Foreman struggling with Peralta leaves me unsatisfied

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Peralta's record just doesn't impress me. Was he more than his record had to offer? A prime Foreman struggling that much to put away Peralta along with his subsequent loss to jimmy young in 77, leads me to believe he would have never been able to handle a highly skilled, iron chinned boxer like Larry Holmes.

I have said this for years. Foreman had major stamina problems. I think this was the fight where his corner told him it was the last round, but he had one more to go! Foreman was pissed at his cornerman.


Foreman avoided Holmes for three decades. IMO, Holmes beats him in the late 70's, 90's, and 00's.

[Bokaj]

I agree with the consensus here. One shouldn't make too big a fuss about Peralta (Holmes, and just about every great, also had his struggles coming up). But Holmes beats Foreman prime for prime, or if they'd actually met in the late 70's or early 90's.

On a side note, I think Holmes gets less flak for his less impressive performances than many other ATGs get. He had his early struggles, but also in his prime almost got stopped by Weaver and Shavers, as well as struggling with green versions of Witherspoon and Williams and losing clearly to Spinks when slightly past his prime. Add to this all the contenders he didn't face (Page, Dokes, Thomas etc) and rematches he didn't give...

I personally rate Holmes very highly, but I certainly don't think he's underrated on this forum. If anything, he's less scrutinized than many other ATGs.

[Stevie G]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Peralta's record just doesn't impress me. Was he more than his record had to offer? A prime Foreman struggling that much to put away Peralta along with his subsequent loss to jimmy young in 77, leads me to believe he would have never been able to handle a highly skilled, iron chinned boxer like Larry Holmes.

It was simply a case of Peralta being an awkward,cagey type of fighter who gave a raw up and coming George Foreman a tricky problem to solve. This was hardly a PRIME Foreman. It was one of those 'rite of passage' bouts where a young and talented fighter learns from the experience. Other examples being -

Cassius Clay - Doug Jones
Joe Frazier - Oscar Bonavena I
Mike Tyson - James Tillis

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by SuzieQ49

Peralta's record just doesn't impress me. Was he more than his record had to offer? A prime Foreman struggling that much to put away Peralta along with his subsequent loss to jimmy young in 77, leads me to believe he would have never been able to handle a highly skilled, iron chinned boxer like Larry Holmes.

Peralta matches up well with Holmes for durability imo.
Pastrano stopped him on cuts , Mina kod him ,but George was the only other to stop him in 116 fights ,on a tko.
First time around,Foreman was having his 16th fight Peralta his 93rd.

Cute, defensive, durable guys give everyone problems,no shame there.

Even at nearly 38 Goyo had enough left to draw with Lyle.

[janitor]

The main problem with the Peralta fight, is that Foreman did not have more fights like this coming up.

If he had done, then he might have cultivated a better aproach for dealing with Ali and Young.

[RockysSplitNose]

Originally Posted by The Funny Man 7

Yes George struggled a lot here, but as other have said virtually every elite boxer struggles against someone at some point in their ascent. Marciano had Lowry, who for all his quirky ability and survival skills wasn't as credentialed as Peralta. And I think Dempsey's repeated struggles with Willie Meehan are far more damning than Foreman-Peralta if you're going to look at it like that. Throw in Ali vs Jones and Sonny Banks, or Floyd Patterson against Maxim. Those fights are important learning experiences.

The important thing is that Foreman learned his lesson, improved, and then beat Peralta far more decisively and went on to score amazing victories which are more indicative of his historical standing.

And if we're going to tarnish champs based on struggles why not mention Holmes' scare against Witherspoon. In my opinion that fight is more of an indictment on Holmes than Foreman-Peralta, since Holmes was supposed to be within fight or two of his prime, though some will manipulate that timeline to suit their agenda. The bottom line: I don't remember Foreman getting badly rocked while struggling to a controversial decision over a novice with 15/16 fights when he was in his prime.

