Old George Foreman vs James J Braddock

Even the jab of Foreman would slink Braddock into the ether. Imagine what the blunt force trauma of the right hand would do

 

No.

Prime Baer was better than 40+ year old foreman.

Arguably much better!

 

40 year old Foreman was the best version of Foreman and Baer is nowhere near his level.

 

Preposterous!

OK, let's do an experiment.

Forget everything that Foreman did before his comeback, and assume that he was in his 20s, and that was the best that he could manage.

Where would he sit in the pantheon of heavyweight champions?

Pretty near the bottom I would suggest!

 

Louis incapacitated Braddock for the full 10 count with a right hand. . I feel the power Foreman would shake Braddock down to his boots. He may even increase the force of Foreman's blows as he was a guy who pressed forward face first

 

Baer was better fighter than 1990s Foreman.

40 years old Foreman as the best version? Don't be ridiculous...

 

Foreman struggled with clever fighters both in his prime and in his comeback and Braddock definitely fit the bill of a clever fighter. Also, Braddock was a more complete fighter than Peralta or Young, who both gave Foreman all he can handle. Foreman throughout his prime never fought Quarry for a reason , since Quarry would’ve neutralized him and beat him.

If you put your punches together and didn’t stand directly in front of him Foreman was very beatable despite his raw strength and punching power.

 

A laughable comment considering after Ali these two would be the best opponents on Foreman’s resume. Foreman would’ve been steered clear of some of the guys Braddock and Baer had to fight.

 

I'm sure Foreman's camp would see those two are being far more dangerous than guys like Frazier and Norton

 

Frazier was clearly better than them.

 

Lmao

 

Baer was a joke compared to 90's Foreman. Foreman would pulverize him.

There is nothing to suggest that 70's Foreman was better than 90's Foreman:
- he was slow as a snail in the 70's, he remained just as slow in the 90's;
- he retained his punching power in the 90's, since it was never correlated/derived from speed;
- he trained a lot harder and paced himself better in the 90's. Plus he was fighting in air conditioned arenas. This meant his endurance was about the same, if not better;
- he weighed a lot more in the 90's and he had thicker bones, which meant he could withstand far more punishment;
- his extra weight also meant he was almost impossible to out-muscle and was the dominating force in clinches;
- his timed his punches a bit better in the 90's.

 

And your point is ?!??
If Frazier and Norton would be around in the 90s, old Foreman would still beat them.