Monte Cox' article on George Foreman

Here it is:

http://coxscorner.tripod.com/Foreman2.html


Monte has an excellent writing style which is very pleasing to read. However, i think he goes a bit far in his love for Foreman here and there.

For instance, on the Young fight, he says: "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." and "The Foreman who fought Young wasn't the real Foreman".

That sounds exactly to me like a 14 year old white boy saying "That wasn't the real Tyson that got knocked out". I wonder if Cox considered the following points:

-Outside of Ali, the undefeated Foreman never faced a skilled durable boxer like Young: Frazier and Norton on whom he built his rep came at him or had a weak jaw. He didn't need to look around the ring for Lyle either.

-Foreman may have been tentative against Young, but what would've happened if he went all-out? Maybe he would've knocked out Young, maybe. Or maybe he would've missed most of his punches and be countered. Anyone who has boxed knows how damn hard it is to get your punches off against a slick mover who is always one inch ahead, backwards: what's the point of throwing a punch that won't reach the mark? I believe that's one of the reason Foremans didn't "seek & destroy"... his opponent wasn't there for it, unlike Norton, Frazier, Lyle and even Ali.




Then later, he also says: "Not too many fighters who ever lived, and possibly only Muhammad Ali, could defeat the George Foreman of that fight." and "Few who slugged it out with a prime Foreman would have hopes to survive."

Again, i think Cox is making an unjustified extrapolation here based on how bad Frazier matched up with Foreman and Norton's crumbling against every single puncher. Ron Lyle is the only puncher who landed on Foreman and was just a hair away from beating him. Now Lyle was a good contender, but outside of Shavers (glass chin), he never stopped anybody of note either.

So, while i don't think many could've traded with Foreman, i think it's a bit of a stretch what he claims there.

He also says Foreman would've knocked out Lennox Lewis and Wladimir Klitschko inside two rounds asif it's written in stone. Klitschko i will give him, but Lewis may well beat Foreman and did extremely well against Foreman, to such a degree that he is much, much more proven against them than Big George himself.


That is all.

 

You have to put things into perspective here.

The only puncher who landed on Foreman was Lyle (as i've gone over before) and he nearly had Foreman out. Lennox took punches from Briggs, Bruno, Morrison, Klitschko, Tua, Tyson, Tucker, Ruddock, Mercer and Holyfield with no problem. Sure, he was knocked out by Rahman and McCall, but that's what you risk when you fight 10+ huge punchers, contrary to Foreman. By contrast, Foreman was knocked down by Young and out by Ali (whether that was exhaustion or not, who says he is impervious to exhaustion against Lewis?). Lennox reversed the results of both KO losses, something Foreman never did either.

 

Of course it doesn't undo the initial loss, but it does show that you have no stylistic problem and are able to beat him. Foreman never proved he could beat a durable boxing type of fighter like Ali or Young. That was my point.

 

I guess there's a first time for everything. It appears to me that the only appropriate way to celebrate this is by revealing Dempsey's last secret. :happy