Peralta certainly wasn't a bad fighter by any means - he held win over Willie Pastrano, drew with Oscar Bonavena and he did also taking tough Ron Lyle the distance too so he did have a track record for being capable but the only thing I would strongly beg to differ on would be that he was in any way more credentialed than Tiger Ted Lowry???
Tiger Ted Lowry had a hugely deeper resume than Peralta ever had

Lowry:

took massive hitter Lee Q Murray the distance twice

Took another dynamite puncher Tiger Jack Fox the distance also

Drew with Lee Savold

Won & drew with Bernie Reynoulds

Also drew with Lee Oma

Took Omelio Agramonte and Phil Muscato distance twice each

Took Aaron Wade the distance

Took Henry Hall the distance

Took Vern Mitchell the distance twice

Took Art Henri the distance

Took Cesar Brion the distance

Took Roland LaStarza the distance twice

Took Joey Maxim the distance

Took Jimmy Bivins the distance

Took Archie Moore the distance

Was the only man to take Rocky Marciano the distance twice

Also earned Joe Louis' respect in going the course with him in an exhibition also

But other than that

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

I have said this for years. Foreman had major stamina problems. I think this was the fight where his corner told him it was the last round, but he had one more to go! Foreman was pissed at his cornerman.


Foreman avoided Holmes for three decades. IMO, Holmes beats him in the late 70's, 90's, and 00's.

Funny how he "found stamina ,"to go 12 rds with the world champion [ Holyfield] , when he was 42 years old ,and 30lbs overweight, a fight in which he was competitive ,and never once sought the solace of his stool between rounds?

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by janitor

The main problem with the Peralta fight, is that Foreman did not have more fights like this coming up.

If he had done, then he might have cultivated a better aproach for dealing with Ali and Young.

A similar point was made by Archie Moore concerning Liston , he said his quick kos had not educated him in to how to cut off the ring against an opponent.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by RockysSplitNose

Peralta certainly wasn't a bad fighter by any means - he held win over Willie Pastrano, drew with Oscar Bonavena and he did also taking tough Ron Lyle the distance too so he did have a track record for being capable but the only thing I would strongly beg to differ on would be that he was in any way more credentialed than Tiger Ted Lowry???
Tiger Ted Lowry had a hugely deeper resume than Peralta ever had

Lowry:

took massive hitter Lee Q Murray the distance twice

Took another dynamite puncher Tiger Jack Fox the distance also

Drew with Lee Savold

Won & drew with Bernie Reynoulds

Also drew with Lee Oma

Took Omelio Agramonte and Phil Muscato distance twice each

Took Aaron Wade the distance

Took Henry Hall the distance

Took Vern Mitchell the distance twice

Took Art Henri the distance

Took Cesar Brion the distance

Took Roland LaStarza the distance twice

Took Joey Maxim the distance

Took Jimmy Bivins the distance

Took Archie Moore the distance

Was the only man to take Rocky Marciano the distance twice

Also earned Joe Louis' respect in going the course with him in an exhibition also

But other than that

Lowry was a durable journeyman , never anything more than that. He won 68 of 146 fights,and lost to nearly all the better heavies he faced. Peralta was a genuine contender , and won 98 of 116 fights.There is no comparison really.

[Mendoza]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Funny how he "found stamina ,"to go 12 rds with the world champion [ Holyfield] , when he was 42 years old ,and 30lbs overweight, a fight in which he was competitive ,and never once sought the solace of his stool between rounds?

We are talking about the 70’s Foreman here. If you watch the films/tapes you will see Foreman lost steam in the mid rounds vs. Ali, nearly gassed out vs. Lyle in a shorter fight, and was exhausted in the match with Young to the point where he collapsed and passed out in his dressing room. After that, Foreman did not seek a stool, between rounds he retired! So you see McFool, Foreman never had good stamina.



The older verison paced himself, and used more defenses. He said he came back because he was broke.

