Old George Foreman vs James J Braddock

Based on what? Definitely not on what both did inside the ring.

Foreman wasn't slow at all. Have you seen some of his earlier fights? He didn't have very fast hands, but could do the job done and he had fast feet.
In comparison, old Foreman was the slowest quality fighter I've ever seen and it's not close.

But his finishing ability got significantly worse due to him being too slow to finish hurt opponents. Young Foreman would destroy Steward quickly.

Him pacing himself more means that he couldn't stop top fighters anymore. This version of Foreman wouldn't stop Frazier, let alone that quickly.

This is the only fair argument, but Foreman eating more bombs doesn't make him better fighter.

He was never outmuscled in his first career.

Based on what?

 

Yes, based on what they did in the ring. Foreman only needs to put together a few good punches and Baer is down and out.

Yes he was very slow, and I was especially referring to his hand speed.
He probably moved better though, I won't argue against that.

Any version of Foreman stops Frazier due to the stylistic matchup.

No it doesn't,, but it sure increases his chances of winning a fight.

That's cause back then he was the biggest guy around. The average weight and size of a HW has increased significantly in the past few decades.

 

Who did that to Baer? Don't be ridiculous, Baer was extremely durable.

Much better, but he also had faster hands.

Then why much superior 1990s Foreman couldn't have done that to Steward?

Taking all drawbacks into account, I don't buy that.

So you don't have any proofs that 1970s Foreman would struggle against 1990s fighters physically? I thought so.

 

There were no Foremans around when Baer was fighting.

He was never fast, that's why Ali called him "the mummy".

Cause Steward was no Frazier.

It's not about him struggling, it's about him being a bit stronger.

 

Sure, but there were plenty of powerful hitters.

Ali also said terrible things about Frazier before he kicked his ass.
Tell Ramos that Foreman was slow mummy here:

This content is protected

So, are you trying to tell me that Steward was harder to stop than Frazier? 1970s Foreman would toy with Steward.

He was strong enough in the 1970s.

 

180lbs LHW, not exactly slick or hard punching Braddock would be brushed aside by Old George fairly easily.

 

Braddock weighed over 190 lbs in his best HW fights.

 

No he wouldn't.

If he had fought either, they would have dominated him, but that would never have happened, because he would have avoided them!

 

None of which were remotely close to Foreman.

Insulting someone is one thing, revealing a boxing flaw/shortcoming is another.

He was. He swinged and missed a million times before he actually connected.

In some ways yes, cause he had a different style.

That's cause he was the biggest guy around back then.

 

Old Foreman would destroy either of them with ease.

 

I disagree, for once Joe Louis was probably as powerful and he was a better puncher than Foreman.

Being slower than Ali doesn't make you slow. Can you imagine what would Ali say about 1990s Foreman?

So tell me what makes him harder to stop than Frazier.

No he wasn't andhe fought some bigger men than himself:

This content is protected

 

Who did he beat that was comparable to Norton or Frazier in his comeback? How many of them were dominated in such a brutal fashion?

 

Joe Louis was undoubtedly more skilled and a better combination puncher, BUT under no circumstances was he as strong as Foreman and as big of a puncher.
Plus Louis beat Baer which showcases in a way that Baer can't handle punchers.

Cause he doesn't come in head first like an idiot the way Frazier did. Plus he's taller so he doesn't land head first straight into Foreman's uppercuts.

I was talking about boxers who were somewhat skilled, not skilless oafs. And still that's just 1 big guy.

 

Yes he would, Braddock is a joke