Tunney. He was MUCH worse than Joe Louis. He simply did more things wrong. He pawed horribly with the jab, dropped his guard at a moment's notice, parried downward and reached when he was trying to block punches, had very little head movement, and often stood in a stance far narrower than Louis's. His punches were often merely arm punches in the truest sense of the word, and he had a tendency to drop his punches after he threw them. He would often swing too far around because of the narrow stance, too much force, and too little precision:
These are terrible flaws, at least as bad (definitely worse) than anything Louis committed. But you do not generalize about Foreman's era, or Foreman's ability to fight modern fighters, because he happened to be born in a later era.
This is not to criticize Foreman--indeed, his accomplishments speak for themselves. But for some reason, you do not believe that Louis's accomplishments do.