[RockysSplitNose]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Lowry was a durable journeyman , never anything more than that. He won 68 of 146 fights,and lost to nearly all the better heavies he faced. Peralta was a genuine contender , and won 98 of 116 fights.There is no comparison really.

If you asked Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano if they thought he was just a "durable journeyman" I think you'd get a more educated answer

No I was just illustrating that Lowry's "credentials" far outweighed those of Peralta's that's all but I would personally also rate Lowry as a better fighter than Peralta in actuality anyway but then that's just one persons opinion but based on what I've read about him and what very experienced people said about him I would have to say that he would (for me at least) likely be a better fighter than Peralta - but then I tend to lean toward the 70's era (the top men aside) as being over rated to a slight degree just because they were part of the 70's - on the whole I beleive the 50's had a greater general depth of quality overall and the list of class opponents that Lowry hung with classifies him as being a step above Peralta definately in "proveness" if that's a word haha

[Senor Pepe']

Gregorio Perlata,

Gregorio, a 'master' at rolling with the punches.

Gregorio was very disappointed when his WBA Championship bout with
Jimmy Ellis in Buenos Aires fell though in 1969.

Here Gregorio battles Wayne Thorton.

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by Mendoza

We are talking about the 70’s Foreman here. If you watch the films/tapes you will see Foreman lost steam in the mid rounds vs. Ali, nearly gassed out vs. Lyle in a shorter fight, and was exhausted in the match with Young to the point where he collapsed and passed out in his dressing room. After that, Foreman did not seek a stool, between rounds he retired! So you see McFool, Foreman never had good stamina.



The older verison paced himself, and used more defenses. He said he came back because he was broke.

So ,according to you the prime Foreman lacked stamina , but the middle aged Foreman did not?
What you fail to take into account ,probably because you have never boxed yourself, is the pace Foreman set himself in his first career, he threw big shots incessantly. In his comeback he re-invented himself as a patient stalker, working behind his jab ,waiting for the opportunity to unload his heavy guns when the opening presented itself.Foreman's problem was not one of stamina ,it was one of pacing.

If Foreman lacked stamina he would not have gone the distance with champions, and ranked contenders when he was in his mid 40's, to assert otherwise is nonsensical.

Foreman never sat down in a fight during his second career. As usual you missed the point .

[mcvey]

Originally Posted by RockysSplitNose

If you asked Joe Louis and Rocky Marciano if they thought he was just a "durable journeyman" I think you'd get a more educated answer

No I was just illustrating that Lowry's "credentials" far outweighed those of Peralta's that's all but I would personally also rate Lowry as a better fighter than Peralta in actuality anyway but then that's just one persons opinion but based on what I've read about him and what very experienced people said about him I would have to say that he would (for me at least) likely be a better fighter than Peralta - but then I tend to lean toward the 70's era (the top men aside) as being over rated to a slight degree just because they were part of the 70's - on the whole I beleive the 50's had a greater general depth of quality overall and the list of class opponents that Lowry hung with classifies him as being a step above Peralta definately in "proveness" if that's a word haha

Survivng to the end of the fight does not indicate that you are on a par for ability/talent with the men that beat you.
Lowry was never a ranked contender , nor thought of as one, Peralta most certainly was.

[RockysSplitNose]

Originally Posted by mcvey

Survivng to the end of the fight does not indicate that you are on a par for ability/talent with the men that beat you.
Lowry was never a ranked contender , nor thought of as one, Peralta most certainly was.

Joe Louis telling you you are a very talented fighter and destined for big things suggests to me he must've had something? And to the contrary, if you are taking people to draws or at least paper thin decisions then that suggests to me that you're a hairs breadth from teaching that kinda level?? Lowry may never have been a ranked contender but he was highly respected by everyone he fought with and belonged in there - the fact that Foreman was generally nit-picked for not having got Peralta out of there early suggests that most people thought based on his career to that time that he didn't belong in the ring at all with George and would just be smashed - so that suggests to me that Lowry was the more well thought of - he certainly was viewed as just another victim by anyone??